1

Et bidrag til konfliktløsning: Den revolutionære tankegang hos Nikolaus af Cusa,
af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Følgende er et uddrag af en tale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, holdt på instituttets internetkonference den 12. december 2020. Vi udgiver den nu i håbet om, at det kan hjælpe til at bringe parterne i den nuværende krise sammen.

Som jeg sagde, er det overordnede tema for denne konference begrebet Coincidentia Oppositorum, modsætningernes sammenfald. Dette begreb blev udviklet af Nikolaus af Kues (Cusanus), den vigtigste tænker i det 15. århundredes Europa, som var den første til at udvikle principperne for den moderne suveræne nationalstat, der regerer med de regeredes samtykke, og hvor der skal være et gensidigt forhold mellem regeringen, folkets repræsentanter og de regerede.

Den Cusanianske tankemetode

Han er også faderen til den moderne naturvidenskab. Han udviklede en ny tankegang med helt nye tanker, og han sagde meget selvsikkert, at han foreslog noget, som intet menneske nogensinde havde tænkt før. Og denne metode ligger også til grund for alle de filosofiske skrifter og den økonomiske metode, som min afdøde mand Lyndon LaRouche og hans fysiske økonomi anvender.

Det er i bund og grund tanken om, at den menneskelige fornuft har evnen til at finde en løsning på et helt andet og højere niveau end det, hvor alle konflikter og modsætninger er opstået. Det handler om evnen til at tænke en enhed, der er af større størrelse og magt end de mange. Hvis du træner dit sind til at tænke på denne måde, har du en ufejlbarlig nøgle til kreativitet, og du kan anvende denne tankegang på stort set alle områder af din tankevirksomhed.

For at nærme sig modsætningernes sammenfald må man begynde med at forkaste den aristoteliske metode. Aristoteles siger, at hvis noget er A, kan det ikke være B på samme tid. Men sammenfaldet er heller ikke A plus B divideret med to eller en anden algebraisk eller aritmetisk beregning. Nikolaus udviklede dette koncept i flere af sine skrifter, men mest omfattende i De Docta Ignorantia (Om den lærde uvidenhed), og dette blev straks angrebet af Heidelberg-professoren og skolastikeren Johannes Wenck i en afhandling De Ignota Litteratura (Den uvidende lærde). Nikolaj svarede på dette nogle få år senere, fordi han ikke straks modtog denne skrivelse, i et lille skrift, som jeg anbefaler til alle, Apologia Doctae Ignorantiae (Forsvar for den lærde uvidenhed). Heri beklager han sig over, at den aristoteliske tradition i dag – dvs. dengang – er fremherskende, som betragter modsætningernes sammenfald som kætteri, fordi denne skole fuldstændig afviser denne tilgang som noget, der er helt i modstrid med dens intentioner. Disse hensigter var faktisk af oligarkisk karakter, hvilket han ikke siger der, men det var pointen. Derfor, sagde Cusa, ville det være et mirakel, og det ville vende op og ned på deres tankegang, hvis de forlod Aristoteles og nåede frem til et højere perspektiv.

I modsætning til den aristoteliske metode, som er fanget i kampen mellem modsætninger, ser synspunktet om modsætningernes sammenfald på processen fra et højere niveau. Dette blev behandlet i den korte video, som I så i begyndelsen [af konferencen], hvor jeg begrunder, hvorfor Lyndon LaRouches samlede værker skal udgives: Synet på tilfældigheder er som at se på det, der sker, fra et højt tårn. Herfra ser du jægeren, den jagede og jagtens proces. Det giver dig et helt andet synspunkt, end hvis du selv er jægeren eller den jagede eller konstant løber rundt med næsen mod jorden.

Men det kræver en enorm indsats at nå frem til dette niveau af tænkning. Man kan ikke bare tænde for den, det er en intellektuel kamp. Men hvis du kan mestre det, har du mulighed for at åbne områder, som ellers ville være helt lukkede. Nicholas peger på, hvordan tænkere som Avicenna tyede til negativ teologi for at få sindet ud af vanen med at klamre sig til illusoriske sandheder, der leveres af sansernes sikkerhed. Men den mest skarpsindige, siger Cusa, var Platons argumentation i Parmenides-dialogen, som måske er den mest sofistikerede af alle Platons dialoger.

Platons Parmenides-dialog

Parmenides var lederen af den eleatiske skole, som var reduktionistisk i sin metode og lærte, at tingenes essens kun kunne nås gennem tankens proces uden nogen henvisning til materielle ting. Men denne essens skulle være af den strengeste enkelhed, uden mangfoldighed og variation, og frem for alt uden forandring og bevægelse. Al den mangfoldighed, som sanserne giver os, og den forandring, som den indebærer, var kun et skuespil, sagde Parmenides, en ren illusion, og derfor kunne mangfoldighed og forandring aldrig tilhøre essensen eller deltage i den.

I dialogen lokker Platon nu Parmenides til at afsløre netop dette grelle paradoks i hans tankegang, nemlig at han har udeladt princippet om forandring.

I Platons tradition er denne “forandring” imidlertid ikke en lineær udvidelse af et euklidisk rum, men en kontinuerlig række af nye aksiomatisk-revolutionære opdagelser, der resulterer i en række af opdagelser af universelle fysiske principper, som uddyber kendskabet til det fysiske univers og fuldender de kreative evner hos alle mennesker, der gør dette fremskridt. Nikolaus siger på et tidspunkt, at gennem denne uddannelse kan ethvert menneske spore hele universets udvikling op til dette punkt i sit sind. Dette sindets mikrokosmos, som er i harmoni med makrokosmos – universet – gør potentielt hvert enkelt menneske i stand til på forhånd at vide, hvad den næste opdagelse skal være for at fortsætte den lovlige skabelsesproces.

Dette er meget vigtigt, fordi det er meget nært beslægtet med begrebet relativ potentiel befolkningstæthed, som Lyndon LaRouche har udviklet, da det også giver os et mål for den nødvendige næste opdagelse.

For Platon er hver eneste af disse opdagelser resultatet af en tilsvarende opdagelse, som det menneskelige sind kan frembringe på en “intuitiv” måde. Derfor understregede Einstein også: “Fantasi er vigtigere end viden. Viden er begrænset, men fantasien omfatter hele verden.” Den stimulerer fremskridt og skaber udvikling.

