1

Gå ikke glip af videohittet: “Jeg er selve modellen for en moderne klimamodellør!”

27. august (EIRNS) – LaRouche-organisationen udsendte den 22. august en knaldgod musikvideo med titlen: "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Climate Modeller". I en satire over den berømte tåbelige generalmajor fra Gilbert & Sullivans komiske operette Piraterne fra Penzance (1879), satiriserer den 4,45 minutter lange LaRouche-produktion over de arrogante folkemorderiske klimaprognosemagere, der i begyndelsen siger til seerne: "Bare sig NEJ til klimaforandringer!" Den geniale tekst af Bill Ferguson, der begynder med omkvædet: "Jeg er selve modellen for en moderne klimamodellør", blev sunget af Myles Robinson, Malene Robinson (fra Danmark) ved tangenterne, samt Schiller Instituttets korsangere fra Boston.

Klik her: Crush the Green New Deal LaRouche-organisation internetside.

Afskrift:

I am the very model of a modern climate modeler,
Ecologist, empiricist, there's no one Aristotle-er,
Employing mathematics, theoretic and statistical, 
And arcane correlation computations syllogistical;
I prove that human action, agricultural, industrial, 
Will overheat with CO2 the planet, therefore must we all
Obey the Queen of England's populational reduction goals
And late at night I like to ogle Greta Thunberg videos.
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg videos!
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg videos!
And late at night he likes to ogle Greta Thunberg viddi-iddi-oes!

I'm getting paid to demonstrate the world is far too populous,
Especially the poorer dark complexioned countries where we must
Kill off six billion babies, adults, teenagers, and toddlers: 
I am the very model of a modern climate modeler!
To kill six billion babies, adults, teenagers and toddlers,
He is the very model of a modern climate modeler!

The climate factors cosmic and galactic I must disregard,
They contradict the green agenda, I refuse to think so hard.
Atomic power doesn't produce very much of CO2, 
But 'twill increase potentials of the population, that won't do;
'Twould mean from pole to pole more Northern, Southern, Central 'Mericans,
'Twould mean More Europeans, and more Asians and more Africans,
From poverty, disease, and hunger many people could  be saved,
And dear old Bertrand Russell would be spinning in his honored grave!
And  Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky grave!
And Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky grave!
And Bertrand Russell will be spinning in his rotten stinky-inky grave!

My opposition to the Peaceful Atom isn't brains I lack,
But geopolitics taught me that "Green is Good." and "Snow is Black."
And if your mother disagrees, I may well have to throttle her: 
I am the very model of a modern climate modeler!
And if your mother disagrees, he may well try to throttle her, 
He is the very model of a modern climate modeler!

The Green New Deal and Great Reset will stop greenhouse pollution
And to the Human Question is a Final End Solution,
But even a first strike at China and at Russia I would goad,
Protecting the environment from progress on the Belt and Road.
Alas, I fear too many people are beginning to defy
My peer-reviewed and flawless calculations proving they must die,
Perhaps they'll organize to generate eight thousand gigawatts
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot.
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot,
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their brains on pot,
Instead of playing Grand Theft Auto as they fry their precious brains on pot!

And then we’d see the living standards of the population zoom,
For radical Malthusians like me there would be no more room,
With hundreds more of happy humans in each square kilometer,
I’ll be a very unemployed and moody climate modeler.
With hundreds more of happy humans in each square kilometer,
He’ll be a very unemployed and moody climate modeler!




Videokonference: Der er ingen »klima-nødsituation«
Brug videnskab og udviklingsprincipper for at stoppe strømsvigt og død.
Se videoerne fra den 24. juli.

Se også Panel 2 her.

Resumé:

Schiller Instituttets videokonference blev afholdt, mens det grønne hysteri eskalerede med at give »klima- forandringer« og CO2-udledninger skylden for de mange alvorlige katastrofer, som inkluderer oversvømmelser i Nordeuropa, Kina og Indien, tørke og hedebølge i det vestlige Nordamerika og advarsler om strømafbrydelser i sommer over store dele af USA. De 20 talere fra otte lande fremførte, at disse nødsituationer ikke stammer fra klimaændringer, men vejrhændelser, hvis grad af skade er direkte relateret til mangel på infrastruktur. Desuden, hvis den grønne dagsorden får lov til at fortsætte, vil det Der er ingen »klima-nødsituation« Brug videnskab og udviklingsprincipper for at stoppe strømsvigt og død. Se videoerne fra den 24. juli. medføre sammenbrud og affolkning. Idéer blev udvekslet om projekter inden for vandforvaltning, udvikling af kernekraft og især folkesundhedssikkerhed. Schiller Instituttets formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, fordømte det grønne aksiom om, at menneskeheden er dårlig, forurener og ødelægger naturen. Tværtimod er menneskehedens kreative natur i overensstemmelse med universets udvikling.

Panel 1: »De økonomiske virkninger af Green MAD – gensidigt garanteret destruktion«.

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019)

Jason Ross (US): Science Liaison, Schiller Institute
Topic: “There Is a Limit to Renewable Energy, Prologue”

Guus Berkhout, emeritus professor of geophysics, member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences , senior member of the Dutch Academy of Engineering, and president of CLINTEL Topic: “Stop Blaming Climate Change For Your Failures”

State Senator Mike Thompson (US-Kansas): Chairman, Kansas Senate Committee on Utilities
Topic: “Reverse Course on Wind and Solar — Report from the U.S. Central States”

Prof. Franco Battaglia (Italy): Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena; Member of the Initiating Committee of the Petition on Anthropogenic Global Warming of June 2019
Topic: “The IPCC Is Wrong; the Consequences Are Deadly”

Angel Cushing (US-Kansas): Goat Farmer; County Action Leader
Topic: “Stop the Green Land Grab; Protect Food Production and People”

Christian Lohmeyer (Germany): farm leader, Christian Lohmeyer is also Board Member of the Landvolk Mittelweser, Lower Saxony; video report filmed near the Weser River on July 15
Topic: “Flooding Disaster Is Not Caused by ‘Climate,’ It’s Immoral Negligence”

Prof. (Emeritus) Alwin Burgholte (Germany): GADE-Hochschule Wilhelmshaven (emeritus)
Topic: “How Future Electricity Security Is Threatened by Wind and Solar Technology and Blackouts”

Paul Driessen, author, Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death
Topic: Extreme Weather Events: Myth and Reality”

Jason Ross, “There Is a Limit to Renewable Energy: Epilogue”

————————————————————————————————————————————————

Panel 2: »Energi, verdenssundhed og krigens afslutning: Kraftens energigennemstrømningstæthed.«

Moderator: Dennis Speed (US), The Schiller Institute

Dr. Walter Faggett (U.S.): former Chief Medical Officer, Dept. of Health, Washington, D.C., Co-chairman D.C. Ward 8 Health Council
Greetings to the conference

Helga Zepp-LaRouche (Germany): Founder and President of the Schiller Institute
Keynote address

Dr. Kelvin Kemm (South Africa): nuclear physicist, former Chairman, South African Nuclear Energy Corporation
Topic: “The Necessity of Nuclear Power for Africa”

Admiral Marc Pelaez (ret.) (U.S.): (Ret.) Rear Admiral, U.S. Navy; previously Vice Pres. of Engineering and Business and Technology Development for Newport News Shipbuilding; Chief of Naval Research
Topic: “A Military Perspective”

Alberto Vizcarra (Mexico): Director, Citizens Movement for Water
Topic: “Drought: A Challenge, Not Fate”

Richard McPherson (U.S.): Retired U.S. Navy nuclear engineering officer; Navy Board of Inspection and Survey, Propulsion Examining Board; U.S. rep. on the International Atomic Energy Agency six-nation panel, following the Chernobyl accident.
Topic: “The Truth About Nuclear Power, Ending War, Beginning World Development.”

Vincenzo Romanello (Italy): PhD (Italy), Nuclear Engineer, Research Center Rez, Founder, “Atoms for Peace” Czech Republic
Topic: “Building a Nuclear Power Platform for the World”

John Shanahan, civil engineer, editor allaboutenergy.net
Topic: TBA

DISCUSSION

 

På engelsk:
Fighters for the Truth Join Schiller Conference:
There Is No ‘Climate Emergency’

by Marcia Merry Baker and Stanley Ezrol


[Print version of this article]


July 25—The Schiller Institute held a virtual international conference July 24, on the theme, “There Is No ‘Climate Emergency’—Apply Science and Economic Development To Stop Blackouts and Death,” which has quickly drawn thousands of viewers as a rallying point for the battle to defeat the Green New Deal in the United States in particular.

U.S. Energy Risk Areas – View Map

The two sessions were broadcast just as escalating green hysteria has been blaming “climate change” and CO2 emissions for the several severe disasters now hitting internationally, including flooding in North Europe, China and India, the drought and heat wave in Western North America, and warnings of electricity blackouts this summer across large parts of the United States and Europe. The presentations and discussion involved 20 speakers from eight countries, including six U.S. states in which resistance to “green” dictates is growing. The speakers demonstrated that these emergencies are not from climate change, but instead are weather events, with the degree of damage directly related to lack of infrastructure; and if the green agenda is allowed to continue, there will be mass breakdown and depopulation.


The panelists included scientists, engineers, retired military, farm leaders, a physician, a state lawmaker and others, many of whom have been leading battles within their respective sectors to debunk the green axioms, and mobilize for advanced power and infrastructure systems. Out of the conference, ideas were exchanged for even more concerted action, involving specific projects for water management, nuclear power advancement, and especially for public health security. The specifics included the Transaqua Project to refill Lake Chad in Africa, the North American Water and Power Alliance, and priorities for nuclear power including micro-nuclear, small modular nuclear reactors and more.


One lifelong nuclear technology expert summed up the day’s discussion by saying the dialogue was so powerful, it was on a par with the Davos Forum—a 50-year institution—except that the Schiller Institute event was for the good, and Davos is a bunch of billionaire elites.


Green Is MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction
The keynote was given by Schiller Institute founder and President Helga Zepp-LaRouche, and follows this report. She denounced the green axiom that humanity is bad, pollutes and ruins nature. Just the opposite, mankind’s creative nature is coherent with the development of the universe. The conference was opened by a video of a 1985 speech by Lyndon LaRouche addressing this topic, titled “Science is Good.” LaRouche said, “The good is the power of the mind to recognize this principle of reason as the lawful ordering of the universe….”


The first session, “The Economic Effects of Green MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction,” included firsthand reports from Europe and the United States on the lack of infrastructure to protect against flooding, subversion of the electric grid, and land use attacks on agriculture—all coming from the advocates of the Green New Deal agenda. Jason Ross, Schiller Institute science liaison, opened and concluded the panel, emphasizing humanity’s “relationship to the environment” as actively within our power to affect for the good.


Two of the eleven speakers on this panel were prominent European leaders of public scientific initiatives created to discredit the core lies linked to the “climate change models” used to assert that human activity is causing CO2 emissions, which are then used to assert that human activity is causing destructive climate change. Franco Battaglia, Professor of Physical Chemistry, University of Modena, in 2019 was a co-sponsor of a petition signed by many hundreds of scientists, which declared that “There Is No Climate Emergency.” Professor Augustinus “Guus” Berkhout, Emeritus Professor of Geophysics, is President of CLINTEL (Climate Intelligence, a foundation) as well as a member of the Dutch Academy of Engineering, and the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences. His title was, “Stop Blaming Climate Change for Your Failures.”


Battalgia, using graphics, tore apart the global warming climate models, showing how they could not at all predict any past phenomena or trends in recorded history. Berkhout gave an illustrated history on flooding in the Netherlands, his homeland, which suffered great damage this month. In the Maas Basin, flooding was worst where, in the feeder streams and tributaries, the pumping stations, canals, and inland dikes have not been maintained. There have been worse floods in the past. He presented examples of famously successful Dutch hydraulic defenses such as the Delta Works. Berkhout ridiculed EU Commission Vice President Frans Timmermans, “who blames all misery on climate change.”


A dramatic report on flooding in Germany was provided by Christian Lohmeyer, a farm leader in Lower Saxony, who is on the board of Landvolk Mittelweser. On July 15, Lohmeyer made a three-minute video, after hearing from a fellow farm leader in the Ahrweiler district, near Bonn, of the gross inaction by authorities there, who then blamed “climate change” for what was in fact their own negligence. Lohmeyer denounced the officials and greens, who blame farmers for damaging the environment by growing food, and then turn around and do nothing while more than 100 people die. He said that 50 farmers came out on their own at 3:00 a.m. in Ahrweiler with their tractors and equipment to save lives and protect what they could, and nothing at all was done by the authorities. There was not even a contact person!


Paul Driessen, a well-known science analyst based in the United States, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death, gave a review of the track record of green lies in many areas, such as falsifying the number and intensity of hurricanes. He reviewed past blizzards, twisters, and hurricanes, blasting the “con artists” who blame climate change, not lack of defense from bad weather. He ended with a warning about the consequences of making the green electricity shift to “intermittent, unreliable wind and solar.” He said, “If you do, you deserve what you get.”


A presentation on “How Future Electricity Security Is Threatened by Wind and Solar Technology and Blackouts,” was given by German specialist, Alwin Burgholte, Professor Emeritus, GADE-Hochschule Wilhelmshaven. He reviewed past outages and causes—the 2003 blackout in New York and the European-wide near crash in January 2021, for example—stressing the obvious essentials for stability. The electricity regulatory agency NERC (North American Electricity Reliability Corporation) has issued a map of areas of the United States where the likelihood of blackouts is very high from June through September 2021, because baseload power generation has become insufficient.


Reports from State Resistance
Iowa and Kansas are particularly threatened, as both states have power grids that are nearly half wind and solar. Kansas State Sen. Mike Thompson, a professional meteorologist, reported that his state has 3,100 wind turbines and plans to add another 1,000. In Kansas, 43% of the electricity comes from wind and solar; Iowa is at 49%. But during the February 2021 “polar vortex” deep freeze, wind and solar virtually disappeared as power sources, as in the Texas disaster this past winter. The potential disruption to farming and food is enormous, given that Kansas and Iowa each rank first or second nationally in wheat, corn, hogs, eggs, and soybeans. Together they are second to Texas in cattle. Thompson showed how “renewables” subsidies, plus electricity deregulation, play havoc with the electric grid in the state, and how seldom “windy” Kansas actually has strong enough wind for its big turbines to produce net power.


Minnesota farm leader Andy Olson reported on how “fragile” the electricity systems are throughout the farmbelt states. He debunked the idea that gas-fueled “peaker” plants can be counted on as backup when the wind turbines are down. Seven coal-fired plants in Minnesota have been converted to gas, but the logistics and the huge expense of getting and using the gas doesn’t work.


Angel Cushing, farm leader and activist from eastern Kansas, reported on the green assault against agricultural land use. It comes in the form of zoning, easements, federal, and green elite maneuvers, done in the name of preserving nature, with fancy code names such as “viewscape.” There is a “heritage area” campaign, which is part of the “30×30” assault, to remove 30% of U.S. land and water out of any economic use by 2030, outlined in Biden’s Executive Order 14008. This week, the federal Bureau of Land Management held a public comment session on a plan in the works for an “American Prairie Reserve,” centered in Montana, which is to be over 3 million acres, larger than the nation of Lebanon. In it, there will be permitted only bison, and no more traditional livestock grazing will be allowed.