Platons svar på Parmenides er derfor hans ontologiske begreb om tilblivelse som det menneskelige sinds evne til konstant at generere sådanne hypoteser, eller hypotesen om den højere hypotese, hvor den altomfattende forandring er den Ene, som på et højere niveau omfatter de Mange.

Cirklens kvadratur

Nikolaus brugte den samme tankegang, da han løste et problem, der havde givet mange tænkere og matematikere søvnløse kvaler siden antikken, nemlig problemet med cirklens kvadratur. Archimedes, en tidligere matematiker, havde forsøgt at løse problemet ved hjælp af udtømmelsesmetoden, ved at indskrive og omskrive et stadigt stigende antal polygoner på cirklen. Den fejlagtige antagelse er, at omkredsen af de to polygoner i sidste ende vil falde sammen med cirklen. På denne måde fandt Archimedes en brugbar tilnærmelse til tallet Pi (π), men i virkeligheden blev problemet ikke løst. Cusa siger nemlig, at jo flere hjørner en polygon har, jo længere væk fra cirklen bevæger den sig.

Det krævede Cusas revolutionerende tænkning at løse problemet med cirklens kvadratur ved at gøre det klart, at en cirkel ikke kan konstrueres geometrisk baseret på den aksiomatiske antagelse af selvindlysende punkter og lige linjer, men at man må bruge en aksiomatisk anderledes geometri, hvor den cirkulære effekt erstatter den euklidiske selvindlysende antagelse af punktet og den lige linje. Dette såkaldte isoperimetriske princip om cirklens forrang gør det klart, at man kan gå fra cirklen til polygonen, men ikke omvendt. På denne måde leverede Nicholas et afgørende bevis for forskellen mellem matematikkens område, der er begrænset til kommensurable ting, og det område af inkommensurable ting, der er fuldstændig afgrænset fra dette område.

Denne udvikling fra Archimedes’ forståelse af cirklens kvadratur til Cusas overlegne forståelse illustrerer også den rolle, som menneskets opdagelse af et allerede eksisterende universelt princip spiller – overgangen fra dets eksistens som potentielt, men tidligere skjult for menneskelig viden, til “realiseringen” af dette princip gennem menneskelige opdagelser. Denne kontinuerlige opdagelsesproces er ontologisk primær, dvs. at den Ene er primær i forhold til indholdet af alle de mange.

Bernhard Riemann, hvis videnskabelige metode navnet på LaRouche-Riemanns økonomiske model delvis er baseret på, uddyber den samme tanke i et dokument, som Lyndon LaRouche citerer, On Psychology and Metaphysics, ved at beskrive den menneskelige sjæl som et lager af kompakte, tæt og forskelligt forbundne idéer, “åndsmasser”, eller som Lyn kaldte dem “tankeobjekter”. Hver ny tankemasse af denne art er i resonans med alle de tidligere ophobede tanker og er gensidigt relateret til dem, så meget desto mere som der er et indre slægtskab mellem dem. Riemann siger også, at disse kompakte åndelige masser fortsætter med at eksistere, selv efter at det menneske, der skabte dem, er død og bliver en del af det, han kalder jordens sjæl.

Menneskeheden som en geologisk kraft

Den væsentligt samme idé blev udtrykt af Vladimir Vernadsky i et foredrag i Paris i 1925, hvor han beskrev den menneskelige art og den kollektive menneskelige ånd som en “geologisk kraft” i universet. Ifølge Wernadskij beviser hele universets historie, at denne “noosfære” i stigende grad vil få overtaget over biosfæren. Og denne anti-entropiske karakter af den menneskelige ånds kreativitet som den mest avancerede del af og drivkraft i det fysiske univers er grunden til, at der er optimisme for menneskehedens fremtid.

Det betyder, at flere og flere mennesker i alle forskellige nationer og kulturer vil være i stand til at hæve sig over fornuftssikkerhedens infantile niveau og overvinde fejlslagne ideologiske traditioner – som f.eks. sofisternes retoriske skole, der ikke er optaget af sandhed, men af at vinde enhver påstand, som sofisten fremsætter for at fremme sin egeninteresse.

Begrebet om modsætningernes sammenfald kan nu anvendes på den nuværende strategiske situation og faktisk på alle områder af menneskelig viden. Menneskehedens interesser defineres således ikke som interesserne for de mennesker, der lever i dag, her og nu, men når man tænker på alle fremtidige generationers interesser. Dette er i bund og grund den samme idé, som er udtrykt i fortalen til den amerikanske forfatning: at det fælles gode skal tjene ikke kun nutiden, men alle fremtidige generationer. I dag skal man relatere det til hele verden, til hele menneskeheden.

For at få en forståelse af, hvad det betyder, kan man anvende det, jeg lige har sagt, teoretisk på den nuværende verdenssituation: Så er hver nation et mikrokosmos, og ifølge Nikolaj af Cusa er fred i makrokosmos kun mulig, hvis ethvert mikrokosmos har den bedst mulige udvikling og ser det som sin egen interesse, at alle andre mikrokosmos udvikler sig. Det vil sige, at man ikke tager udgangspunkt i en nations eller en gruppe af nationers “geopolitiske egeninteresse” og sætter den i modsætning til alle andres formodede interesser, men følger en anden opfattelse, der forkaster denne aristoteliske modsætningsmetode. Hvis man tager Platons begreb om forandring og tilblivelse som det ontologiske primærpunkt, kan man se udviklingen af ethvert mikrokosmos som i en kontrapunktisk, fugal komposition, hvor udviklingen af hver tone og idé bidrager til den fremtidige udvikling af alle de andre.

Der er allerede eksempler, hvor man kan se en tilnærmelse af, hvordan det kan fungere. Den ene er det internationale samarbejde om den termonukleare fusionsreaktor i Frankrig i Cadarache, ITER, et samarbejde mellem 34 nationer, som alle drager fordel af opdagelserne. Og i dag er der naturligvis også det mulige internationale samarbejde inden for rumforskning og rumfart: Der er i øjeblikket tre meget fascinerende missioner til Mars, som alle vil ankomme til Mars om få uger – og ville det ikke give mening at lave denne forskning sammen? Så er spørgsmålet ikke, hvem der bliver den første til at plante sit flag på Mars, eller hvem der bliver den første kvinde eller mand til at sætte sine fødder på Mars, men spørgsmålet er: Hvordan erobrer vi solsystemet med henblik på menneskelig bosættelse?

Vores solsystem er utroligt stort. Jeg ved ikke, om du måske har kigget op på stjernerne for nylig, på Mælkevejen, men den er meget større end det, vores galakse er kun en af to billioner galakser, som Hubble-teleskopet har opdaget indtil nu!

Tænk et øjeblik over menneskehedens eksistens på lang sigt. Menneskeheden har eksisteret i et par millioner år, men faktisk ved vi kun en lille smule om de sidste 5000 år, og en lille smule mere gennem arkæologi, men det er virkelig kun en meget kort periode. Ønsker vi nu, at menneskeheden skal være en udødelige art? Eller ønsker vi, at menneskeheden skal være ligesom en af de mange andre arter, der kommer og går? Når der kommer store perioder med udryddelse af arter, forsvinder de, men det gør ikke noget, da evolutionen så producerer andre arter med et højere stofskifte. Og gør det så virkelig noget, hvis menneskeheden også forsvinder en dag i processen? Det tror jeg ikke. Fordi jeg mener, at menneskeheden er helt unik, uanset hvad vi ellers finder i universet, hvis der findes andet intelligent liv et eller andet sted. Vi er den eneste kendte kreative art indtil videre.

Om nogle få milliarder år vil solen ophøre med at fungere på en sådan måde, at vi kan leve på jorden, og senest da vil det være et spørgsmål om overlevelse for vores art at kolonisere rummet og gøre andre planeter beboelige for menneskearten. Jeg tror, at det er muligt, hvis vi bevæger os væk fra den nuværende tilstand, hvor vi opfører os som småbørn, som små drenge, der sparker hinanden over skinnebenene, og hvis vi udvikler vores fulde potentiale ved at samarbejde med andre mennesker og andre kulturer og opfylde menneskehedens langsigtede skæbne til at være den art, der bevidst skaber forandringer i universet, og på den måde opfylder vores sande skæbne som menneskeart.

Jeg tror, at det er op til os at foretage denne forandring og på den måde skabe evnen til at komme ud af denne krise i live og lykkelige. Og det var det, jeg ville sige.




Verden har brug for Lyndon LaRouche universiteter, af Tom Gillesberg

Fra 2017:

Bidrag af Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, til et festskrift i anledning af Lyndon LaRouches 95 års fødselsdag.

Verden har brug for Lyndon LaRouche universiteter, af Tom Gillesberg På engelsk fra 2017:
Contribution from Tom Gillesberg, President of the Schiller Institute in Denmark, to the Festschrift for Lyndon LaRouche on his 95th birthday Her er den tale, der blev holdt for at præsentere Lyndon LaRouche ved åbningen af LaRouche-universiteterne den 8. september 2022.

Kære præsidenter, statsministre, Deres Excellencer, lærere, studerende, mine damer og herrer.
Før jeg giver ordet til Lyndon LaRouche ved denne meget, meget specielle lejlighed, som ikke blot fejrer, at han har nået milepælen på hundrede år, men også etablerer et sikkert fundament for menneskehedens kommende generationer, vil jeg kort gennemgå sammen med jer, hvordan det kunne lade sig gøre, at vi i dag åbner LaRouche-universiteter i New York, Beijing, Moskva, New Delhi, København, Stockholm, Berlin, Paris, Milano, Tirana, Edinburgh, London, Dublin, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Pretoria, Cairo, Damaskus, Teheran og Sanaa.

Det hele begyndte i 2017, straks efter Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag. Universitets- og regeringskredse i Kina reflekterede over den dybe betydning, som idéerne fra LaRouche og hans bevægelse havde haft for omdannelsen af Kina og etableringen af den internationale Bælte & Vej-politik, og det faktum at LaRouche nu var 95 år gammel, mens mange af hans mangeårige medarbejdere, som f.eks. hans kone Helga Zepp-LaRouche, nærmede sig eller var i halvfjerdserne. De spurgte sig selv, om de kunne være sikre på, at der i fremtiden fortsat ville være en LaRouche-bevægelse, der kunne levere de nødvendige nye kreative input og idéer, der var nødvendige for Kinas og verdens udvikling, på et tidspunkt hvor Kina i stigende grad skulle lede verden ind i nye områder og opdagelser, som mennesket aldrig før havde prøvet. En proces, der krævede nye, unikke, kreative løsninger og ikke blot en kopi af noget, som mennesket allerede havde prøvet før. Alle var enige om, at der hurtigt måtte gøres noget.

Der blev nedsat hurtigt arbejdende udvalg på alle de forskellige videnskabelige, politiske og kulturelle områder for at få en plan for de nødvendige ændringer i pensum og for oprettelsen af supplerende kurser, som var nødvendige for at anvende LaRouches videnskabelige arbejde på de forskellige indsatsområder. Et kursus i Lyndon LaRouches fysisk økonomi blev obligatorisk for alle studerende i statskundskab og økonomi, og det blev besluttet at udvikle et studieprogram for specialister inden for området fysisk økonomi og LaRouche-Riemann-metoden.

Inden for de fysiske videnskaber blev LaRouche obligatorisk som hjælp til at udvikle de studerendes kreative kræfter til videnskabelig opdagelse, med fokus på LaRouches opdagelse og de videnskabelige tankeobjekters historie. Inden for samfundsvidenskaberne skulle eleverne undervises i princippet om potentiel relativ befolkningstæthed, stigende energigennemstrømningstæthed og menneskets naturlige udvikling i universet, set gennem Vernadskijs og LaRouches arbejde. LaRouches skrifter om metafor-princippet og andre vigtige skrifter blev obligatoriske inden for de forskellige kunstarter, og der blev foretaget ændringer inden for alle de forskellige uddannelsesområder.

Rusland, der ikke ville lade sig overgå, fulgte hurtigt trop og udviklede et lignende program, og mange andre nationer fulgte trop. Selv i USA, LaRouches eget land, blev dette et spørgsmål, der blev taget op på mange niveauer, herunder i Det Nationale Sikkerhedsråd. Kunne USA tillade andre stormagter at øge deres erkendelsesevne med stormskridt gennem fornuftens kraft, styret af LaRouches ideer, mens USA selv sakkede bagud? Der blev iværksat et nødprogram under præsidentens direkte tilsyn for at sikre, at USA ville få et lignende program på benene og atter blive førende i verden inden for LaRouches videnskabelige metode.

Efter et par år, hvor den bemærkelsesværdige effekt af LaRouches idéer begyndte at gøre sig gældende, fik politiske ledere og førende intellektuelle i mange forskellige lande samtidig øjnene op for idéen: Bør der ikke oprettes særlige universiteter, der uddanner de studerende i selve Lyndon LaRouches kreativitet?