Merkel Is the ‘Symbol of Failed Germany’
The second conference panel was a lively symposium, which effectively destroyed the notion that humanity was incapable of using our science to design a new phase of progress. Co-moderator Dennis Speed introduced the event by honoring four scientists who passed away over the last year, following careers in the science of development. They were Tom Wysmuller, a NASA scientist who organized his NASA colleagues and others to present the evidence that those who insisted human progress would wreak havoc on the Earth were knowingly lying; Dennis Avery, who published studies of development science, especially in the field of agriculture; Hal Doiron, a NASA scientist who helped develop the Lunar Landing Module and the Space Shuttle; and Freeman Dyson, an astrophysicist who promulgated the benefits of CO2 and undermined claims of its malign effects.


That introduction was followed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s keynote, a pointed illustration of the shameful role played by current presumed leaders of the “West.” She called Germany’s Chancellor of sixteen years, Angela Merkel, the “symbol for the failed Germany,” as proven by her firm decision to shut down nuclear energy production and now coal and fossil fuel production without having any replacement in place to keep Germany functioning as a modern nation.


Zepp-LaRouche especially condemned Merkel for ignoring three days of precise warnings of the floods that killed at least 170 Germans, who could have been saved if the Chancellor’s government had taken steps to move them to safety. Rather than take responsibility, Merkel blamed the floods on “climate change.” Zepp-LaRouche said, regarding Merkel and the leadership of “the West”:


If this outlook prevails, the prognosis is that Germany will vanish as an industrial nation or even as a nation altogether.… It’s so worrisome that this is the characteristic of almost the entire Western establishment. They have policy failure after policy failure and despite that, and the fact that everybody can see it, they demonstrate a complete inability to reflect on the causes.


South African nuclear physicist and engineer Dr. Kelvin Kemm, who has become known in America “outside the Beltway” through the Schiller Institute, outlined the necessity of developing nuclear energy for Africa and reported that a growing number of African nations are preparing for that. After a brief lesson in the history of climate on Earth that demolished the myth of “anthropogenic global warming,” Kemm outlined plans for the future of energy in Africa.


In addition to rejecting the failed solar panel and windmill technologies, Kemm pointed out that even hydropower would not work in Africa because it is susceptible to droughts of up to five years, during which hydropower is as useless as solar energy after sunset.
Dr. Kemm is working on developing what are called Small Modular Reactors (SMR) and micro-reactors. These power generators are mass-produced and can be transported by train or truck and installed to provide energy for limited clients such as an industrial complex or a modest-sized city. They are easier to set up and use than large-scale reactors that form part of a national power grid.


Crucial Importance of Water
Dr. Kemm concluded with an irony:
If you look back in time, whenever there were periods of global warming, they coincided with health, welfare, and prosperity; crops grew; sea routes opened up; ice melted. Passes over mountains cleared up and people could pass easily from one region to another. It’s the period of global cooling when crops failed, ice caused trade routes to be closed.


Rear Admiral Marc Pelaez (ret.), former Chief of Naval Research, and vice president of a shipbuilding firm, is currently a member of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites founded by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and former Surgeon General, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, with the mission of reconciling opposing views to solve the problems humanity is now confronting.


Admiral Pelaez addressed Zepp-LaRouche’s global reconstruction proposal that begins with constructing modern health care facilities and operations in every nation on the planet. He proposed that a first step in doing this would be to make sanitary drinking water available everywhere. He suggested that the Committee and the Schiller Institute hold a technology conference to discuss planning this project.


There is a water shortage plaguing the U.S./Mexican border regions. Alberto Vizcarra, coordinator of the Citizens Movement for Water in Mexico, presented this as the result of two situations. The first is the nature of the environment of the Great American Desert. The second is that agreements were reached between Mexico and the United States when the population straddling the Rio Grande border was 15 million. Today it is 100 million, so the requirements on both sides have changed drastically.


Vizcarra recalled that during the administration of Mexican President Adolfo López Mateos, whose tenure roughly coincided with that of President John F. Kennedy in the United States, there was discussion of a massive water project between the U.S. and Canada, which became known as the North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWAPA). At the same time, Mexico’s Northwest Hydraulic Plan (PLHINO) was under consideration. Both of these plans were promoted by the LaRouche movement in Mexico and North America. Recognizing that there is no physical or technical barrier preventing the completion of such projects, Vizcarra recommended that Mexico ally with China’s Belt and Road initiative to finally implement these projects.


Richard McPherson, also retired from the U.S. Navy, had surveyed these major water projects in Mexico. McPherson served as a nuclear engineering officer and on the Board of Inspection and Survey, Propulsion Examining Board. He also represented the U.S. on the International Atomic Energy Agency panel examining the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. He gave a detailed history, much based on his personal experience, of the development of peaceful nuclear power. Having long confronted the factor of public opinion, McPherson said this was the factor that sabotaged President Eisenhower’s 1953 offer to provide nuclear technology to the entire world for prosperity and security. He pledged himself to overcome the fact that 800 million people have no electricity or water and two billion go to bed hungry every night.


Energy Use and Life Expectancy
Dr. Vincenzo Romanello, a nuclear engineer and founder of the Italian Atoms for Peace, presented a human history of the annual per capita energy requirements for each technological level humanity has lived through, starting with fire (1.1 million calories) and continuing through nuclear energy (35 million). He left open the requirements of the next breakthrough, nuclear fusion, and explained his belief that the complexities involved in practical controlled fusion development would take longer to resolve than many hope. In the course of the session, several participants remarked on the three maps of the world he displayed. These showed each nation color-coded for energy use level, infant mortality rate, and life expectancy. The distinction, most notably between Africa and the rest of the world, could not be overlooked.


The panel’s presentations were concluded by John Shanahan, civil engineer and editor of allaboutenergy.net. Unlike many of his collaborators in the nuclear energy industry who present nuclear energy as a solution to anthropogenic global warming, Shanahan, following nuclear power pioneer Theodore Rockwell, views nuclear energy as a solution to natural climate change and other energy challenges.


In brief remarks prior to the open discussion, Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized that the political problem characterized by the “Green New Deal” will destroy all industrial nations, in opposition to restoring creative growth. This enemy is the same for water, energy, the spread of pandemics, the destruction of agriculture, and the continuation of endless wars, she said.


This requires a complete change of the axioms, and in my view, it starts with the image of man. Man is the most advanced part of the Universe. The ideas generated by human creativity, discovering scientific principles of the universe—that is the most advanced part of the evolution of the universe. If there would not be a correspondence between what the human mind creates and the laws of the universe, this would not function. This is the proof that the laws of the universe and the human mind are coherent. We are not a parasite. We are not a burden on nature.


In the context of Admiral Pelaez’s proposal on water development, Zepp-LaRouche pointed out the movement’s association with the African TransAqua project proposal for decades. This is a proposal to green the Sahara by moving water from the Congo River to the dry or drying Lake Chad basin. There is now a feasibility study under way that places this high on the agenda of African development requirements.


The discussion was joined by Major Gen. Peter Clegg (ret.), a founding member of the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites. “I am tremendously impressed” by the presentations so far, Clegg said, and pointed out that the problems we confront are not technological, but do include “the politicization of science.” He complained of politicians who say we must follow the science, but they are “the last person” to pay attention to that. He illustrated this by mentioning environmental hero Jimmy Carter, once “running around the White House in sweaters talking about global cooling,” who has now joined the crowd fighting global warming.


Zepp-LaRouche concluded the conference by discussing the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites. She explained that, so far, the membership were largely healthcare providers, but that it was open to scientists, engineers, and others involved in promoting human creativity.

This article appears in the July 30, 2021 issue of Executive Intelligence Review




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 9. august 2021, video og lyd:
De store problemer kan kun løses,
hvis vi erstatter geopolitik med samarbejde

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:




NYHEDSORIENTERING JUNI-JULI 2021: Afghanistan ved en korsvej

Download (PDF, Unknown)




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 23. juli 2021:
Vi kan løse problemerne –
men kun hvis vi bryder fri af den mentale spændetrøje

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Schiller Instituttet · Vi kan løse problemerne – men kun hvis vi bryder fri af den mentale spændetrøje

 




Oversvømmelser: Mod Moder Naturs luner hjælper kun udbygning af infrastrukturen (Nu med dansk oversættelse)

Mod Moder Naturs luner hjælper kun udbygning af infrastrukturen. 

  

Af Alexander Hartmann 

  

Efter den forgangne uges katastrofale regnskyl, der kostede over hundrede mennesker livet i Eifel og Rheinland og udslettede hele landsbyer i styrtfloder, fremkom der, som forventeligt, straks alle mulige røster, der gjorde de “menneskeskabte klimaændringer” ansvarlige for katastroferne og krævede endnu stærkere forholdsregler for at nedsætte CO2-udslippet. 

Det er dog en kendsgerning, at der også tidligere har forekommet oversvømmelser, tørke og andre ekstreme vejrforhold, og der vil fortsætte med at gøre det i fremtiden, med eller uden klimaændringer. Den hidtil værste oversvømmelse i Mellemeuropa, den såkaldte Magdalene-oversvømmelse, fandt sted i 1342, altså længe før forøgelsen af CO2-mængden i atmosfæren.  

Dengang stod vandet inde i domkirkerne i Würzburg og Mainz, og langs Rhinen, Main, Weser og Elben overskylledes byerne af vandmasserne, og tusindvis af mennesker mistede livet. 

Naturligvis skal de ramte mennesker have hjælp så hurtigt som muligt, og de påkrævede midler skal stilles til rådighed omgående. Genopbygningen af infrastrukturen skal sørge for, at de ramte virksomheder også genopbygges, så at folk i området får deres arbejdspladser og dermed deres eksistensgrundlag tilbage. Målet må være, at det skal gå de ramte mennesker bedre efter genopbygningen end før katastrofen. 

Men først og fremmest må vi drage de rigtige konsekvenser af katastrofen, så at vi er bedre forberedte på tilsvarende situationer i fremtiden. Om sådanne naturfænomener, som vi altid må regne med muligheden af, udvikler sig til katastrofer, afhænger først og fremmest af, om menneskene har anskaffet sig den nødvendige infrastruktur i tide, der gør det muligt at bestride dem. Vi har ikke brug for et diffust “klimaværn”, men for konkrete forholdsregler til beskyttelse af menneskene. 

For at opnå dette, må mennesket, selv om dette ikke behager De Grønne, gribe ind i naturen. I den uberørte natur er mennesket udleveret til naturens nåde; alle civilisationer beror på, at mennesket omformer naturen og gør sig stadig mere uafhængigt at dens luner. 

Netop det har vi gjort alt for lidt af i de sidste årtier, især under indflydelse af den grønne ideologi, men også under påvirkning af spareapostlenes “balancerede budget”, af profeterne for “de frie markedskræfter”, af finansspekulanterne og Davosmilliardærerne. I stedet for at opbygge, sparede man, og man opgav og ødelagde tilmed værdifulde indretninger – som for eksempel kernekraftværker – i miljø- og klimabeskyttelsens navn og erstattede dem med vind- og solkraftværker, der først for alvor overlader vor energiforsyning til naturens luner. 

Rent faktisk er én af de værste katastrofer, der kan ramme os, et vidtstrakt og længevarende nedbrud af strømforsyningen, hvis følger langt il overgå den forløbne uges oversvømmelseskatastrofe. Alligevel skal her efter kernekraftværkerne nu også kulkraftværkerne nedlægges og udbygningen af den omskiftelige og upålidelige “vedvarende” energi fremskyndes og udvides. 

  

EU’s Klimapakke 

  Blandt de drivende kræfter for denne politik finder man ikke mindst den Europæiske Kommission med dens overhovede, præsident Ursula von Leyen. Hun har netop fremlagt nye planer til beskyttelse af klimaet, den såkaldte “Klimapakke”. I hovedsagen drejer det sig om, at handelen med CO2-udslip ikke blot skal anvendes på udslip fra industrien, men også på trafik, fly, bygninger og endnu mere. 

Forkvinden for borgerretsbevægelsen Solidarität, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kommenterede meget rammende denne pakke den 15. juli på sit internationale internetforum således: Af disse forslag er det ene mere forrykt og uigennemførligt end det andet…. Når man ser nærmere på det, vil det føre til et altoverskridende bureaukrati, til ufattelige regler…. det bliver et fuldstændigt mareridt. Og som endeligt resultat, så bliver alting meget dyrere. Det gør produktionen dyrere. Det vil ruinere de energiintensive industrier. Det vil gøre det at bo i et hus utåleligt dyrt. Det er et fuldstændigt vanvittigt forslag.” 

For eksempel vil EU-kommissionen fra 2036 af stoppe salg og fremstilling af forbrændingsmotorer; fra da af skal kun “CO2-frie” nye køretøjer tillades. “Det kommer ikke til at fungere” understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, “for at bygge denne form for alternative energikilder i form af solfangere og vindmølleparker, vil man for Europa sådan groft taget have brug for et ekstra område mindst af Portugals størrelse. Hvor vil de tage det fra? Fra byerne? Fra landbruget? Fra skovene? Hvor vil de få al den plads fra? Der er vanvittige forslag om at opføre sådanne vindmølle- og solcelleparker i Afrika og transportere strømmen til Europa.” 

Denne “Klimapakke” fra EU, konstaterede hun, kunne kun være udtænkt af folk, “der ikke har nogen interesse i mennesker, for hvem udviklingslandenes udvikling er komplet ligegyldig, men som vil fortsætte det koloniale system. 

Her kritiserede hun i særlig grad Mark Carney, FN’s klimabeskyttelsesrepræsentant og tidligere chef for Bank of England, som havde foreslået at købe CO2-udledningsrettigheder af den tredje verdens lande, hvis disse ellers vil forpligtige sig til at give afkald på økonomisk udvikling og udvikling af landbruget. Rent faktisk eksisterer der allerede en sådan aftale mellem Norge og Gabon, hvor Gabon har forpligtet sig til at give afkald på en fortsat udvikling af sine regnskove – der udgør 90% af landets areal. De må ikke udvikle deres egne ressourcer og skal endda lade landbrugsområder springe i skov; til gengæld får de latterlige 150 millioner euro over 10 år.! Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “Jeg finder dette absolut afskyeligt og håber, at flertallet af Jordens mennesker vil sætte deres berettigede vilje igennem og kræve deres ret til udvikling.” 

Hun henviste til de menneskers hykleri, der bebrejder andre regeringer deres overtrædelser af menneskerettighederne, men selv vil berøve hele kontinenter retten til udvikling. “Når man hele tiden befinder sig på tærsklen til at dø, fordi man ikke har nok at spise, ikke har noget rent vand, så er det efter min mening den største krænkelse af menneskerettighederne, man kan forestille sig. Der er ingen frihed, for når man må kæmpe hver dag for bare at overleve endnu en dag, så kan man ikke tale om frihed.” 

Hungersnød for klimabeskyttelse? 