Bør der ikke være akademier, der er dedikeret til at forsøge at efterligne Lyndon LaRouches genialitet ved at beherske den metode, hvormed han opnåede så meget?
Og ville det ikke være passende, at disse nye universiteter åbner deres døre den 8. september 2022, dagen hvor LaRouche ville fejre sin 100-års fødselsdag?

Så således gik det til, at vi i dag har samtidige åbninger af LaRouche-universiteter i New York, Beijing, Moskva, New Delhi, København, Stockholm, Berlin, Paris, Milano, Tirana, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, Sao Paulo, Pretoria, Edinburgh, London, Dublin, Cairo, Damaskus, Teheran og Sanaa.

LaRouche vil, på grund af de fysiske begrænsninger, ikke være i stand til at være fysisk til stede ved alle disse samtidige fejringer, men ved hjælp af moderne teknologi har vi sørget for at få hologrammer af LaRouche alle steder på én gang, og vi venter nu ivrigt på Lyndon LaRouche og hans kone Helga, som vil holde tale og erklære alle disse nye universiteter for åbne.

Med tanke på den tidligere mexicanske præsident Lopez Portillos berømte ord: »Nu er tiden inde til at lytte til LaRouches kloge ord«, kan vi i dag fejre, at »endelig lyttede verden til Lyndon LaRouches kloge ord«, og vi kan alle se, hvor meget lysere en fremtid det betyder for hele menneskeheden.




Interview med pianist Lejla Pula fra Kosova og sanger Josipa Bainac fra Kroatien, på tysk af Feride Gillesberg

Billede: Lejla Pula, klaver, med Kosovar Philharmonics (Trincoll2014, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

På tysk:

Neue Solidarität

Nr. 9, 26. Februar 2014

„Kosovo eine Brutstätte musikalischer Talente“

Interview mit der Pianistin Lejla Pula aus Prishtina

Mag. Lejla Pula, Pianistin und Klavierprofessorin an der Kunstfakultät in Prishtina, ist sowohl Präsidentin der „Kosovo Chopin Assoziation“ als auch Künstlerische Leiterin des „Chopin Piano Fest“ in Prishtina.

Feride Gillesberg: Bei meinem letzten Besuch in Kosovo hat es mich sehr positiv überrascht, daß es in Kosovo eine Handvoll Musiker gibt, die für die klassische Musik brennen. Eine von diesen bist du. Was möchtest du dazu sagen?

Lejla Pula: Es ist schön und hoffnungsvoll, wenn man so eine Aussage hört. In Kosovo haben wir eine Grundbasis von 40 Jahren höherer Ausbildung im Bereich der klassischen Musik und Kunst, und man kann sagen, daß wir heute Fachschulen für verschiedene Bereiche der musikalischen Künste haben, wie die Interpretation verschiedener Instrumente, die Komposition, das Dirigieren, Musikalische Pädagogik usw. Seit der Studienzeit und danach ab den 80er Jahren als Teil der Unterrichtsgruppe der Kunst-Akademie in Prishtina bin ich bis heute aktiver Teilnehmer an der Ausbildung der Künste. Als Pianistin und Interpret der klassischen Musik war und bin ich fortwährend auf der Bühne in Kosovo präsent, habe aber auch Kosovo auf der internationalen Bühne vertreten.

Gillesberg: Kannst du uns einen Überblick geben, wie es mit der klassischen Musik in Kosovo aussieht?

Pula: Die Realität in der Gesellschaft in Kosovo ist leider so, daß noch die notwendige Offenheit fehlt, welche ermöglichen würde, daß die Künstler, insbesondere die der klassischen Musik, frei atmen können – in dem Sinne, daß die echte Kunst nicht ihren Platz in unserer Gesellschaft bekommt, den sie verdient. Die professionelle Kunst verlangt bestimmte Bedingungen für die szenische Aufführung, die Ausstattung mit Instrumenten, angemessene Konzertsäle sowie andere Arbeitsmittel, die nicht garantiert werden, weil es die erforderliche Bereitschaft, Verständnis und Bewußtsein dafür nicht gibt. Die kulturellen Institutionen bemühen sich um ihre Arbeit. Sie betrachten es als machbar und notwendig, im Rahmen unserer Gesellschaft, wie auch der kulturellen Entwicklung als ganzes, Unterstützung für die Künstler zu finden – diese Hilfe ist jedoch minimal und unzureichend.

Klassische Musik, das künstlerische Schöpfen und Kunst im allgemeinen, spiegelt die Ebene der kulturellen Entwicklung einer Gesellschaft und eines Volkes wider, und es sind sehr wichtige Segmente für die Gesamtstruktur einer Gesellschaft.

Diese verlangen auf jeden Fall eine besondere Achtung, denn Errungenschaften werden als Teil des kulturellen Erbes einer Nation zurückbleiben.

Gillesberg: Was für eine Rolle hat die klassische Musik für Kultur?

Pula: Mein Volk hat eine Ader und besondere Sensibilität für Musik im allgemeinen, aber auch für klassische Musik. Ich arbeite seit über 30 Jahren als Konzertpianistin, aber auch Ausbilder in diesem Bereich. Ich kann Ihnen sagen, daß Kosovo ein Schatz, eine Brutstätte musikalischer Talente ist. Da ist eine große Begeisterung bei Lehrern im Bereich der Kunst, so wie auch bei den Studenten. Trotz der schweren Bedingungen, dem Mangel an Instrumenten, der perspektivlosen Aussichten dieses Berufs, versuchen wir Festivals und verschiedene Konzerte zu organisieren. Das Epizentrum dieser musikalischen Aktivitäten sind bis heute begeisterte professionelle Musiker, die viele Künstler aus aller Welt einladen, in unserer Hauptstadt zu spielen. Für jedes Festival werden Dutzende von Konzerten mit einheimischen und ausländischen Künstlern mit großer Mühe, Opferbereitschaft und unter großen Schwierigkeiten organisiert. Dieses Mitwirken im Organisieren unseres kulturellen Lebens ist für uns sehr wertvoll und unersetzlich. Eines davon ist auch das Festival „Chopin Piano Fest“, das ich mit meinen Kollegen leite und das jedes Jahr in April statt findet.

Gillesberg: Welche Rolle spielt die klassische Musik für den Aufbau einer Nation?

Pula: Gerade die Pflege der kulturellen Werte einer Gesellschaft ist der Zeiger, der am glaubwürdigsten die Entwicklungsebene einer Zivilisation anzeigt. Es ist bekannt, daß das stolze Volk Kosovos eine sehr schwere Zeit und schwere Ereignisse durchgemacht hat. Wir haben sehr viel in unserem Bereich gelitten [1991-99]. Alle Unterrichtsgebäude waren geschlossen und wir mußten mit allem improvisieren. Wir haben aber „überlebt“ als Akademie und als Gesellschaft und erfreuen uns des Lebens in unserem unabhängigen Staat. Dank unserer Kriegshelden, aber auch der Arbeitenden, denn wir haben alle unsere Arbeit mit Hingabe, Aufopferung und Selbstlosigkeit unter diesen rauhen Umständen gepflegt.

Ich bin aus persönlicher Prüfung, aber auch aus meinen inneren Glauben an den Menschen, fest davon überzeugt, daß man mit gutem Willen, Hingabe und Beharrlichkeit erreichen kann, was unmöglich erscheint.

Gillesberg: Was würdest du gerne den Menschen in Deutschland sagen, denn die meisten dort kennen Kosovo nur aus politischer Sicht?

Pula: Optimismus und Hoffnung sind die Eigenschaften, welche die Künstler ausmachen, denn so eine Kunst ist seelische Nahrung und entwickelt die erhabenen Gefühle der Menschen.

Ich bin davon überzeugt, daß unsere Gesellschaft, und auch unsere Künstler in Kosovo, auf bessere Tage zugehen, weil sie es sich durch harte Arbeit und selbstlose Hingabe verdienen.

———————————–

Neue Solidarität

Nr. 3, 20. Januar 2016

Klassische Musik richtet sich nach Naturprinzipien

von Feride Istogu Gillesberg

Am 11.-12. Dezember 2015 fand in der dänischen Hauptstadt Kopenhagen ein Symposium statt zum Thema „Fortgeschrittene Einschätzung der Stimmfunktionen in Europa: Resonanz der menschlichen Stimme & Neurowissenschaft und Stimme“ („Advanced Voice Functions Assessement in Europe – Resonance of the human voice & Neuroscience and voice“). Es war das sechste Symposium dieser Art, das von der Europäischen Kooperation in Wissenschaft und Technologie (European Cooperation in Science and Technology, COST Action 2103) veranstaltet wurde. Ärzte, Künstler und Musiker aus verschiedenen Nationen waren vertreten. Das Programm war sehr kompakt. U.a. hielt dort Josipa Bainac einen Vortrag über die wissenschaftliche Stimmung, die ein wichtiger Bestandteil der menschlichen Stimme ist. Ihre Rede beruhte auf zweijährigen Untersuchungen der Autorin. Ich hatte die Freude, Frau Bainac für die Neue Solidarität interviewen zu können.

Neue Solidarität: Frau Josipa Bainac, ich hatte die Möglichkeit, Ihren spannenden Vortrag auf dem Symposium in Kopenhagen anzuhören. Wollen Sie sich kurz vorstellen?

Josipa Bainac: Vor ungefähr zwei Jahren habe ich meinen Abschluß an der Universität für Musik in Zagreb, Kroatien, als klassische Sängerin und Pädagogin gemacht. Seit 2014 studiere ich Lied und Oratorium im Masterstudium an der Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien. Seit meinen Studien in Kroatien habe ich mich intensiv für verschiedene Interpretationstechniken interessiert und mich viel mit Stimmeigenschaften und Gesangstechnik beschäftigt.

Neue Solidarität: Wie sind Sie darauf gekommen, mit der wissenschaftlichen Stimmung zu arbeiten?

Bainac: Als klassische Gesangsstudentin habe ich viele Konzerte gesungen, von Orchestern, Klavier, Cembalo oder Orgel begleitet. Nach jahrelangen Erfahrungen habe ich bemerkt, wie sich das subjektive Gefühl für die Stimme und die Gesangstechnik ändert, wenn ich mit verschiedenen Begleitinstrumenten oder Ensembles auftrete. Bald habe ich erfahren, welche Rolle die Stimmung und die Standardtonhöhe in der historische Musikpraxis hat, und durch Gespräche mit meinen Kollegen – Sänger und Sängerinnen – habe ich erfahren, daß sie manchmal bei der Interpretation unter verschiedenen Stimmschwierigkeiten leiden, z.B. wegen der zu hohen Standardtonhöhe -, wenn der Künstler lange Proben oder Auftritte singen muß.

Als mein Masterarbeitsthema habe ich deswegen geschrieben über „Die historische Entwicklung der Temperatursysteme und die Standardtonhöhenauswahl im Zusammenhang mit der Gesangstechnikentwicklung und Stimmgesundheit“. Am Anfang war ich leider in den Untersuchungsmöglichkeiten begrenzt. Das war aber nur der Anfang meiner Arbeit zu dieser Frage, die ich als eine Pilotstudie in Kopenhagen präsentiert habe.

Neue Solidarität: In Ihrem Vortrag wurde erwähnt, daß in Kroatien Aufnahmen gemacht wurden, um den Unterschied der verschiedenen Stimmungen zu demonstrieren. Warum findet so ein Prozeß in Kroatien statt, gibt es ein besonderes Interesse in diesem Feld?

Bainac: Ich habe mit dem Studium dieses Themas in Kroatien angefangen. Und während des Studiums war ich im Kontakt mit Wissenschaftlern und Persönlichkeiten, die die technischen Möglichkeiten haben, wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zu machen. Leider gibt es in Kroatien nicht so viel Interesse zu diesem Thema, und deswegen war es kompliziert, meine Arbeit wirklich zu entwickeln, aber hier in Wien habe ich mehr Unterstützung.

Neue Solidarität: Das Schiller-Institut führt seit Jahrzehnten eine Kampagne für die wissenschaftliche Stimmung. Wie sehen Sie die Bedeutung der Verdi-Stimmung?

Bainac: Wenn man über die Stimmung spricht, muß man zwei wichtige musikalische Aspekte ins Auge fassen: die Standardtonhöhe („Kammerton“) und das Temperationssystem. Beide haben sich im Lauf der Zeit unabhängig voneinander entwickelt und oft gewechselt.

Man sagt oft, im Zusammenhang mit der historischen Interpretation, daß das Temperationssystem eine große Bedeutung für das Verständnis der harmonischen Struktur und anderen Musikkomponenten hat.