Hvor forkastelig denne politik egentlig er, viser et kik på den globale ernæringssituation: Godt 800 millioner mennesker på Jorden er underernærede, og allerede i april advarede direktøren for Verdensernæringsprogrammet (WFP), David Beasley, om, at tallet på de mennesker, der er umiddelbart truede af sultedød – ikke mindst på grund af de økonomiske følger af COVID-pandemien – vil kunne nå 260 millioner allerede i dette år. 

Kun en kraftig forøgelse af fødevareproduktionen, især i de underudviklede lande, kan løse dette hungerproblem. Og alligevel vil EU-kommissionen sænke fødevareproduktionen inden for rammerne af deres program “Farm to Fork” (“fra gård til bord”) i klimabeskyttelsens navn, og det ikke blot inden for EU, men også i leverandørlandene og om muligt endda i hele verden. Dette ville så rent faktisk være en “menneskeskabt katastrofe”: en bevidst fremkaldt massedød.” 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche henvendte sig derfor i sit forum til alle seere: “Jeg vil godt bede jer alle sammen: Lad være med bare at være passive tilskuere! Det er faren ved en ny fascisme: Økodiktatur er et mildt ord for det, som disse folk har på sinde, og det må besejres, før det virkeligt kan ødelægge hele verden og civilisationen.” 

  

Alternativet 

Også hungersnøden kan undgås. I stedet for at ofre menneskene af hensyn til “Klimabeskyttelsen” burde vi koncentrere os om det store projekt: at overvinde fattigdommen, farsoterne og sulten i verden. Til det formål må der skabes godt 1,5 milliarder nye arbejdspladser i hele verden, begyndende med sundhedssektoren, for at forsyne alle mennesker med tilstrækkelig føde, rent drikkevand og elektricitet. Og til det formål må industriproduktionen fordobles inden for næsten alle områder i hele verden – en stor mulighed for at genopbygge og modernisere vor egen økonomi og atter få den op i den økonomiske verdensklasse. 

Kina og Rusland er gået med i Bælte- og Vej-initiativet (BRI) i den retning. Det er påtrængende nødvendigt, at Tyskland og Europa tager del i det fremfor at forfølge en konfrontationskurs mod Rusland og Kina, der først og fremmest skader os selv og kan drive verden ud i en nuklear konflikt. Verden har brug for traktorer frem for kampvogne! 

  

(Alexander Hartmann er chefredaktør for ugebladet Neue Solidarität og delstatsformand for BüSo Hessen. Han er kandidat i Wiesbaden til valget til den tyske forbundsdag.) 

 

Billede: Romaine, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons




Tid til et nyt paradigme! Fra 68’ernes fortid til humanismens fremtid, af Peter Møller

Med stort ståhej kræves der at vi lytter, og adlyder: ”Menneskeheden ødelægger planeten!” skråles der. ”Vores CO2-udslip overopheder kloden på uigenkaldelig vis! Og alle videnskabsmænd er enige – nu er tiden til handling kommet! Ikke at handle uomgåeligt og stadigvæk at stille spørgsmål er komplet amoralsk og absolut forkasteligt!” Men er dette nu også sandt? Er det ikke muligt, at man kunne tage fejl? Og hvis nu man tog fejl, ville det virkelig være første gang i historien, at hele nationer, med uhyrlige konsekvenser til følge, var frygtelig galt på den ideologisk – ja, sågar hele civilisationer? Ville det da ikke være bedre en stund endnu på modig vis at stille de ubehagelige spørgsmål, også selvom det kræver at vi svømmer imod strømmen? Og i så fald at de ovenstående påstande var forkerte, at forstå hvad årsagen var, der førte til dette skævvredne verdenssyn?

Dette, samt en langt mere videnskabelig og fascinerende forståelse af naturen selv, og menneskets rolle i denne, er det, som det efterfølgende vil handle om.

Modeller som ikke kunne forudse

Så, til at begynde med, hvorfor er det egentlig at klimamodellerne aldrig rammer rigtigt? [Se grafikken ovenover. U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology 29 Mar 2017 Testimony of John R. Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama State Climatologist University of Alabama in Huntsville. Beskrivelsen er fodnote 1A]

Den øverste kurve er gennemsnittet af 102 klimamodellers forudsigelser; de to nedre grafer er egentlige målinger taget, henholdsvis, af vejrballoner og satellitter. Henrik Svensmark, som arbejder på DTU, og som har bevist et fascinerende forhold mellem skydannelse og kosmisk stråling, bemærkede for nyligt, at modellerne uden CO2-faktoren rent faktisk ligger temmelig tæt på de egentlige målinger [1B].

I figur 2 [ beskrivelsen i 1C] ser vi modellerne både med (rød) og uden (blå) faktoren af drivhusgasser, vist sammen med temperaturmålingerne (grå). Man kan se, at modellerne uden drivhusgasserne faktisk ligger relativt tæt op af de egentlige målinger, hvorimod modellerne med faktoren af drivhusgasser næsten altid viser for varme temperaturer.

Hvis man i fodbold ville blive ved med at skyde så skævt ville træneren nok på et tidspunkt hive én til side og foreslå, at man prøver en anden sportsgren. Men vores miljøvenlige politikere og andre ”eksperter” synes, at deres præcision er mere end god nok til at kvalificere dem til superligaen! Ja, i følge disse dommedagsklimaprofeter ville ikke engang en kat – med sine ni liv – kunne have overlevet sin egen undergang lige så ofte som menneskeheden har gjort dette i de sidste årtier.

Hér er blot et par eksempler fra et imponerende CV: Life Magazine, 1970: ”Om et årti vil dem, som bor i byerne være nødsaget til at bære gasmasker for at overleve luftforureningen… I 1985 vil luftforurening have reduceret mængden af sollys, som når Jorden, til det halve…”

(”In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half…”)

Washington Post, 1971: ”Vedvarende emissioner over fem til ti år kunne være tilstrækkeligt til at udløse en istid.” (”Sustained emissions over five to ten years, could be suffient to trigger an ice age.”)

Newsweek, 1975: ”Den centrale kendsgerning er, at… Jordens klima synes at blive køligere.” (”The central fact is that… the earth's climate seems to be cooling down.”)

Men som det ufejlbarlige, moralske kompas, de bryster sig af at repræsentere, svingede de så fra stik nord til stik syd: Associated Press, 1989: ”FN-embedsmand forudser katastrofe: …Hele nationer kunne blive udslettet fra Jordens overflade på grund af stigende havvandstand, hvis ikke global opvarmning er vendt inden år 2000.”

(”U.N. OFFICIAL PREDICTS DISASTER: …[E]ntire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”)

The Miracle Planet, 1990: ”Madagascar vil stort set være væk i fem år medmindre der sker noget. Og i øjeblikket sker intet.” (”Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”)

Michael Oppenheimer, Miljøets Forsvarsfond (The Environmental Defense Fund), 1990: ”I år 1995 vil drivhuseffekten lægge Nordamerikas og Eurasiens kerneområder øde med en forfærdelig tørke, hvilket vil medføre ødelagte afgrøder og fødevareoptøjer… Det mexicanske politi vil anholde ulovlige amerikanske indvandrere, som strømmer til Mexico for at søge arbejde som landarbejdere.” (”By 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots… The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.”)

CNN, 2001: ”Om ti års tid vil de fleste af de lavtliggende atoller omkring Tavalus’ ni øer i det sydlige Stillehav være dækket af vand, idet den globale opvarmning forårsager havvandstandens stigning.” (”In ten years' time, most of the low-lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu's nine Islands in the South Pacific Ocean will be submerged under water as global warming rises sea levels.”)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez fra Repræsentanternes Hus i USA, MLKShow, 2019: ”Verden vil ende om 12 år, hvis ikke vi gør noget ved klimaforandringerne.” (”…[T]he world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.”)

Alle disse, mildt sagt, ikke helt korrekte forudsigelser har selvfølgelig ikke gjort dem mindre selvsikre – hvorfor nu også det? – og med fast overbevisning erklærer de deres hellige krig mod verdens CO2-syndere. Man mindes om hekseforfølgelserne i Den Lille Istid – brændt på bålet for at have forårsaget det radikale temperaturfald! Den eneste forskel fra i dag er, at der dengang var en betydelig temperaturforandring – bevirket af solens daværende ringe aktivitet kaldet ”Maunder-Minimum”. Det er det der sker, når man ikke går videnskabeligt til værks!

Vi bør måske her indskyde at de ofte citerede ”97% af alle videnskabsfolk, som støtter teorien om menneskeskabte klimaforandringer” er en sofistisk fordrejning af virkeligheden. De såkaldte ”97%”, som stammer fra et studie af John Cook, er en sammensætning af ca. 12.000 forskellige videnskabsartikler om klimaet. Deraf behandler omkring 8.000 af disse ikke tesen om menneskeskabte klimaforandringer og indgår således ikke i statistikken [2]. I resten af artiklerne støtter knapt 3.000 af dem kun implicit tesen om menneskeskabte klimaforandringer [3]. Der er herunder også mange, som blot antager tesen som sand, og beskæftiger sig med de logiske følger af denne ”sandhed”, for eksempel artikler om mulige økonomiske konsekvenser. Udover dette inkluderes sågar artikler fra videnskabsfolk, som ikke støtter tesen om menneskeskabte klimaforandringer; for eksempel studier fra den israelske videnskabsmand Nir Shaviv, som i 2018 blev inviteret ind i det tyske parlament for at vidne mod tesen[4]. Studiet om de ”97%” er ikke en statistisk analyse – det er politisk sofisme – og det ville gøre verden godt, hvis man ikke blev ved med at gentage den.

Men hvis det hele er så forkert, hvor kommer så denne udbredte fundamentalistiske dommedagsholdning fra? Hvordan er det muligt, at verdens befolkninger og regeringer kan være så skrækkelig galt på den? Og, før vi kommer til dette, hvad er de antagelser der ligger til grund for et så forskruet billede af menneske og natur?

To billeder af naturen

Hvad, altså, er den naturforståelse, som vores miljøromantikere aggressivt prædiker, og hvormed de kræver at have patent på selve naturens egne love? De mener, at naturen er i en fuldstændig perfekt, om end skrøbelig, balance med sig selv; en balance nøje vedligeholdt over hundreder af millioner af år, som hvert eneste levevæsen spiller en uundværlig rolle i at opretholde: en præcis, afstemt harmoni. Men nu træder mennesket frem, og med vold ødelægger det denne søde idyl! Landbrugets og husdyravlens imperialistiske ekspansion, industriers larm og støj, videnskabens unaturlige forståelse af naturens mystik, rumfartens nedbrydning af grænserne lagt fast fra naturens egen side; alle disse bringer nu det fine, kunstneriske urværk ud af balance, og ruinerer Moder Naturs møjsommelige arbejde!

Men svarer dette syn til naturen selv, som den erkendes, når vi studerer dens historie? Eller beskriver det ovenstående billede måske nærmere en psykologisk projicering af den fantasifyldte romantikers skizofrene og skrøbelige sindstilstand, hvis opretholdelse konstant trues af videnskabens virkelighed?

Betragter vi naturens udvikling over millioner af år, må vi hurtigt fastslå at der, langt fra en balance, her er tale om en stadig voksende ”ubalance”. Den harmoni – som man med rette kan imponeres af – er ikke en slags ”perfekt akkord”, men i stedet nærmere en Bach-lignende komposition af konstant udvikling og transformation. Forandring og bestræbelse mod forbedring – dvs. evolution – synes naturens egentlige lov. Organismers individuelle eksistens er vigtig, kun for så vidt at de bidrager til evolutionens overordnede udvikling; og det faktum at naturen har været villig til at ofre 80-90% af alle arter indtil nu, hvis dette betød fremskridt for helheden, er et bevis derpå [5]. Fremskidt synes hér at betyde en stigning i evnen til at kunne transformere omgivelserne, således at disse kan understøtte højere former for liv. Dette ses for eksempel i den konstante forøgelse af organismers metabolisme over hundreder af millioner af år. Ikke tilpasning, men transformation af miljøet og ekspansion af livs egen virke er livets grundlov.

Med denne udvikling – fra havets dyb til landjord og luft – følger også et andet karakteristikum: indeslutningen af omgivelsernes egenskaber i organismen selv. Da der endnu kun fandtes encellet liv dybt i Jordens have, var celledeling ensbetydende med en ny organisme. Men med livets udvikling kunne dette pludselig finde sted inde i organismen selv, og muliggjorde dermed et væld af nye organismer. Dog havde disse livsformer ingen motoriske egenskaber – ingen lemmer som kunne bevæge dem – og de fragtedes her og der af havets strømme. Over tiden udvikledes finner og hale, og de blev nu i stand til selv at bestemme deres færd. Deres æg, som ingen skaller havde, kunne relativt let interagere med havets miljø og befrugtedes først efter at de var lagt. Som liv bevægede sig op på land, blev dette havmiljø ligeså indesluttet i organismerne selv, beskyttet af en stærkere overflade. Æggene fik hårde skaller og marinemiljøet indesluttedes i deres indre; befrugtningen fandt nu også sted inde i organismerne selv. Indtil fremkomsten af pattedyr var temperaturen reguleret af miljøet; denne blev nu også indesluttet i organismen selv, og ikke blot befrugtningen, men fostrets udvikling fandt sted inde i organismen.

Eksempel på overgang af livsformer fra havet til landet: Tiktaalik roseae, en overgangsform ("manglende link") mellem muskelfisk og terrestriske hvirveldyr fra Øvre Devonian i Nordamerika. (Billede: Nobu Tamura email:nobu.tamura@yahoo.com  http://spinops.blogspot.com/, CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons)

Vi ser over tiden altså – igen – ikke en stigende tilpasning til miljøet, men tværtimod en voksende uafhængighed, kombineret med en forøget transformation og dominans af liv over dets miljø. Med menneskets indtræden på evolutionens scene, synes den ultimative indeslutningsproces at have indtruffet: selve evolutionsprocessen selv blev nu indesluttet i én art, som kunne forøge sin forandring af omverdenen uden at være tvunget til først at vente på biologiens videreudvikling. Det var som om hele denne ”klassiske” komposition opsummeredes i temaets sidste gentagelse, der implicit bærer med sig, ikke blot kompositionens samlede potentiale, men også dennes dybeste og sande betydning.

Menneskets videnskab og teknologiske kunnen er altså ikke det mindst, men derimod det mest naturlige – en refleksion af livs primære, ontologiske eksistens: evolutionens fremskridt. At stoppe denne, at kræve at et givent stadie må bevares for altid – også selvom dette kan synes nok så smukt – ville være det samme, som at forbyde J.S. Bach at komponere i mere end én toneart.

Et frygteligt argument

”Men”, vil vi nu høre en stemme indvende – en stemme med et mægtigt modargument, som vi må give tilsvar, hvis ikke hele det forrige skal falde til jorden med ét slag – ”projicerer vi ikke ligeså? Er dette fremskridtsorienterede syn på naturen ikke blot en genspejling af vores subjektivitet? Er der overhovedet noget tidspunkt hvor vi ikke projicerer vores eget syn? Er vi ikke altid ”inde i” vores eget sind? Og hvis dette forholder sig sådan, er det da muligt at vide noget som helst?” Og sådanne stemmer, hvis de ønskede det, kunne sågar understøtte deres argument med geometriske eksempler.