Leider vergessen wir oft die Bedeutung der Standardtonhöhe. Die Instrumente wurden im Laufe der Zeit für die neuen, oft höheren Standardtonhöhen umgebaut oder optimiert. Mit der Stimme ist es leider nicht so einfach, und bei der Interpretation von Repertoire, das für eine andere Standardtonhöhe komponiert war, kann dies zu Schwierigkeiten und in extremen Fällen zu Verletzungen führen. Die ästhetischen Fragen werden heute, aufgrund der Art, wie heute Musik konsumiert wird, übersehen.

Giuseppe Verdi war nicht nur Komponist, sondern auch Sänger – ein Bariton, der die Gesangstechnik gemeistert hat und mit diesem Wissen sehr sorgfältig die Musik für Sänger geschrieben hat. Es ist bekannt, daß er auch sehr genau und streng mit seinen Mitarbeitern – Librettisten usw. – gearbeitet hat.

Während den Überlegungen, was die universale Standardtonhöhe sein sollte, hat sich Verdi für die französische Standardtonhöhe (a’ = 435 Hz) eingesetzt. Er wurde aber kurz danach für die Standardtonhöhe a’ = 432 Hz gewonnen, wegen ihrer wissenschaftlicher Genauigkeit, wie in seinem Briefwechsel nachzulesen ist.

Nach vielen Besprechungen mit Wissenschaftlern und Mathematikern kam ich zu der Meinung, daß es wirklich keine wissenschaftlichen Beweise gibt, die bestätigen könnten, daß eine Frequenz gegenüber einer anderen Vorteile hat.

Ich habe dann mit renommierten Sängern und ihrem Repertoire experimentiert. Und aufgrund von objektiven und subjektiven Bewertungen habe ich dann festgestellt, daß die Standardtonhöhe von 432 Hz, wenn sie z.B. bei der Interpretation von Verdis und Mozarts Opernarien verwendet wird, viele Vorteile vor den heutigen 443 Hz hat.1 Für ausgezeichnete Sänger, die keine technischen Probleme haben, sind auch immer die Passaggionoten zwischen den Stimmregistern problematisch. Wenn man den Kammerton von 432 Hz nimmt, werden die Vokale runder und natürlicher gesungen – coperto. Das verschiebt die Formanten tiefer und macht den Weg zu den Passaggionoten günstiger, denn die Stimmqualität des Passaggiobereichs zwischen den Stimmregistern kommt in dieser Stimmung früher. Das ist natürlich auch mit dem Text verbunden, der so vertont ist, daß die Bedeutung durch Registerwechsel unterstrichen ist.

Bei 443 Hz kommt die Passaggio in der Stimme abrupt, weil die Sänger oft in dieser Stimmung hellere Vokale – auch in der Passaggiotransition – singen. Natürlich versuchen die Sänger immer, den Formantenbereich mit den Obertönen zu verbinden, aber in der tieferen Stimmung macht der Körper das unbewußt und ganz natürlich durch die Rundung des Vokaltrakts. Die Sänger bewerten diese Standardtonhöhe von 432 Hz als die, die ihnen mehr Stimmfreiheit, Flexibilität, schönere Farbe, Stimmleichtigkeit anbietet. Bei 443 Hz macht der Sänger das alles bewußt – mehr oder weniger erfolgreich.

Neue Solidarität: Unsere Organisation legt großen Wert auf die klassische Kultur. Wie sehen Sie die Rolle der klassischen Musik, welche Bedeutung hat sie für die Entwicklung einer Gesellschaft?

Bainac: Musik ist immer ein bedeutender Aspekt jeder Zivilisation, ob man über Ritualmusik oder über unsere raffinierte und durch Jahrhunderte entwickelte europäische Musik spricht. Das sind alles im einfachsten Sinne Kombinationen von Frequenzen, die nach der Kenntnis des Komponisten so arrangiert sind, daß sie eine gewisse Wirkung auf den Zuhörer haben. Meiner Meinung nach werden diese Grundprinzipien der europäischen Musik heute von den Interpreten und auch von den Komponisten ignoriert. Man kann auch oft die sinnlose Phrase hören, daß im Bereich der klassischen Musik schon alles gesagt sei, alles schon komponiert sei, und deswegen muß der Zuhörer heute verschiedenste intellektuelle Durchfälle von den Komponisten dulden. Das kommt leider seit dem 20. Jahrhundert aus dem Bedürfnis, alles zu quantifizieren – am besten gleich auf Profit umrechnen. Und die Komponisten und Interpreten haben sich nur auf den leichtgewonnenen Affekt des Publikums und persönlichen Erfolg ausgerichtet.

Die Tatsache, daß Musik ein Naturphänomen ist, das schon lange vor der Menschlichkeit existiert hat, muß man wieder entdecken. Dann sehen wir, daß diese Quelle unerschöpflich ist. Deswegen würde ich klassische Musik nicht nur als Musik aus einer gewissen Periode bezeichnen, sondern als Musik, die sich nach Naturprinzipien richtet, die eine objektive und positive Wirkung auf uns hat.

Neue Solidarität: Haben Sie noch eine paar abschließende Gedanken für unsere Leser?

Bainac: Wie immer haben auch wir in unserer Zeit gewisse kulturelle Probleme und Fragen. Die klassische Musik ist heute ganz populär und für die Massen zugänglich geworden. Das könnte auf den ersten Blick auf die Welt der klassischen Musik eine gute Wirkung haben. Leider hat es sich aber gezeigt, daß das breite Publikum sich nur auf die oberflächlichen Aspekte der Musik orientiert. Und die natürliche Wahl der Künstlern – Interpreten oder Komponisten – ist damit verschwunden. Deswegen liegt heute bei uns, wie wir Musik und alle anderen Künste unterstützen; daß wir wirklich nur das hinterlassen, was wir für die nächsten Generationen wertvoll finden.

Neue Solidarität: Vielen Dank für das Interview!


Anmerkung

1. International sind z.T. noch höhere Stimmungen üblich, aber bei den Untersuchungen in Wien wurden akustisch nur 432 Hz und 443 Hz detailliert analysiert.