Hvis vi forestiller os at et plan og en sfære hver især blev spurgt hvad vinkelsummen af en trekants vinkler var, ville planet svare, at denne altid er 180 grader. Men sfæren, på den anden side, ville modsige dette og insistere på at denne altid er mere end 180 grader og afhængig af trekantens størrelse. Ville de ikke begge have ret? Og hvad nu med parallelle linjer? Planet ville med absolut overbevisning fastholde at disse aldrig mødes, mens sfæren, med samme faste overbevisning, ville sige at de altid mødes ved ”polerne”. Har de hér ikke ligeså begge ret? Har de ikke hver især deres egen ”sandhed”?

  

Står det da frit til individets smag at vælge om mennesket er en destruktiv virus i midten af naturens kunstfærdige mesterværk, eller om dets fremskridt er den naturlige videreudvikling af naturen selv? Hvordan kunne vi tilbagevise dette relativismens argument? Og hvis ikke, hvordan kunne man da hævde at kende vejen frem for vores samfund? Vi måtte da selv give tabt på relativismens hav og – uden hverken kort eller kompas – lade de blinde strømme føre os hid og did.

Hvordan ved man noget?

Før vi tager dette næste skridt, er det værd at bemærke, at geometri, i og for sig, præcis ligeså meget – eller lidt – sandhed bærer med sig, som en hvilken som helst anden form for sprog. Platons dybsindige tanker udtrykkes, ligesom sofisternes bedragerier, begge på oldgræsk. Engelsk indeholder både Shakespeares skønne poesi, såvel som Benthams hedonistiske kalkule. Og på tysk er både Schillers ophøjede dramaer og Nietzsches pessimistiske filosofi at finde. Sandheden findes altså aldrig i udtrykkets medium i og for sig selv.

”Giv mig et sted at stå,” sagde altså Archimedes, ”og jeg skal bevæge verden!” Hvor er vores ståsted, vores faste grund? Hvor finder vi vores kort og kompas? Lad os, som klassicismens Tyskland gjorde det tidligere, læne os på Gottfried Leibniz' visdom: ”En skabning er mere fuldkommen end en anden, hvis man hos den finder noget, der kan anføres som apriorisk grund for det, der sker i den anden. Det er på dette grundlag, at man kan sige, at den indvirker på den anden.”[6]

Tager vi vores musikalske eksempel igen. Bachs kompositioner kan ikke forstås fra de individuelle noders eller skalaers standpunkt, som blot repræsenterer stadier i den overordnede udvikling. Idéen – enheden – som bestemmer kompositions udfoldelse, transcenderer de individuelle elementer, og deres eksistens’ ”mening” kan kun findes i kompositionen som helhed. Den overordnede udviklingsidé er derfor ”mere fuldkommen” end delene, da den er grundlaget for disses eksistens (dvs. kan forklare dem a priori), mens delene, som isolerede størrelser, ikke kan påvise grunden hverken for helhedens, eller deres egen, eksistens.

Således forholder det sig også med evolutionen. Hver organisme har en rolle at spille i evolutionen som helhed, men disse – en hund, en fisk, et firben – har ingen mulighed for, at fatte deres egen rolle deri. Kun fra evolutionsprocessens helhedssyn kan deres roller forstås, som nødvendige stadier i den overordnede udvikling. Helheden er altså vigtigere – igen ”mere fuldkommen” – end de individuelle elementer, og det er denne som vi må rette os efter. Kun mennesket – den eneste kognitive skabning vi kender til – besidder potentialet til at gøre sig denne udviklingsproces bevidst og handle ud fra viden, og er derfor, som konsekvens, mere fuldkommen end alle andre arter.

Lad os, for nu at være fuldstændig sikre, tage spørgsmålet op fra en anden vinkel, og dermed, forhåbentligt, begrave kulturrelativismens tågeslør for evigt. Det 20. århundredes Leibniz, Lyndon LaRouche, definerer, med sit koncept om den potentielle befolkningstæthed, viden, som det, der kan måles gennem menneskets systemiske effekt i og på det fysiske univers. Når vi får ny indsigt i universets processer, indeslutter vi – på samme måde som liv gør det – disse processer i vores virke, og øger derigennem vores uafhængighed, såvel som vores transformative effekt, på omgivelserne, set, for eksempel, i form af nye teknologier. Som eksempler på dette kunne vi nævne opdagelsen af de astronomiske cyklusser, som grundlaget for landbrug; forståelsen af rotation, som centralt i udviklingen af maskiner; Leibniz' Vis-Viva-begreb, som grundlaget for dampmaskinens succes [7]; og Mendelejevs harmoniske koncept om elementernes orden, som grundlaget for en systematisk forståelse af alle kemiske processer. Det faktum at sådanne indsigter – der i øvrigt har hverken masse eller energi – øger vores magt over universets processer, demonstrerer, at vi nødvendigvis handler mere i overensstemmelse med universets underliggende love, end uden disse opdagelser. Hvordan kunne vores effekt ellers forøges i universet?

Hvad er altså forskellen på de to ovenfor opstillede hypoteser om naturen, i forhold til deres systemiske effekt i det fysiske univers, når vi handler efter dem? Miljøbevægelsens hypotese forbyder menneskets indgriben i naturen og forandring af denne, og søger at minimere dennes effekt – dvs. søger at minimere menneskets kontrol over universets processer – og søger, som logisk følge deraf, at maksimere vores sårbarhed til omgivelserne. De er blændet af denne kendsgerning gennem en romantisk ”Adam-og-Eva”-forestilling om, at så længe de tilbeder Moder Natur, og holder fingrene fra ”videnskabens træ”, så skal hun nok forsørge dem med alt hvad livet kunne begære. Den anden opstillede hypotese søger at maksimere menneskehedens systemiske kontrol over universets processer, ved – ligesom evolutionsprocessen selv – at indeslutte alle disse i menneskets egen handlingssfære, dvs. at menneskeheden vil kontrollere en altid større del af universets processer. I religiøs terminologi ville man sige, at vores samfund til stadighed bringes i højere overensstemmelse med Skaberens intention, Hans ”synspunkt”. Vi ved altså, at den sidst opstillede hypotese er tættere på sandheden, da den, i diametral modsætning til miljøflippernes, øger vores systemiske magt i universet. At være ”i harmoni med” naturen, svarer altså ikke til en formindskelse af vores indflydelse, men stik det modsatte, en forøgelse. Magt og harmoni er her fuldstændig kongruente begreber. Men, hvis menneskets fremskridt er det mest naturlige, hvor kommer da denne miljøbevægelses aggressive anti-natur fra? Lad os dykke ned i historiens gemmer, for at forstå hvor nøglen til dette spørgsmål ligger begravet.

De paradigmatiske 68'ere

Miljøbevægelsen er intet nyt under den historiske sol. Her er et brudstykke fra et episk digt fra det gamle Grækenland: ”Der var en tid, da utallige menneskestammer, på trods af vid udspredning, undertrykte overfladen af jordens dybe favn, og Zeus så og havde medlidenhed og i sit vise hjerte besluttede at lindre den altnærende jord fra mennesket ved at forårsage den store strid i den trojanske krig, således at dødens last kunne tømme verden. Og heltene blev slået ihjel i Troja, og Zeus’ plan gik i opfyldelse [8].” (”There was a time when countless tribes of men, though wide-dispersed oppressed the surface of the deep-bosomed earth, and Zeus saw and had pity and his wise heart resolved to relieve the all-nurturing earth of men by causing the great struggle of the Ilian war, that the load of death might empty the world. And the heroes were slain in Troy, and the plan of Zeus came to pass.”)

Nutidens ekko – ”overbefolkning!” – af denne oldgamle ideologi springer ikke organisk op som en græsrodsbevægelse, men er i stedet skabt, på unaturlig vis, fra træets oligarkiske ”krone”; og hér, gennem 1001-Klubben, WWF, m.fl., får rødderne deres finansielle og ideologiske næring [9]. Den er skabt af en oligarkisk elite, der kaster sig selv i Olympens lys, og ser verdens befolkning som kvæg, der kan kontrolleres på zeusisk manér om nødvendigt. I modsætning hértil står den humanistiske idé, der betragter mennesket som et prometeusisk fornuftsvæsen, der er givet evnen – ja, sågar missionen – at fremme den universelle skabelsesproces. Dette har været, og er stadig den dag i dag, den historiske hovedkonflikt.

I moderne tid – dvs. efter den italienske Renæssance – har konflikten udtrykt sig i kampen mellem den amerikanske Prometeus og den britiske Olymp. Den amerikanske Revolution, støttet af Europas humanistiske kredse, var ikke en spontan uenighed over beskatning eller monopol, men en århundreders kamp mellem disse to diametralt modsatte menneskesyn [10]. I Europa, specielt med Leibniz’ og Bachs ”elever”, som Moses Mendelssohn, Gotthold Lessing, Friedrich Schiller og Ludwig van Beethoven, fandt humanismen sit højeste udtryk i klassicismens Tyskland. Denne leibnizianske alliance mellem Tyskland og USA, illustreret af Benjamin Franklins besøg hos Abraham Kästner og R.E. Raspe [11], byggede ”rygraden” i vores vestlige civilisations nyere tid. Det økonomiske højdepunkt fandt sted med Bismarcks adoptering af det ”Amerikanske System” i den anden halvdel af det 19. århundrede; en international alliance som på dette tidspunkt ledtes af Henry C. Careys kredse i USA[12]. Men med to verdenskrige, 60’ernes snigmord af moralske ledere i USA, og specielt 68er-oprøret, blev denne historiske rygrad, kulturelt og institutionelt, ”knækket”, og begge nationer mistede nu forbindelsen til deres bedre prometeusiske natur og dermed deres egen kulturs suverænitet.

I USA, under Franklin Roosevelt, havde humanismen opblusset, efter 30 års anglofil politik, og Churchill måtte finde sig i at høre hvordan Roosevelts USA planlage befrielsen og udviklingen af alle de tidligere kolonier [13]. Men denne intention døde med Roosevelt, og de amerikanske soldater – som mere eller mindre bevidst havde delt præsidentens vision – vendte tilbage til et samfund under anti-kommunismens banner. Troen på en bedre fremtid blev nu erstattet med mistroens anti-kommunisme, og frygten for tab af status og sikkerhed afsatte medmenneskelighed og mod. Under sådanne kår opvoksede generationen, der senere skulle blive kendt som ”68’erne”. Med en konstant trussel af en atomkrig hængende i luften, så en moralsk usikker generation hvordan 60’ernes moralske ledere blev nedskudt én efter én, uden mening og uden forklaring. Disse omstændigheder skabte en chokeffekt, som førte til en flugt fra virkeligheden, der var for skrækkelig til at rumme. Dionysiske udskejelser i form af psykotropiske stoffer, seksuelle nyskabelser og nye former for støj, blev udtrykket for denne skizofrene flugttilstand, som i stigende grad nu overtog ungdommens ængstelige sind.

Robert F. Kennedy – den dræbte præsidents bror – udtalte sig om disse udviklinger, inden han selv i 1968 blev skudt: ”Jeg tror at det er forklaringen, egentlig, bag hippierne. De har nået den konklusion, at de ikke kan påvirke deres egne liv og ikke kan påvirke samfundet… så de slukker og lukker. De hiver gardinet ned, og siger, vi vil – vi kan ikke forlade Jorden – men vil forlade den så meget som vi kan.” (”I think that’s the explanation, really, of the hippies. They’ve reached the conclusion that they can’t effect their own lives and they can’t effect society… so they turn off. They pull the curtain down, and say we’re going to – we can’t get off the earth – but we’re gonna leave it as much as we can.”)

Dette ”parallelle univers” slog sig nu ligeså ned i efterkrigstidens Tyskland – et Tyskland hvis tidligere humanistiske kultur var blevet svækket af hyperinflation og økonomisk destruktion udspændt mellem to grufulde verdenskrige, og angloamerikanske kredses genindsættelse, i Tysklands efterretningstjenester, af en del af de selvsamme nazistiske netværker, der lige havde spredt terror og rædsel – internationalt, såvel som hos den tyske befolkning selv[14]; netværker, som i øvrigt var nemme at afpresse og kontrollere, givet deres fortid. Det er forståeligt, at der var stor utilfredshed med denne situation, men i stedet for at genopleve klassicismens humanistiske idé, smed Tysklands 68’ere ”babyen ud med badevandet”; de afviste, som deres jævnaldrende i Amerika, selve idéen om en historisk identitet, og adopterede i stedet idéen om at leve i det sanselige her og nu – som var det en isoleret størrelse afskåret fra fortid og fremtid – og styrtede sig ned i de mørke dionysiske strømme.

Men med afvisningen af en historisk identitet, forkastede de også idéen om fremtiden; de forkastede de næste generationers eksistensberettigelse. Der var ingen fremtid, og deres egen eksistens kunne kun retfærdiggøres gennem dennes absolutte udelukkelse. Dette var ikke blot en personlig ”mening”; ikke blot et passivt synspunkt. Fremtiden blev nu til en trussel mod deres identitet, og alle ideologier og politiske initiativer, som søgte at underminere, ja, sågar tilintetgøre, fremtiden, blev nu i stigende grad 68’ernes psykologiske tilflugt. Miljøbevægelsens ”grønne” ideologi er ikke andet end dette: retfærdiggørelsen af fremtidens tilintetgørelse. Dette er 68’ernes ideologi, og det er det som vi er oppe imod i dag.

Er der en fremtid?

Nu er tiden kommet til at afvise denne uhyre menneskehadske ideologi med absolut beslutsomhed; ikke blot i sine individuelle argumenter, men i sin helhed. Vi må genoplive og forsvare den fremtid, som 68’erne forkastede årtier tilbage. Hvordan ser denne fremtid ud? Vil den være i overensstemmelse med de love i naturen, som vi præsenterede ovenfor? Selvom vi her ikke vil påstå at kende hele svaret, kan vi dog sige visse ting med sikkerhed. Vi mennesker kan forstå universet, fordi dets underliggende love harmonerer med vores sjæl. Som vi indeslutter og overtager ansvaret for en altid større bid af dette univers, ekspanderes vore virke – og alt liv, som vi tager med os – ikke blot på planeten, men snart, mere og mere, først ud i vores solsystem, og da, længere ud i det stadigt ukendte. Og jo mere vi tør tro os ud i dette ukendte, jo mere vil vi begynde at forstå, at det aldrig var et truende mørke, men blot et overset og venligt potentiale der ventede os, ja sågar, vores allerbedste ven. Vi vil erkende, at jo mere vi bevæger os ud i det ukendte, jo mere vil vi der genfinde vores egen sjæls ubegrænsede og sande natur.

Med dette i sinde, lad os afslutte med et par citater fra denne ”fremtid” – fra Apollo-astronauternes succesfulde rejse til Månen og hjem igen[15]:

”Når sollyset skinner gennem rummets sorthed, er det sort. Men jeg var i sollyset og var i stand til at kigge på denne sorthed. Jeg mener, hvad er det vi ser? Kald det universet, men det er rummets uendelighed og tidens uendelighed. Jeg kigger på noget der kaldes rummet, som ingen ende har, og tiden, som ingen mening har. Man kan virkelig fokusere på det, fordi man har denne planet derude, denne planet kaldet Jorden, hvilket selv er i denne sorthed, men er oplyst, fordi sollyset rammer et objekt, rammer noget som kaldes Jorden. Og det er ikke en fjendtlig sorthed. Måske er den ikke fjendtlig, på grund af Jordens skønhed, som giver den en slags liv. Jeg følte mig meget velkommen der. Ved du, Månen har ventet på os i tusinder af år… millioner af år, måske, medmindre nogle andre har været der før os, på et tidspunkt. Det er muligt, selvom vi ikke så nogle beviser derpå. Jeg følte det som om at jeg var den eneste der, men ikke et rumvæsen… ikke et rumvæsen i form af at invadere en andens domæne. Jeg opfattede ikke Månen som fjendtlig. Jeg opfattede den som meget majestætisk smuk. Blid i farve, men majestætisk smuk.”—Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

(”When the sunlight shines through the blackness of space, it’s black. But I was in sunlight and I was able to look at this blackness. I mean what are you looking at? Call it the universe but it’s the infinity of space and the infinity of time. I’m looking at something called space that has no end, and at time that has no meaning. You can really focus on it because you’ve got this planet out there, this planet called Earth, which itself is in this blackness but it is lit up, because the sun-light strikes on an object, it strikes on something called Earth. And it’s not a hostile blackness. Maybe it’s not hostile because of the beauty of the Earth, that sort of gives it life. I felt very welcome there. You know, the Moon’s been waiting for us for thousands of years … millions of years, maybe, unless some-one else has already been there before us, at some time. That’s possible, although we didn’t really see any evidence of that. I felt like I was the only one there, but not an alien … not an alien in terms of invading someone else’s domain. I didn’t find the Moon hostile. I found it very majestically beautiful. Bland in color, but majestically beautiful”—Gene Cernan, Apollo 17)

”Okay, Houston, mens jeg er herude i det ukendtes vidundere ved Hadley [-bjergets nedre skråninger på Månen] indser jeg, at der er en fundamental sandhed i vores natur: mennesket må og skal opdage!”—David Scott, Kommandør af Apollo 15 (”Okay, Houston, as I am staying out here in the wonders of the unknown at [the lower slopes of Mt.] Hadley [on the Moon], I realized there’s a fundamental truth to our nature: man must explore!”—David Scott, Commander of Apollo 15)

”Evolutionens vej er nu i rummet, lige så meget som på Jorden. Mennesket, som en art, har vist, at menneskeheden var klar til at binde sig til… at leve i miljøer, som var komplet anderledes… end dem som arten udviklede sig i… Menneskehedens evolutionskurve er blevet bøjet…”—Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17

(”The path of evolution is now in space, as much as on earth. Man has shown that as a species … mankind was willing to commit itself … to living in environments that were completely different … than those in which the species evolved…. The curve of human evolution has been bent.”—Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17)

Dette er blot et splitsekund af den kontinuerlige inspiration, der venter os og den fremtidige menneskehed. Denne fremtid kan være den smukkeste, den mest fascinerende, den mest glædelige af alle epoker indtil nu oplevet af den samlede menneskehed. Med den nye Silkevejspolitik, med rumfartens optimistiske tilbagevenden og med en ny tørst efter det sande og smukke i menneskets natur, står vi på tærsklen til en ny æra. Potentialet er synligt for dem der kan se. Men om det vil lykkes os at realisere denne glade, menneskelige, ubegrænsede fremtid eller om den grønne pessimismes unaturlige og menneskehadske mørke vil sprede sig og slukke dette lys, det, kære læser, er nu op til dig.

Artikelen blev oprindeligt udgivet i det tyske tidsskrift Fusion, Vol. 40, No. 2, 2019, og EIR tidsskrift Vol. 48, No. 17, den 23. april 2021.

Fodnoter:

[1A] "Five-year averaged values of annual mean (1979-2016) tropical bulk TMT as depicted by the average of 102 IPCC CMIP5 climate models (red) in 32 institutional groups (dotted lines). The 1979-2016 linear trend of all time series intersects at zero in 1979. Observations are displayed with symbols: Green circles – average of 4 balloon datasets, blue squares – 3 satellite datasets and purple diamonds – 3 reanalyses. See text for observational datasets utilized. The last observational point at 2015 is the average of 2013-2016 only, while all other points are centered, 5-year averages." Fra J.R. Christys foretræde.

[1B] Præsentation af Henrik Svensmark på Nærum Gymnasium, den 28. August, 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGaJvVoLsuM.

[1C] "The linear trends of the average of the climate model simulations (red) and the averages of the three types of observational datasets described in the text." Fra J.R. Christys foretræde.

[2] For yderligere detaljer, se denne artikel: https://climatechangedispatch.com/when-32-6-becomes-97-the-bald-faced-lie-that-changed-the-western-world.html/

[3] Se: https://skepticalscience.com/tcp.php?t=search&s=a&a=&c=3&e=3&yf=1991&yt=2011

[4] Se: http://www.sciencebits.com/bundestag

[5] Et af de bedste eksempler er den Store Iltkatastrofe, som fandt sted for omkring 3 milliarder år siden, hvor cyanobakterier frigjorde enorme mængder af ilt i havene og i atmosfæren, og forårsagede en masseudryddelse.

[6] Gottfried Leibniz’ Monadologi

[7] Leibniz' beskrivelse af Vis Viva = m x v2 , fremfor Descartes' m x v , er grunden til at dampmaskinen fungerer, da partiklers hastighed pludselig får en langt væsentligere rolle. Se også Leibniz, Papin and the Steam Engine: A Case Study of British Sabotage of Science: https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/educ/pedagogy/steam_engine.html

[8] Kypria; et fragment af et tabt episk digt fra det gamle Grækenland.

[9] Se Lyndon LaRouches “The Coming Fall of the House of Windsor,” EIR magazine, Vol. 21, No. 43, October 28, 1994.

[10] Se H. Graham Lowrys How the Nation was Won: America’s Untold Story, Vol. 1: 1630-1754, Executive Intelligence Review, Washington, D.C. 1988.

[11]Se David Shavins “From Leibniz to Franklin on ‘Happiness,’” i Fidelio magazine, Vol. XII, No. 1, Summer 2003. Gentrykt her: https://archive.schillerinstitute.com/fid_02-06/031_happinessA.html.

[12] Se Anthony Chaitkins “The ‘Land-Bridge’: Henry Carey’s Global Development Program.” EIR magazine, Vol. 24, No.19, May 2, 1997, pp. 30-53.

[13] Se Franklin Roosevelts søns, Elliot Roosevelts, bog Som Han Så Det.

[14] Se Helga Zepp-LaRouche, ed., The Hitler Book, New Benjamin Franklin House, New York, NY. 1984.

[15] Fra dokumentaren For All Mankind, the first part of which can be found here: https://youtu.be/otvtMfEI_9w?t=3




Schiller Instituttets konference Panel 2 resumé: Metoden bag Modsætningernes Sammenfald: Kun en samlet verdensomspændende sundhedsindsats,
uden sanktioner, kan vende en global pandemi

Ingen tilbagevenden til normaltilstand:

Kun et paradigmeskifte kan afhjælpe den eksistentielle krise

af Janet G. West

8. maj (EIR årgang 48, nr. 20) — Det andet panel, ”Metoden med 'modsætningernes sammenfald': Alene en samlet verdensomspændende sundhedsindsats uden sanktioner, vil kunne vende en global pandemi”, under Schiller Instituttets konference den 8. maj, samlede ledere fra USA, Europa og Sydamerika for at tackle den trefoldige krise med krig, hungersnød og pandemi. 

Ordstyrer Dennis Speed brugte to videoklip til at perspektivere diskussionen i forhold til den overskyggende fare for krig, og til at behandle hvordan krige opstår. Først var et klip fra Lyndon LaRouches tv-udsendelse fra 1999, 'Storm Over Asia', hvori han understregede, at Rusland vil kæmpe tilbage, hvis det presses op i et hjørne – "det er deri faren ligger". For mange mennesker agerer under den vildfarelse, at de kan gøre som de vil i udlandet,  "uden at det giver bagslag". Hvis London og Wall Streets kontrol over den amerikanske politik fortsætter, vil sandsynligheden øges for at Rusland vil kæmpe tilbage til grænsen af atomkrig.

Derefter et klip fra et nyligt interview med tidligere admiral Marc Pelaez (USN, fhv.), som har været kommandør for en atomubåd under Den kolde Krig, om karakteren af beslutningen om at påbegynde atomkrig. Pelaez sagde, at hvis han havde modtaget en ordre om at skride til handling, ville han have gjort det. ”Afskrækkelsen skal være troværdig,” sagde han, “Min ubåds kapacitet kunne udslette alle større byer i USA øst for Mississippi. Og det er bare én ubåd!” Hvis man  gjorde det, "vidste man imidlertid, at der ikke var noget at vende hjem til".

At løse det uløselige

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af Schiller Instituttet, kom med indledende bemærkninger, hvor hun henviste til civilisationskrisen i 1453 med Konstantinopels fald, da Det osmanniske Rige erobrede det byzantinske imperiums hovedstad og effektivt knuste det. Befolkningen blev brutaliseret af angriberne, og mange døde. Nicolaus Cusanus stod over for udfordringen med at forholde sig til denne krise, og hvordan det enorme had fra den ene side til den anden kunne forliges på en sådan måde, at man kom frem til en løsning på et højere niveau. Resultatet af denne inspiration var hans dialog: ''Freden i Troen' (De Pace Fidei), hvor repræsentanter fra mange nationer og trosretninger kom i samtale med Gud i en dialog om, hvordan de kunne leve i fred. 

Efter en række spørgsmål om tilsyneladende modstridende ideer og Guds svar, var konklusionen, at der kun er én sandhed – at universet er lovmæssigt, og at hele menneskeheden bærer den guddommelige gnist inden i sig; at alt menneskeliv er helligt. Så derfor, fortsatte hun, kan de tilsyneladende forskelligartede perspektiver og problemer kun løses ud fra et højere princip, og dette var 'Modsætningerne Sammenfald'; at hinandens udvikling bliver af primær interesse for én selv. Det er ud fra dette synspunkt, at hun gentog sit krav om oprettelsen af et globalt sundhedssystem, at starte opbygningen af den nødvendige infrastruktur i alle nationer, og at alle sanktioner skal elimineres. Og for at gøre det må vi tackle det moralske sammenbrud, især inden for USA.

Standarden: ’moralsk excellence’

Dr. Joycelyn Elders, tidligere cheflæge for militærets sundhedskorps i USA, talte om ideen med at genoplive ”standarden for moralsk excellence” – at gøre mere end hvad vi mener, vi er i stand til; ikke at give op, før målet er nået. Denne standard for moralsk excellence er ikke bare et godt ideal – det er en nødvendighed. Hun gennemgik statistikken: over 2 milliarder mennesker har ikke adgang til rent drikkevand; over 2,5 milliarder oplever fødevareusikkerhed, og 270 millioner mennesker står over for potentiel hungersnød. Omkring 1,2 milliarder mennesker har ikke adgang til elektricitet, og uden elektricitet kan sygdomme ikke overvindes… og [samtidig] hævde, at pandemien er et resultat af moralsk, og ikke lægelige svigt.

Eftersom uafhængighedserklæringen taler om umistelige rettigheder, herunder: "Liv, frihed og higen efter lykke," sagde dr. Elder, at vi nu skal inkludere adgangen til midlerne [for] livets opretholdelse – rent vand, rigelig mad og billig elektricitet skal være tilgængeligt for alle nationer, for uden disse ting er der ingen måde at have et sundhedssystem på eller [at opretholde] livet. Hun kaldte den nuværende politik for "ligegyldighedens selvmordsøkonomi" og afsluttede med at opfordre alle til at blive involveret, genvinde "standarden for moralsk excellence" og understregede, at apati er den værste pandemi af alle.

Dr. Khadijah Lang (USA), formand for 'National Medical Association (NMA) Council on International Affairs' og præsident for 'Golden State Medical Association'; samt Marcia Merry Baker, en ekspert inden for fysisk økonomi og medlem af EIR´s-redaktionskomité, præsenterede de succeser og udfordringer, som udbuddet af medicinsk behandling, mad, vand og sanitet internationalt står overfor. Dr. Lang diskuterede NMA's tidligere arbejde med at indsætte hold og medicinske forsyninger til Mozambique i samarbejde med lokale myndigheder for at yde sundhedspleje og bidrage til uddannelsen af kirurger. Hun beskrev de barske forhold i Østafrika med den nylige græshoppeplage, der ødelagde afgrøder efterfulgt af successive kriser, som alle ramte Mozambique hårdt. Da COVID-19 ramte, var det ødelæggende, for så kunne folk ikke engang gå ud for at skaffe mad…

Mere senere fra dette afsnit.

Vi må overvinde COVID-krisen overalt:

Pastor Robert Smith, bestyrelsesformand for den Nationale baptistorganisations udenlandske Mission talte til konferencen fra Michigan under titlen: ”'Læge, helbred dig selv': Red en nation i krise gennem kærlighed”. Han beskrev prøvelserne med at håndtere de mange COVID-dødsfald i sit eget samfund og den styrke det krævede for at opfriske os med kærlighedens kilder, kilder der er en gudgiven kerne i vores menneskehed.

Luis Vasquez talte fra Peru og præsenterede: "Glem ikke: Den globale koncentrationslejrs ovn er nu nuklear”. Som mangeårigt medlem af Schiller Instituttet, begyndte han med at fortælle, at han og hans kone for nylig var syge med en ny variant af COVID-19, og havde det ikke været for hjælp fra deres familie, var det usandsynligt, at de ville have overlevet. Under ødelæggelsen fra en nyliberal økonomi har deres nation nu ingen offentlige tjenester, ingen skoler, ingen transport, og at få COVID-19 svarer til en dødsdom. I hele Lima er der ingen ledige intensiv-senge med respiratorer; enhver intentiv-seng har en venteliste på op til 300 personer. En iltcylinder koster $1.000; en genopfyldning koster $200. ”Hvis du ikke kan betale, dør du. Dette er en holocaust … ekstremerne er nået … vi er i en global koncentrationslejr”.

Vi kan betragte de forkerte økonomiske beslutninger, der er taget siden 1974, som anstifter af denne nuværende tragedie; verdensøkonomien er et kasino på kanten af ​​konkurs. Vi må mobilisere vores forsknings- og udviklingskapacitet i alle lande; vi ved, at vi kan udrette disse ting, fordi mennesket er kreativt. Vi er alle forbundne nu, og omtanke for andre er ikke kun moralsk, men videnskabeligt sandt.