Dante – 700 år

Billede: Dante Alighieri i Firenzes domkirke, malede af Domenico di Michelino, CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons

Hvad er læren i dag af hvad Dante Alighieri lærte os, 700 år efter hans død i september 1321? Hvordan skabte han bevidst det italienske sprog, ikke bare for at befri Italien fra et oligarki, der dominerede på det tidspunkt, og etablere grundlaget for en suveræn nation tilegnet princippet om det almene vel – men for at vække en ånd af lidenskabelig poetisk forestillingskraft til hele historien, religionen, statskunst, økonomi og videnskab? Hvordan har hans rejse gennem helvede, skærsilden og paradis i hans guddommelige komedie blevet en universel metafor for Friedrich Schillers påstand om, at menneskeheden er "født til det, der er bedre?"
 
Se LaRouche-Organisationens to videoer, hvor Denise Ham, Carl Osgood og Tim Rush diskuterer Dantes betydning for os i dag.

 

 

 

Læs også:

Hvordan Dante brugte poesi til at skabe den videnskabelige renæssance, af Muriel Mirak, Campaigner tidsskrift, 1980, sider 20-78

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Modsætningernes sammenfald og begrebet om sejr

Den 14. september (EIRNS) – Bemærkningerne fra John Hyten, general i det amerikanske luftvåben og næstformand for Forsvarskommandoen, ved et møde i går i Brookings-Instituttet, har hårrejsende implikationer. Hyten erklærede, at han anså det for meget muligt, at der er en reel fare for en varm krig mellem Rusland og USA, eller mellem Kina og USA. Udviklingen af nye former for atomvåben og deres affyringssytemer, samt manglen på tillid i forhandlingerne – sågar manglen på forhandlinger overhovedet angående spørgsmål om strategiske våbensystemer, for eksempel mellem Kina og USA – betyder at vi, muligvis vildledt af computer-drevne systemanalytiske fejlberegninger, er på vej til at ”gøre det utænkelige, hvilket ikke desto mindre bliver uundgåeligt”. ”Jeg ved at præsidenten – Præsident Biden – og Præsident Xi har talt sammen et par gange dette år. Dette er vigtigt. Men jeg håber, at vi kan udvide den samtale hele vejen ned til militær-til-militær-niveauet,” sagde han. ”Vi fører samtaler om strategisk stabilitet med Rusland for at være sikre på, at vi forstår hvor vi er, ikke blot på det atomare område, men også i rummet. Vi har brug for, at denne samtale også påbegyndes med kineserne, det har vi virkelig. Vi bliver nødt til at være i stand til at sætte os ned, jeg har brug for at kunne sætte mig ned – forsvarsminister Austin, det politiske lederskab, udenrigsministeriet – og snakke om disse spørgsmål med Kina. Fordi så forskellige som vi er, har vi fundamentale, fælles mål, og det er aldrig at gå i krig med hinanden.”

Hyten udtalte, at den anden tilgang uden forhandling meget vel kunne tilintetgøre verden. Han påpegede også, at sine kinesiske og russiske modstykker, som Ryabkov, insisterer på at det har været USA, der gennem handlinger som at placere atomvåben og ”defensive platforme” i Europa, har fremprovokeret denne situation. Udover dette og et par andre vigtige, men enkeltstående, opfordringer til forhandlinger har USA dog ikke indtil videre tilbudt nogen strategisk anvendelig tilgang for et ”modsatrettet paradigme”, eller i det mindste nogen indsigt i hvordan et sådant modsatrettet syn kunne opnås.

Forslaget om Afghanistan fra Komiteen for modsætningernes Sammenfald, fremlagt af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kan anvendes på mange måder, hvilket, betragtet som et hele, kunne løse den nuværende selvforskyldte geopolitiske, gordiske knude. Dette forslag kan også være en rettesnor for de moralsk forvirrede i udenrigsministeriet og diverse europæiske efterretningstjenester, som stadig ikke kan begribe hvorfor eller hvordan de blev besejret i Afghanistan. Det var ikke Taliban, men deres egne forældede aksiomer, postulater og forudsætninger om virkeligheden i forbindelse med ”Project Democracy”/”Permanent Revolution”, specielt i en ny COVID-19-æra, som besejrede dem der. Historien skulle have lært dem, at militærmagt er det præcist modsatte af det som burde anvendes for at sikre en strategisk sejr i denne situation. Taliban må anerkendes som en forhandlingspartner; det afghanske folk må forsørges med mad og medicin; regeringsinstitutionerne, særligt de finansielle institutioner, må ikke angribes af de transatlantiske sanktioner. Betroede forhandlere, som Pino Arlacchi, der kender nationen og dens befolkning, burde gives autoriteten til at hjælpe med at påbegynde genopbygningsprocessen, herunder overgangen væk fra den angloamerikansk tilsete opiumproduktion. USA, uden militærets tilstedeværelse, burde forsøge at engagere især Kina i Afghanistan-området, således at General Hytens ønske om militærforhandlinger i det mindste baseres på en demonstration af tillid og samarbejde mellem Kina og USA i en tidligere krigszone, som ikke er af militær natur.

Idéen, den strategisk militære forestilling, fra Komiteen for modsætningernes Sammenfald er, at de ikke-dødbringende militære afdelinger af verdens respektive militærstyrker (såsom sundhedschefens afdeling i USA) kan udvides med store brigader af unge, udsendt på livreddende missioner, særligt i områder med mangelfulde sundhedsfaciliteter. Ironisk nok kunne dette meget vel være den eneste måde at forhindre et udbrud af det, som én amerikansk forsker har kaldt ”byldepest 2.0”, en mutation som kombinerer deltavariantens smitsomhed med noget så skrækkeligt som Ebola, Marburg-virusset eller andre sygdomme. I artiklen: ”Gandhis vision for et nyt paradigme i internationale relationer, og direkte, ikke-voldelig aktion i en tid med socialt sammenbrud”, skriver Helga Zepp-LaRouche: ”Eftersom det er denne verdens unge mennesker, hvis fremtid allerede er truet af en kombination af pandemien og den økonomiske krise, er der brug for et perspektiv, som håndterer pandemien, og samtidig giver dem en konkret måde at hjælpe på…

COVID-19-pandemien og fremtidige pandemier kan kun klares, hvis hvert eneste land her på Jorden har et moderne sundhedsvæsen, og det kræver en langt større gruppe af trænet medicinsk personel end der nu er tilgængeligt. Der er i øjeblikket en indsats for at oprette en komite i USA, Europa og i Afrika for at organisere partnerskaber mellem universiteter, klinikker, hospitaler og medicinske faciliteter. Opgaven for disse partnerskaber er at træne arbejdsløse unge først til medicinske hjælpefunktioner og derefter til at blive medicinsk personel, baseret på Roosevelts Civilian Conservation Corps.”