Dr. Walter Faggett (USA), tidligere cheflæge i Washington, D.C.’s sundhedsafdeling, og i øjeblikket medformand for D.C. område 8 Sundhedsråd, berettede om de succeser, de har haft med at koordinere samarbejde mellem samfundsorganisationer, kirker, universiteter og sundhedspersonel for at øge graden af​​ COVID-19-vaccination i Washington. Han fik følgeskab af Genita Finley (USA), 2. års medicinstuderende og designer af Mississippi Deltas medicinske  skoleprogram, der diskuterede, hvordan hendes program lykkedes med at bringe flere studerende ind på sundhedsstudier og hjælper dem med at overvinde problemer med deres identitetsfølelse af ikke at være "kloge nok" til at blive sundhedsarbejdere. Mississippi Delta har en af ​​de største koncentrationer af fattigdom i landdistrikterne i nationen.

Mere kommer senere.

 




Aflys ’Jordens Dag’!  Verden har i stedet brug for en ’Mars’ dag’

1. april (EIRNS) – Præsident Joe Biden har inviteret fyrre statsoverhoveder til at deltage i et virtuelt topmøde i Washington den 22.-23. april for at fejre 'Jordens dag', ved at indvarsle en ny æra med global grøn afindustrialisering og affolkning under dække af at opnå "nul kulstofudledning" – uanset hvad dette måtte indebære – inden år 2050.

 

Det er ikke gørligt, og det vil ikke fungere. En af Indiens førende klimaeksperter og medlem af premierministerens råd om klimaændringer, Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, har allerede udtalt, at Indien bør foregive at støtte de globale mål, men absolut ikke lade sig binde af dem i deres eget land, fordi Indien er et udviklingsland, der enten skal vokse eller gå til grunde.

 

Det samme gør sig gældende for Bidens lovforslag om 2,2 billioner dollars til "infrastruktur- og jobskabelse", som Washington Post i dag tilstod ikke har meget med infrastruktur at gøre, men alt at gøre med at pålægge en dramatisk nedgradering af den energiteknologiske platform, designet til at skabe en ny æra af middelalderlig sol- og vindenergi. "Kernen i Bidens plan … er oprettelsen af en national standard, der kræver, at forsyningsselskaber bruger en bestemt mængde sol, vind og anden vedvarende energi". Dette, småler the Post, "ville udgøre den mest omfattende føderale intervention i elsektoren i generationer".

 

Men det kan heller ikke lade sig gøre, og vil ikke fungere. Talsmanden for Edison Electric Institute, elsektorens største handelsforening, sagde, at de med fornøjelse vil "gennemgå enhver foreslået standard for ren energi nøje", men de vil være uenige i, hvordan dette vil underminere den "overkommelighed og pålidelighed, som vores kunder værdsætter." Man kan forvente, hvordan allehånde produktionsbrancher, fagforeninger og andre professionelle samt forretningsgrupper modsætter sig 'Green New Deal', i takt med at det bliver tydeligt, at det betyder USA's tilbagevenden til middelalderlige teknologier og tilhørende middelalderlige befolkningsniveauer.

 

LaRouche-Organisationens nyudgivne brochure, "Det store spring tilbage: LaRouche knuser 'Green New Deal'-svindlen", afslører detaljeret det mareridt, som vedtagelsen af en sådan politik vil slippe løs. Men nok så afgørende præsenterer den også, hvad ingen andre kritikere formår at tage fat på: De egentlige globale løsninger på sammenbrudskrisen, som den amerikanske økonom og statsmand Lyndon LaRouche og hans medarbejdere har beskrevet dem gennem årtier. Alle disse programmatiske forslag er afhængige af, at USA slutter sig til Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ for at samarbejde om store infrastrukturprojekter – på denne planet og videre ud på Månen, Mars og resten af solsystemet.

 

Så det ville være en meget bedre idé hvis Narendra Modi fra Indien, Vladimir Putin fra Rusland samt Xi Jinping fra Kina inviterede Joe Biden til at deltage i et topmøde mellem disse fire magter på "sidelinjen" af det virtuelle topmøde den 22.-23. april. De kunne benytte lejligheden til at diskutere de virkeligt pressende kriser, som planeten står overfor – COVID-pandemien, det økonomiske sammenbrud, truslen om regional- og verdenskrig – og de nødvendige løsninger, herunder internationalt samarbejde om menneskehedens næste videnskabelige og teknologiske grænse: rumforskning og kolonisering baseret på fusionsenergi.

 

(Alt imens forslaget fra Finlands præsident om at fejre 50-årsdagen for Helsinki-aftalerne, ved at bringe USA, Kina og Rusland sammen for at diskutere klima- og arktiske spørgsmål, ikke rammer plet med de foreslåede emner, er det korrekt i identifikationen af de nødvendige deltagere.)

På den måde kunne 'Jordens Dag' transformeres og passende blive erstattet med 'Mars' dag'.

Læs LaRouche-organisationens hæfte her.

 




Befri Tyskland fra kleptomanernes kløer!
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, spidskandidat
for BüSo’s landsliste til Bundestag i Berlin

Utilfredsheden i befolkningen vokser, og dette med rette. Vi er nu, i marts 2021, på grund af EU’s elendige ”statusresultat” for Tyskland, konfronteret med den tredje bølge af COVID-19-pandemien. Som et resultat af årtiers privatisering af sundhedssystemet var vi derfor ikke velforberedte på udbruddet, i modsætning til Jens Spahns påstand i februar 2020 – en fejlbedømmelse som vi kan takke for, at regeringen dermed alt for sent begyndte at bestille medicinske hjælpemidler, som mundbind. Derefter, i stedet for først og fremmest at tage højde for deres egen befolknings sundhed, ved bestillingen af vacciner, så pro-EU-ideologerne denne krise som en kærkommen mulighed for yderligere at integrere EU, og at afgive ansvaret til et fuldkomment inkompetent EU-bureaokrati. Frem for i det almene vels ånd at investere i at maksimere produktionskapaciteterne for vacciner, overlod man alt til det ”frie marked”.

Dette inkompetencens regnskab: Mens Kina, et land med 1,4 milliarder mennesker, indtil nu kun har haft 4636 dødsfald som følge af pandemien, og hertil kunne konstatere en økonomisk vækst på over 2 %, var der i Tyskland indtil nu 73.120 dødsfald, og i Europa 880.644 dødsfald, mens økonomierne i alle Europas lande skrumpede med flere procent, og mange mennesker mistede deres arbejde og eksistensgrundlag.

Nu hersker der en stor utilfredshed over, at enkelte parlamentsmedlemmer har tjent sekscifrede beløb på leveringen af mundbind, og Wolfgang Schäuble svinger sig op til at være den vigtigste moralske apostel og udråber denne personlige berigelse til at være en skændsel. Men er det ikke en endnu større skændsel at bedrage den samlede europæiske befolkning med en ”Green Deal”, der vil ramme Europas industrilande som en nedrivningskugle og bringe dem til fald, ruinere landbruget, ødelægge arbejdspladser, kraftigt sænke levestandarden for langt den største del af befolkningen, og kun berige de rigeste og spekulanterne? For det er lige præcis denne politik, som Schäble, Merkel, Altmeier, Scholz, Draghi, Macron, von der Leyen & Co. står for!

Denne ”Green Deal”, en politik hvor alle investeringer, fra EU og nedefter gennem medlemslandene og bankerne, kun skal gives til ”grønne” teknologier og industrisektorer, vil ende med en brutal udslettelse af industri og landbrug, og som konsekvens føre til en reduktion af befolkningen. For der findes en direkte sammenhæng mellem energigennemstrømningstætheden i produktionsprocessen, produktiviteten og det antal mennesker, som disse kapaciteter kan understøtte. Den ”store omstilling gennem afkarboniseringen af verdensøkonomien”, som Schellnhuber og WBGU (Det videnskabelige råd for globale Klimaforandringer) allerede har agiteret for i næsten to årtier, og som nu omsættes fra von der Leyens side, betyder intet andet end at vende tilbage til et førindustrielt niveau. Den største profit går dog til spekulanterne, ankerne og kapitalfondene, dvs. finansoligarkiet, som investerer i denne moderne afladshandel – for det er hvad forretningen med CO2-certifikater er. En koalition af tolv amerikanske stater under ledelse af Missouris justitsminister, Eric Schmitt, klagede d. 8. marts over denne omfattende skade på det almene vel.  De bestrider Præsident Bidens udstedte ”forordning 13.990” med titlen: ”Beskyttelse af den offentlige sundhed og miljøet og genoprettelsen af videnskaben til overvindelse af klimakrisen”. Denne forordning befaler principielt det samme som EU’s ”Green Deal” eller de amerikanske demokraters ”Green New Deal”: En massiv reduktion af industri- og landbrugsproduktion, energiproduktion og -forbrug, eller en hvilken som helst anden aktivitet, som har udledning af såkaldte drivhusgasser til følge.

I et af klagens afsnit peges på det som det handler om, både i USA selv og globalt: ”Hvis dette dekret gøres gældende, vil det i mange årtier ud i fremtiden forårsage skader for hundrede af milliarder eller billioner dollars. Det vil ødelægge arbejdspladser, kvæle energiproduktionen, strangulere amerikansk energiuafhængighed, undertrykke landbruget, forhindre innovation og gøre familievirksomhederne fattige…” I klagen bemærkes det yderligere, at Biden-forordningen, ved udregningen af de ”sociale omkostninger”, fuldstændig ignorerer de indirekte følger, som reduktionen af drivhusgasserne ville have for hele verden. Selvom de tolv delstatsregeringer som klager – Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Montana, Ohio, Indiana, Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah und Missouri – er republikanske, handler det på ingen måde om partipolitisk opposition mod den demokratiske Biden-administration. Disse stater er kernen i det amerikanske landbrugsbælte, og de arbejdende landmænd her, hvoraf mange kæmper en overlevelseskamp mod kartellernes profitgrådighed, er ganske klar over verdens sultkatastrofe, der truer omkring 300 millioner mennesker verden over, og som chefen for FN’s Verdensfødevareprogram, David Beasley, igen og igen har advaret om. For Beasley var tidligere guvernør for South Carolina og er den dag i dag tæt forbundet med disse landmænd.

David Beasley berettede d. 9. marts i en video-telefonkonference med Associated Press fra Addis Abeba om de himmelskrigende omstændigheder, som han fandt på sin netop afsluttede tur i Yemen: ”Det er helvede – det skrækkeligste sted på Jorden”, den værste humanitære krise i verden som fuldkommen er forårsaget af menneskelige handlinger. I et hospital i Sana’a så han børn sulte lige foran sig, simpelthen fordi der ingen mad var. Mange er på dødens rand, selvom de sygdomme og svagheder ville være nemme at behandle, hvis midlerne var til stede. Normalt hører man gråd, larm og latter fra børneafdelingen. Men i Yemen hører man ingen gråd, ingen latter; der herskede en dødelig stilhed. Andre rapporterer berettede, at mange børn har hud som pergament og er afmagrede helt ind til knoglerne, før de dør. Yemen er helt bestemt det skrækkeligste sted på Jorden, men desværre er ret mange stater og regioner ikke langt fra en sådan situation. Syrien, Eritrea, Niger, Mozambique, Haiti, Nicaragua, Bolivia – listen over stater i den såkaldte udviklingssektor, som er ramt skrækkeligt hårdt af pandemien, af hungersnød og følgerne af den såkaldte uformelle økonomi, er lang.

Verdens fødevaremyndigheder har i år brug for 815 millioner dollars blot til Yemen for at redde millioner af mennesker fra sultedød, men lykkedes kun med at få skaffet 300 millioner. Hvad er disse latterlige 500 millioner i forhold til de 30 til 50 billioner (50.000.000.000.000), som centralbankerne ønsker at investere i EU’s Green Deal og USA’s Green New Deal over de næste 10 år, der kraftigt vil reducere industriens og landbrugets produktive kræfter? Verdensfødevareprogrammet har igen og igen advaret om, at alene i dette år trues 270 millioner mennesker akut med sultedøden. I betragtning af denne hidtil usete humanitære katastrofe er programmet ”Fra Jord til Bord” og EU’s biodiversitetsstrategi absolut skandaløse, fordi de vil reducere landbrugsproduktionen massivt pga. rent ideologisk motiverede nødtiltag. Her er grunden til, at de tyske landmænd med deres traktor-optog i flere måneder har gjort opmærksom på den truende udslettelse af landbrugets familiebrug. Den videnskabelige afdeling i USA’s landbrugsministerium har i sit økonomiske brev, nr. 30 fra november 2020, offentliggjort konklusionen af en prognose, hvor i følgerne fra EU’s landbrugspolitik indtil 2030 bliver vurderet, hvis de blev gennemført enten (a) blot indenfor EU, (b) gennem EU’s handelsregler i andre lande eller (c) globalt. I følge denne ville landbrugsproduktionen i EU skrumpe med 7-12%, verdens fødevarepriser ville stige med 9% (kun EU) og op til 89% (ved global indførelse), det samfundsmæssige udbytte ville blive reduceret med mellem 96 milliarder og 1,1 billioner dollars, og antallet af mennesker uden fødevaresikkerhed ville stige med mellem 22 og 185 millioner.

Konklusion: EU’s politik er ikke blot inkompetent, hvilket er blevet tilstrækkeligt demonstreret under corona-krisen; dens grønne ideologi ødelægger også grundlaget for vores landbrug, og er i lyset af hungerkatastrofen sågar absolut uansvarlig, for at sige det mildt.

BüSo kræver i stedet:

1. Den øjeblikkelige opbygning af et moderne sundhedssystem i hvert land på denne Jord, på et niveau som Tyskland var på før privatiseringen.

2. En fordobling af den globale landbrugsproduktion, således at, i betragtning af den voksende verdensbefolkning, sult og fattigdom kunne elimineres for alle mennesker.

3. At gøre en ende på kasinoøkonomien gennem en global Glass/Steagall-lovgivning.

4. Et nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, som kan stille produktive kreditter til rådighed for investeringer i den reelle økonomi.

5. Skabelsen af 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser for at genopbygge verdensøkonomien efter pandemien og seriøst begynde at overvinde underudviklingen i de såkaldte udviklingslande.

6. Samarbejde med Rusland og Kina ved udbygningen af Den nye Silkevej i Sydvestasien og Afrika, for dermed at fjerne årsagen til flygtningekrisen, og samtidig skabe en varig fredsorden.




Tolv amerikanske stater anlægger sag for at blokere ’Grøn Nulstillings’-angreb

Den 9. marts 2021 (EIRNS) – Siden udgivelsen i februar af EIR’s specialrapport, "The Great Leap Backward: LaRouche Exposes the Green New Deal" (Det store spring tilbage: LaRouche afslører den grønne nye Plan), med henblik på at anspore til handling for at besejre den malthusianske politik for befolkningsreduktion – der kaldes lidt forskelligt: 'the Green (New) Deal', 'the Great Reset' samt 'Stakeholder Capitalism' – er der nu visse vigtige opponerende initiativer.

I USA lagde Missouri plus 11 andre stater den 8. marts sag an ved en føderal domstol for at blokere præsident Bidens bekendtgørelser, der krævede omfattende grøn "nulstillings"-politik – og modsatte sig både deres skadelige indhold og deres form for håndhævelse ved ulovligt dekret. Retssagens argumenter er ligetil.