Under de nuværende omstændigheder i Afghanistan, som David Beasley beskrev det, er 14 millioner mennesker i fare for umiddelbart at sulte ihjel (yderligere 14 millioner ikke langt fra samme situation), og mange nationer – Iran, Pakistan, Kina, Rusland, Usbekistan, Tadsjikistan, Turkmenistan osv. – har en interesse i ikke blot at holde terrorisme under kontrol, men i at skabe økonomiske udviklingskorridorer. Disse kan spille en rolle, ikke blot i en stabilisering, men i en fysisk fornyelse. Afghanistan er på nuværende tidspunkt et ”område med negativ krumning”, den bedste af alle mulige regioner hvor metoden for modsætningernes sammenfald kunne anvendes.

Den undervurdering af betydningen af Nicolaus Cusanus’ diplomati for at undgå krig ved kirkerådet i Firenze i 1439, samt de strategiske krigsbetingelser hvorunder De Docta Ignorantia blev skrevet, har betydet, at Cusanus nærmest har været utilgængelig, som en tænker for dem der har allermest brug for at kende ham. Mindehøjtideligheden ved ”Sorgens tåre”, som fandt sted i New Jersey den 12. september, samt udtalelser fra deltagerne, særligt amerikanerne Terry Strada og Kirk Wiebe, og også udtalelserne af officerer fra byen Bayonne, var ubetingede erklæringer om en politisk intention, som faktisk kan blive den dominerende i USA, og ironisk nok, dermed i verden: Respekt for andre nationer, en lidenskabelig forpligtelse til ve og vel for alle på Jorden samt en løsning på konflikter med ikke-voldelige midler.

Modstanden, i form af den britiske krones ”Tomme Blære” (Tony Blair) og andre, ved muligvis hvad de vil, men ved ikke hvad de laver. Det problem er mere eller mindre præcist beskrevet af Caitlin Johnstone, i en artikel den 14. september, med titlen ”Vores guder har ingen hoveder”: ”Vi befinder os på en spøgelsesagtig køretur på et planetstort hølæs på vej til Ragnarok, og der er ingen som styrer.

”Jo, ved første øjekast ser det ud som om at der er nogen som har roret… Da kigger du lidt nærmere og… det som i sidste ende styrer tingenes gang er ikke så meget personerne i institutionerne, som institutionerne selv, der opererer ud fra motiver om profit og vækst, der er indbygget i dem og er fuldkommen afskåret fra normale, menneskelige værdier… Og problemet er selvfølgelig, at disse ikke er vise og velmenende guder, men menneskeskabte tankekonstruktioner med omkring den samme intelligens og indsigt som det vækst-frem-for-alt-værdisystem, som en kræfttumor har. De moderne guder er tankeløse, altopslugende ædedolke, kontrolleret af ingen som helst. De moderne guder har ingen hoveder”. [Fremhævning i originalen.]

Billede: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from Washington D.C, United States, CC BY 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons

 




Vil menneskets historie nu ende i en tragedie, eller sejre i et nyt paradigme?
Lær af Nikolas fra Kues (Cusanus), video ved Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche henvender sig til et publikum af unge mennesker fra hele verden om den tankemetode, som Nikolas fra Kues opdagede.

“(Nikolas fra Kues) udviklede en tankemetode, at tænke noget helt nyt… Det var ideen om, at menneskelig fornuft har evnen til at definere en løsning på et helt andet og højere niveau, end dem hvor alle konflikter og modsætninger opstod. Det tager fat på evnen til at tænke på en Enhed, der er af højere størrelsesorden og kraft end de Mange. Og når man først har trænet ens eget sind til at tænke sådan (i overensstemmelse med modsætningernes sammenfald), har man den ufejlbarlige nøgle til kreativitet, og man kan anvende denne måde at tænke på i stort set alle tankedomæner. ” — Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter og formand for Schiller Instituttet og en af​​ verdens førende Cusanus-eksperter, insisterer på, at for at komme ud af den nye, mørke tidsalder må menneskeheden lære af faderen til Den gyldne Renæssance fra det 15. århundrede, Nikolas fra Kues. Vi må begynde med den underliggende krise: den i tankemetoden.

Billede: Nicholas of Cusa. credit: Nick Thomsen, CC BY-NC 2.0




Beethoven og kreativitet, af Michelle Rasmussen

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

Beethoven and Creativity

by Michelle Rasmussen

[Print version of this article]

View full size

Lithograph by August von Klöber, 1818

Ludwig van Beethoven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

Friedrich Schiller, in a portrait by Ludovike Simanowiz.

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

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

The Creative Process

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

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

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

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

View full size

Photo by E.O. Hoppe

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

Einstein:

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

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

Imagination is the language of the soul.[fn_12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

EIRNS/Philip Ulanowsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beethoven’s Struggle to Approximate
Divine Creativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sublime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

Beethoven, sculpted by Hugo Hagen in 1898.

Beethoven for Us, Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mich.ras@hotmail.com

Read the author’s other articles on culture at https://rasmussenmichelle.academia.edu/.

View full size

EIRNS/Sylvia Spaniolo

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fn_10]10. Azquotes.com/quote/864207 [back to text for fn_10]

[fn_11]11. Albert Einstein, Einstein On Cosmic Religion and Other Opinions & Aphorisms. goodreads.com/quotes/423568. [back to text for fn_11]

[fn_12]12. www.azquotes.com/quote/831606. [back to text for fn_12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beethoven Thought in Metaphor

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

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

His letter to Tobias Hasslinger continues:

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

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

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

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

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

[back to text]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[fn_8]https://beethoven.ru/node/909 [WoO 182: O Tobias!, трехголосный канон Бетховен (beethoven.ru)] [back to text for fn_8]

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

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

View full size

Beethoven: ‘To Spread the Rays of the Godhead’

In a letter to Archduke Rudolph, Beethoven wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom and progress are the aims throughout creation:

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

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

View full size

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

SUBSCRIBE TO EIR

[back to text]

Back to top    Go to home page

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

January 17, 1990

In the Garden of Gethsemane

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

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

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

—Matthew 13:57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Two Conflicting Views of Mankind

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agapē

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

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

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

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

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Dictated from prison

Rochester, Minnesota

January 17, 1990

clearclear

clear




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.