For det første hævder retssagen, at den grønne politik vil forårsage dyb skade for de involverede stater samt landsdækkende ved at skære ned for produktionen, undertrykke landbruget, mindske forsyningen og pålideligheden af energi, forarme folket og andre destruktive påvirkninger nu og i årtier fremover. For det andet hævder sagen, at Det hvide Hus ikke har myndighed til at erklære politik på disse områder; kun Kongressen har myndigheden og ansvaret.

Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, bemærkede i dag vigtigheden af dette initiativ internationalt. "Dette er et afgørende gennembrud", der skal bruges imod den grønne angrebsbølge. Især bør der tages initiativer til gavn for offentligheden i Europa, som er arnestedet for den afskyelige EU 'Green Deal' og for parallelle programmer i Storbritannien, der er vært for det næste FN-klimatopmøde i Glasgow til november.

Sagsanlægget anklager Bidens dekret nr. 13.990 med titlen: "Beskyttelse af folkesundheden og miljøet og genopretning af videnskaben for at tackle klimakrisen" for uretmæssigt at udstede bindende tal for de "sociale omkostninger" af drivhusgasser, der derefter skal bruges i føderale reguleringer som påskud for at reducere vigtig økonomisk aktivitet.

Ét afsnit af sagsanlægget udsiger, hvad der står på spil, indenlandsk og globalt: "Hvis dekretet står ved magt, vil den påføre skader for hundreder af milliarder eller billioner dollars på den amerikanske økonomi i årtier fremover. Det vil ødelægge jobs, kvæle energiproduktion, kvæle Amerikas energiuafhængighed, undertrykke landbruget, afskrække innovation og forarme arbejdende familier… Desuden hævder retssagen, at "amerikansk landbrugs- og energiproduktion – som disse handlinger [Bidens forordninger] ville kvæle – har globale fordele… som beriger hele verden, og alligevel gav Biden-administrationen dem ringe eller ingen vægt i beregningen af de 'sociale omkostninger' af kuldioxid, metan og kvælstof".

Lederen af det juridiske initiativ er statsanklageren i Missouri, Eric Schmitt, en sandsynlig kandidat for det republikanske parti til det amerikanske Senat, og de andre stater har ligeledes republikanske regeringer, men dette er hverken et partispørgsmål eller sågar blot en "problemstilling". Medklagerne er kernestater i landbrugsbæltet — Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Montana, Ohio og Indiana, sammen med Missouri plus Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee og Utah. De tiltalte inkluderer ikke alene præsident Biden, men 10 føderale departementer, især landbrug, energi, transport, indenrigsministeriet og lignende agenturer.  https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2021/03/08/missouri-attorney-general-leads-12-state-coalition-in-filing-suit-against-the-biden-administration-over-massive-expansion-of-federal-regulations

En anden aktion, der kraftigt modsætter sig det globale grønne "store spring tilbage" kommer fra Rusland. Den 2. marts afholdt præsident Vladimir Putin et stort nationalt møde om betydningen af kul. Med alle de relevante ministre til stede, samt ledere fra minedrift, transport, industri og andre, gennemgik Putin den økonomiske geografi og de involverede mål. Rusland producerer cirka 400 millioner tons om året fra fem store regioner, hvor der bor cirka 11 millioner mennesker. Han sagde, at halvdelen af produktionen eksporteres, hvilket er meget vigtigt for den asiatiske Stillehavsregion. Han opfordrede til at øge kulleverancerne østpå fra Kuznetsk-bassinet med 30% frem til 2024. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/65085

Putin kommenterede skarpt det nylige energisvigt i USA i passende bemærkninger om, hvordan "tilpasninger" i energipolitikken skulle foretages, når det er nødvendigt, som de foretages i Rusland. Han sagde: "Hvad angår de langsigtede udsigter for det globale kulmarked ud over det nuværende årti, ved jeg, at der er forskellige prognoser i denne henseende. Det er ingen hemmelighed, at nogle af dem antyder en markant nedgang. … Vi ved også hvad der sker med dette. Texas frøs på grund af det kolde vejr. Og vindmøllerne måtte optøs på måder, der er langt fra miljøvenlige. Måske dette også vil medføre tilpasninger".

I mellemtiden er baggrunden for disse positive skridt til at forsvare og udvide væsentlig økonomisk aktivitet det faktum, at det monetaristiske, finansielle system i sig selv smuldrer og har et presserende behov for en finansiel reorganisering af Glass/Steagall-typen. En sigende begivenhed i Tyskland er Greensill-bankens nylige krak i Bremen. Omkring 50 kommunale indskydere, fx i Giessen, er i bekneb for midler, de har brug for til bymæssig infrastruktur og drift.

Zepp-LaRouche understregede i dag, at i sammenhæng med det forestående økonomiske nedbrud og det grønne angreb af selvdestruktion af de nationale økonomier, vil den fortsatte forfølgelse af geopolitikken uundgåeligt føre til krig. Der er intet andet alternativ end at bevæge sig til et nyt paradigme.

I lyset af dette er Schiller Instituttets kommende internationale konference et kritisk interventionspunkt. Spred muligheden. Spred momentum! Det er 20.-21. marts med titlen: "Verden ved en skillevej: to måneder inde i den nye amerikanske administration". https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/20210320-konference




POLITISK ORIENTERGING den 4. marts 2021:
Det er ikke i Israel, men i samarbejde med Kina og Rusland,
at COVID-19 og andre problemer løses

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

 

Lyd: (Der er ingen lyd i et par korte udfald, hvor der blev stillet spørgsmål.)

Schiller Instituttet · Det er ikke i Israel, men i samarbejde med Kina og Rusland, at COVID-19 og andre problemer løses



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

c

 

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

The LaRouche Organization Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Wednesday, February 17, 2021

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: And join the Schiller Institute!




NYHEDSORIENTERING JANUAR 2021:
Rigsdagsbrand i USA // Stop finansverdens grønne New Deal

Download (PDF, Unknown)




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 29. januar 2021:
Regimeskifte i USA og den “grønne genstart” fjerner ikke verdens problemer

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: (via Zoom)

 

eller her på YouTube.

Lyd:

 

Schiller Instituttet · Regimeskifte i USA og den "grønne genstart" fjerner ikke verdens problemer.

 




Overvind Davos’ ”store omstilling” med LaRouches nye paradigme.
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche,
den 27. januar 2021

Se Helgas Ugentlige webcast, her:

Mens de utopiske fascister fra den globalistiske erhvervselite har planlagt at bruge den nuværende Davos-konference som det tidspunkt, hvor de gennemtrumfer deres globale bankdiktatur for at indføre en dødbringende Grøn New Deal, er der tegn på, at en opposition vokser, centreret omkring Kina og Rusland, som også inkluderer nogle europæiske elementer. Helga Zepp-LaRouche beskrev konferencen hidtil som "en pose blandede bolsjer" og sagde, at finansoligarkerne, der fremmer negativ økonomisk vækst og befolkningsreduktion, er stødt ind i ledende nationers hensigter, som ikke er villige til at overgive deres suverænitet for "aktionær-kapitalismens” skyld. Begge præsidenter Xi og Putin opfordrede til samarbejde og multilaterale løsninger, og Xi sagde, at den unipolære model, der afhænger af at sætte nationer op mod hinanden, er forældet. I det som Zepp-LaRouche kaldte et "tidens tegn", støttede Tysklands kansler Merkel Xis appel for multilateralisme, som hun sagde, stred mod den idé, som præsident Biden søsatte for et "demokratisk topmøde" for alle nationer mod Kina og Rusland.

Mens Helga Zepp-LaRouche var forsigtigt optimistisk med hensyn til Biden-Putin-aftalen om at ratificere en femårig NY START-atomnedrustningsaftale, sagde hun, at Bidens belæring af Putin om de sædvanlige geopolitiske spørgsmål viser, at dem der står bag ham stadig er fast besluttet på en strategisk orientering, der kan føre til krig. Yderligere betyder de rige landes manglende evne til at yde hjælp til fattigere lande med at bekæmpe COVID19-pandemien, at vi enten fremtvinger en ændring i tankegangen, eller også vil pandemien ikke blive overvundet. Den eneste løsning på de problemer, som Xi og Putin rejste i deres taler, er den fulde indførelse af Lyndon LaRouches plan for en firmagtsaftale [mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien] for at etablere et Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, og at gennemføre LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love på verdensplan. Hun opfordrede seerne til at slutte sig til Schiller Instituttet for at hjælpe til med at realisere potentialet for et globalt system, der giver mulighed for udvikling af alle nationer.

 

Engelsk afskrift:

HARLEY SCHLANGER:  Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger, welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche: It’s Jan. 27th, 2021.  And I think we should start with the ongoing summit of the World Economic Forum, the Davos billionaires, the gathering of corporatists from around the world to talk about the “Great Reset.”

Helga, what’s the latest you have on what’s going on there?

 HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  It’s a mixed bag, because on the one side, you have all the CEOs of the large firms and banks, BlackRock, Standard Chartered, you have basically the people who—they don’t talk about the Great Reset any more because that has been discredited a lot, so they’re calling it the “Great Transition.” For example, Bill Winters who’s the CEO of Standard Chartered bank, said this is the great $50 trillion opportunity for the next ten years; others like Philip Hildebrand, the Vice President of BlackRock and so forth, they’re all saying they need a lot private finance, private investment.  Basically this is a scheme to transform the world economy, get rid of fossil fuels, naturally no emphasis on nuclear energy, and it would mean to bring the energy flux-density of the world down to a level where, for sure, the present level of more than 7 billion people cannot be maintained.  As a matter of fact, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, the former head of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, he had said many times that he thought the ideal population for the world is 1 billion, and if these policies of these people would be implemented, you would destroy the world’s industrial capacities. Because if you eliminate fossil fuels—first of all there are clean coal plants now; secondly if you eliminate coal plants, especially for the developing sector, there is no way how you can prevent mass death!  And obviously, this is the hidden, or not so hidden, implication of all of these schemes.

This is a big danger, because these are people who are allied with the central banks, the Fed, the ECB, the Bank of England, all the large corporations, but they’re not the only ones in the world who count, because there was also Xi Jinping, who gave the keynote. For some reason WEF director Klaus Schwab asked him to give the keynote, and he had a quite different tone.  First of all, he said the mode of setting countries against each other is outmoded and that what is needed is a multilateralism which is in the interest of all participants.  He also emphasized a lot the role of science and technology innovation, that China is continuously intending to help the other countries of the South to overcome poverty.

So I think the fact that China is just existing, and is offering a different model of development, including having now started to deliver vaccines for the COVID pandemic to 150 countries, is setting a different tone.  And if these oligarchs of the big banks and corporations want to push through their scheme it just means they will dismantle the industries of the United States and Europe and other countries that go along with that; but I don’t think that they can win.  So it is a sign of the times that Chancellor Merkel, who spoke after Xi Jinping basically supported Xi Jinping in his idea of having multilateralism.  She said she does not want to be put in a position where she has to choose where one bloc is centered around the United States and another one is centered around China, and that she thinks future relations must be based on multilateralism.

Now, this is very important, because, as we know, President Biden has been pushing, or had hoped to have this “Democracy Summit” which was his idea to collect all the NATO countries and get them all lined up against China and against Russia; so that is obviously not functioning, so you see a new—it’s still in a nascent form and baby steps, but you see a tendency in Europe to not want to be treated like the colonies of whatever is being said in Washington, and indirectly, naturally, with London given the marching orders from behind.  So this is an interesting development.

However, I just got a report before we started this program, about the speech of President Putin, and while I didn’t have time to read it at length, I think some of the elements which he said are extremely important: Because he said that the danger is that the world risks a conflict of all against all if global development concerns are not taken care. And he also said that he really hopes that it will not come to a hot global conflict, because this could mean the end to our civilization.  [http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64938]

I think Putin, and the Russians in general, are very clearly aware of the dangers in general are very clearly aware of the dangers which are in the situation, and I think it’s very important that he expressed it with that clarity. 

I think this Davos virtual summit is just a measurement of where the different forces in the world stand. I think the decisions are being made by the central banks and the forces of Wall Street, City of London, Silicon Valley, and that is the new oligarchical power, which is the real problem. 

But as I said, it’s a divided world, and there is an alternative between absolute zero growth, or reduction of growth, poverty, leading to war and conflict, and the perspective of joining hands to attack the problems of underdevelopment together.  So I think it’s new and naturally, people like the BlackRock representative said there is now a new game change, a new landscape because Biden is the new President and he has brought the United States back into this Green New Deal arrangement—yeah, that’s true and it’s very problematic for the United States, but as I said, that is not the only story in town.

  SCHLANGER: To continue that thread a little bit, if you think about what you just said on what Putin said and what Xi said, it’s clear that the alternative to what’s being pushed by the central banks is your husband’s proposal for the four powers as having the strength to combat Wall Street, the City of London and so on. Now in that, when we’re talking about Biden and Putin, they had a discussion yesterday which had some interesting aspects to it, starting with the renewal of the START agreement, but what do you make of that talk?

 ZEPP-LAROUCHE: From the little which is known about it, I think it was useful, because they agreed that the New START Treaty will be extended for five years, which is what Putin had offered, and both sides expressed that it’s in their mutual interest.  [Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei] Ryabkov said that this is very good because it gives five years for a complete reevaluation and the refounding of the relationship between the United States and Russia.  Naturally, then of course, Biden could not help himself to bring in the usual geopolitical issues, like the Navalny case, the supposed hacking of SolarWinds, and similar things, so he had to say these things; but I think it’s important, because when the two largest nuclear powers stop talking, then this is the most dangerous. So while I’m not saying that this is resolving anything, I think it is an important first step. And it is important, because the world is really in a very dangerous situation, so I think that that’s what one can say about it.

SCHLANGER:  One of the dangers is the continuing inability of big powers, including the European Union and the United States, to bring the coronavirus pandemic under control.  This was discussed peripherally there, and Biden’s coming up with a plan.  But unless you deal with this as you proposed, as an international question, with a new health system for every nation, this is not going to be stopped by the kind of half-measures that are being taken.

 ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, there is obviously an effort to beef up the production of vaccines. I think there are efforts being made. But now, there’s a huge scandal in Europe, because—this is unfortunately true, that the EU was very slow in ordering vaccines; they clearly had the idea of saving money rather than ordering as many different products from different firms and then see which one comes first, and there is no danger to order too many, because if you have too much you can give it all the other countries in need.  So this was clearly not done by [European Commission President Ursula] Von Der Leyen; she’s now targetted even in {Bildzeitung}—this tabloid—that she did not order, and that the result is in Germany, it’s going very slowly; in other countries in Europe, it’s going very slowly, and this is a reflection of the same austerity  mentality which is really—I hope it shortens the career of Von Der Leyen, because she is just the wrong person to be in any leading position in Europe.

The real problem, however, is what the head of the African Union and President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa said, who pointed to the fact that so far the rich countries have mostly cared for themselves, and he said there will be no solution to the pandemic as long as one country is not having the necessary vaccines.  And Tedros from the World Health Organization said that the behavior of the rich countries so far, which got themselves 95% of all the vaccine orders, and leaving the so-called third world with only 5%, that this is a “catastrophic moral failure.”  One can only hope that this is being remedied as quickly as possible, because it now turns out that the idea that Africa was having relatively little problems with COVID-19, turns out not to be true, and as we suspected, it was only due to non-reporting, little testing; and now it comes out through a study from a university in Zambia, that especially the age group between 19 and 59 years of age have the highest mortality rate, {and} children! Now, as we also know there are new strains in Britain, in South Africa, and in Brazil, which are much more lethal and also spread more quickly; and there are now medical experts warning that what could happen is that one of these new mutations, new variants, could develop to become vaccine-resistant. If that would happen, then we would be in a very dramatic situation.

So I think there is not yet a recognition, at least not in any way necessary, of the leading institutions, to really understand that we are in a race against time, because it is very clear that the economic collapse coming from the COVID pandemic, is going to ruin a lot of industrial substance. For example, in Germany and other European countries, a lot of small and medium firms are not going to make it.  The situation now, where a possible lockdown will start again in a hard way in France, or it has started already, with lockdowns from 6 in the evening until morning, people are not allowed to leave their house; so a lot of economic hardship will follow, and a lot of substance will be destroyed. 

So either there is a change in the attitude, that people understand that you have to start to build modern health systems in every single country, or this cannot be controlled, that rethinking has not yet started in a serious fashion and that’s what the Schiller Institute is campaigning for.  Because unless we take this crisis to really start to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing countries in a serious way, there is no guarantee that this will not lead to a major crisis.  And I think Putin, in his speech in Davos reflected that dimension very clearly, that out of chaos you could have a global catastrophe.

The ILO just reported that the loss of jobs in 2020 was equivalent to 255 million fulltime jobs. I don’t think that covers all the shadow industry jobs, but that’s a significant number, and they expect another 130 million losses in 2021, and they say this does not yet take into account the likelihood of a fourth and a fifth wave.  So that all makes clear that we have to change the whole situation:  I cannot see a willingness right now on the side of the central banks in Europe, the United States, to go in that direction, but that will be a subject of mobilizing the population, because if these institutions are unable to reform—and you know, if you look at the situation, with the riots having now spread to Holland, where for four days you had massive riots in 10 cities; last week we had the same thing in Denmark.  This was not unlike the mob which stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 in the United States, and if you now have more job losses, more unemployment, the danger of blackouts—we have a huge danger that if this Green energy policy is implemented that you will have blackouts leading to complete chaos, I think this could really lead to major social upheavals, and the only way to avoid that would be to really go for our program, starting with the health system in every country.  And we have published this program for 1.5 billion productive new jobs, which have to be created [https://larouchepub.com/special_report/2020/larouche-plan-for-1500000000-jobs.pdf]. And despite the coronavirus condition there has to be a rethinking and there has to be a vision for the population to see the light at the end of the tunnel, that even if some of these things will be very difficult to implement under coronavirus conditions, I think it is important that there is a willingness by the leading institutions to address that.  

Xi Jinping in his speech in Davos also mentioned that he wants to strengthen the G20, because he said that that is the institution to build up global governance—well, that is important because as long as you have some countries at least in that combination that go in a different direction, it is important.  And just to mention it, China has had last year 550,000 new patents, which is an increase of 17%; that is because the Chinese government put a lot of emphasis on science and technological progress innovation, and there was just a study by a German university that found that the civil law in China is compatible to Western standards, essentially because they took the entire canon of civil law in Germany as a model to write their Chinese civil law.  So the university study comes to the conclusion that this an absolutely Western standard and there’s no reason to complain about it.

 And I think there has to be a rethinking about a lot of the prejudices in the anti-China/anti-Russia campaign, because if we want to solve the problems of the world, we have to stop geopolitical confrontation and find a way of putting our forces together to address these urgent questions which face all of humanity.

 SCHLANGER:  As far as being stuck in the old paradigm, we have this fight continuing in the United States against Donald Trump, with the impeachment bill from the House moving to the Senate for trial.  This is dividing the country once again.  It’s being used to create the kind of confrontation that would serve as a pretext for more crackdowns, more censorship. You mentioned that you are somewhat excited, or intrigued by what Tulsi Gabbard said, and also what Putin had said about this.  What’s your thought about what’s going on with this impeachment?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, there was the vote in the Senate where only five Republican Senators voted with the Democrats, so the impeachment trial will start on Feb. 9th, but I think it has almost zero chance to succeed, because they would need 17 Republican Senators to go along, and there are already now many voices that there is no basis in the Constitution to even do that, because the Constitution does not allow for private persons to be impeached.  So you can impeach a sitting President, but not a former President.  So that is a big argument. And the whole campaign is ludicrous in the first place, because Trump did not incite violence and the mob to storm the Capitol, despite the narrative which is being put out by the media and the Democrats.  He gave a speech to his supporters!  And then said, “let’s move down Pennsylvania Avenue,” and “we have to take back the country”—I mean, these are normal things to say; many politicians have said many things like that.  So it’s a complete orchestration, and to somehow now criminalize 75 million Trump voters is also not going to work. 

It is the danger of a polarization, naturally, and what Tulsi Gabbard said is quite to the point. She said that the mob which stormed the Capitol, this is dangerous, but she said also dangerous is the John Brennans and the Adam Schiffs and the Big Tech, but they’re more dangerous because they’re more powerful.

 Now, also Putin, in his speech at the World Economic Forum pointed to the role of the Big Tech that they have more power than the elected governments, and I think this is something which should be of concern to everybody, because if these Big Tech firms can allow people to say one thing, and not allow another thing, make total censorship, this is really dictatorship.  And I think the population must be mobilized against it, and governments around the world must take measures to put these high tech  firms under control and under government regulation.  And Biden, if he doesn’t do it, will be discredited by that as much, as well.

 SCHLANGER: Also a reflection of the old paradigm is the effort to continue with sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 project, which is very far advanced in terms of the U.S., the U.K., NATO, and there’s a reaction growing against this from Germany.  What do you think is going to happen?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it’s going to be built. I think it’s only few kilometers left.  They restarted the completion of it, and the government spokesman of Merkel, Steffen Seibert said that this is not something which concerns the government, because it’s a private contract between private firms, and even the Environment Minister Svenja Schulze said these were contracts which were made many years ago, and it would put into question the reliability of Germany as a partner in any kind of trade deal if they would now stop it.  So I think this is interesting, and as I said, I do see baby steps of self-assertion on the side of the German government, and I think it is a tendency in Europe as well; and one could only hope that it would continue.

SCHLANGER: A lot of what you’ve been discussing today Helga, is related to the fight between the old paradigm and the new paradigm, which I think is becoming more obvious to a large number of people.  You’ve been at the center of this fight, you’ve made it the cause of the Schiller Institute to push for a move into a new paradigm, outside of the realm of the false choices that are presented by geopolitics, with neoliberalism.  What can you say to the viewers, that they need to do, to make sure we get this push for a new paradigm?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  We have a program. The program was in large part authored by my late husband Lyndon LaRouche, who said that we need absolutely to have a New Bretton Woods system which has one main goal: to overcome the underdevelopment of the developing sector. Now that happens to be exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt intended the Bretton Woods system to be, which it never became, because he died before it could be established. But I think that there is the potential to have a global system which allows the development of all nations.  It is the sign of the times. 

The fact that China, Russia, about 150 other nations are going in this direction, I think this is something which is a hopeful development, and I don’t think the efforts by the Biden Administration to go back to the old confrontation with China, with Russia—well, the only thing it can bring is World War III, in which case, nobody would enjoy it, not Biden, and not anybody of his cabinet.  They have no way of crushing this ferment without causing World War III.  Now, that’s a real danger and I don’t want to belittle it for one second.  But I think that if people really think about, there is a way to solve this problem, and that is to do exactly what the American System of economy was, in the beginning of the American republic, what the German economic miracle was in the postwar period, to go back to scientific and technological progress, to go in the direction of increase of productivity, the Four Laws which were designed by my late husband, to go for global Glass-Steagall, get rid of the casino economy; implement national bank in every single country on the planet; then go in the direction of a credit system, cooperate in long-term development projects—it would bring the whole world out of this crisis! 

And we have reached a point, where one year after the pandemic, at a point where it’s very clear the economy is in a very dangerous collapse phase, I mean: Are human beings capable of reflecting on the mistakes which were made and correcting them? I fundamentally think, absolutely yes.  It’s just that we need the kind of discussion, how should we shape the world for this coming period, for the next hundred years, and then take the vision of having the idea of peaceful cooperation.  Why don’t we just allow the different systems, if a country wants to have a different social system and is not trying to impose that on another one, why should we not accept that?  Accept sovereignty, accept non-interference into the internal affairs, accept the different social system.  Can we not have an alliance of republics working for the common good of all of humanity?  That’s what John Quincy Adams was advocating, and I think that that is exactly what is needed now. 

And I also think this must be combined with a cultural renaissance: I think we have to realize in the West that this exaggerated liberalism, where you replace moral standards with the principle of everything is allowed, the more pornographic, the more violent, the more perverse something becomes, the more interesting it becomes—that was a wrong way!  And I think we have lost our way in the West, and all we have to do, is to do the same thing that China is doing, what Russia is doing; they went back to their own high traditions of their high culture.  There is a big revival of 5,000 years of tradition in China.  Russia is doing the same thing.  And we could do the same thing as well!  In Europe, we have a {beautiful} European Classical period, we have the Italian Renaissance, the Andalusian renaissance, we have the Ecole Polytechnique in France; we have the German Classical period. In America, you have the principles of the American Revolution, the American System of economy.  We have so many wonderful traditions which we could revive and be an absolute important shaping factor in the future world.  And I think we have to mobilize the population to rally around that, and then solutions are possible.

So I want to invite all of you, our viewers, to join with us, and help us to get the world out of this crisis.

SCHLANGER: Well, Helga, thank you for your insights, and your optimism in this moment of pessimism, confusion, demoralization is really refreshing, and it ought to be something that will bring people to The LaRouche Organization.  We welcome all of viewers to go to the websites of The LaRouche Organization and the Schiller Institute, where you can much more in-depth material on what Helga has been discussing today.

Helga, thanks for joining us this week, and we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week!




Den kommende mobilisering: Modstå og bekæmp den grønne ’New Deal’

25. januar (EIRNS) — EIR og Schiller Instituttet vil snart begynde at cirkulere en stærk afsløring af de finansielle oligarkers såkaldte “Green Deal”-plan, samt det strategiske modtræk med finansiering af højteknologisk udvikling til at besejre den. Denne rapport bygger på specialrapporten, som vi offentliggjorde i maj sidste år, "LaRouche-planen for genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi: Verden har brug for 1,5 milliarder nye produktive job", der stadig er den eneste fulde skitse for virkelig at vende de forfærdelige økonomiske effekter af COVID-19-pandemien, og forsvare os mod den næste.

EIR's 'Alert Service' har advaret om, at Det verdensøkonomiske Forums fem dages konference, 'Davos Agenda', der startede i dag, involverer en plan – "Great Reset" eller "Green Deal" – udarbejdet af britiske oligarker og bankfolk fra City of London, Wall Street og de største centralbanker om at forbyde "urene" moderne energiteknologier og bruge titusinder af milliarder på "nye", i realiteten primitive energiteknologier. Processen vil reducere den menneskelige befolkning, dens frihed og dens velfærd på måder, der er meget ubehagelige for milliarder af de "andre 99%". Kun inderkredsen omkring de britiske kongelige vil indrømme, at det er deres mål.

Med chok har den sydafrikanske regering måttet erfare, at dens nye kulkraftprojekter annulleres, og at den er under pres for, i indeværende årti, at lukke mange af kulkraftværkerne, der leverer størstedelen af elkraften til hele landet.  Verdens største fondsforvaltningsselskab, Wall Streets BlackRock, Inc., har presset Sydkoreas førende energitekniske firma, som bygger de sydafrikanske energi-komplekser, til at opgive dem. Andre projekter i Indonesien og Filippinerne er underlagt samme trussel. I Kenya forsvinder finansieringen til udvikling af et oliefelt, der var nøglen til en ny jernbane- og havnekorridor, der forbinder den nordlige del af landet med sine naboer. Præsidenten i Ghana kommer under hårdt pres for at droppe planerne om et atomkraftanlæg, der skulle være kernen i hans udviklingsprogram.

I London bekendtgør regeringsinstitutioner arrogant et tilbud på 1 mia. $ til hele Afrika og Indien som kompensation for nedlukning af kul og olie!

I USA er halvdelen af alle kulkraftværkerne i løbet af fem år nedlagt af BlackRocks og Sir Michael Bloombergs kampagne, "Beyond Coal", til trods for præsident Donald Trump.

I Tyskland eller USA indebærer den fortsatte indførelse af en ”Green New Deal” enorme priser på elkraft, industrielt kaos, blackouts… Men i Afrika, Indien eller hvilket som helst udviklingsland indebærer det befolkningsreduktion med millioner af unødvendige dødsfald.

Den siddende britiske kongelige malthusianske prins Charles og hans hold af øko-rådgivere og bankvenner i City of London mener, at de nu, efter 30 år med "Earth Summits", Davos-konferencer og Green New Deals, endelig har fået sat et finansielt kvælergreb ind mod menneskeskarerne og de "snavsede" fossile brændstoffer og "farlige" nukleare teknologier, der har gjort det muligt for den menneskelige befolkning at vokse. De jubler over afskedigelsen af præsident Donald Trump, som var den mest magtfulde modstander af deres Green New Deal, og som trak USA ud af den økonomisk dræbende Paris-klimaaftale. Nu mener de, at regeringerne ikke vil modsætte sig dem og storfinanserne, og at "the Green Finance", som de kalder det, vil udsulte disse, de mest produktive energiteknologier, for al kapital til at eksistere. Joe Biden tager Det hvide Hus med sig ind i deres lejr.

Men vi har også gjort det klart, at denne plan kan stoppes. I høj grad på grund af Kinas indflydelse, modsætter de asiatiske nationer sig; og det gør Putins Rusland også.

World Economic Forum udsendte et strategipapir til deres konference i denne uge, hvori det hævdede, at 30 billioner $ i kapitalfonde har forpligtet sig til "grøn finansiering"; at forhindre investeringer i fossile brændstoffer eller atomkraft. De vil angiveligt kun investere i miljømæssige, sociale og regeringsmæssige formål – øregas! Men de indrømmede, at kun 0,8% af denne “grønne økonomi” var i Asien!

I virkeligheden fører prinsen og hans oligarker en europæisk krig imod økonomisk fremskridt rettet mod Asien og Afrika. Kinesiske banker finansierer tre fjerdedele af kulkraftprojekterne i alle udviklingslande, og alt imens dets ledere bruger sproget i Paris-klimaaftalen, planlægger Kina stadig at producere halvdelen af sin elkraft fra kul i 2050 – med meget af den anden halvdel fra kernekraftværker. Indien og Rusland er lige så engagerede i kulkraft, atomkraft og det internationale lynprogram for fusionskraft, som Putin opfordrede til i juli 2018, samt til rumforskning og rumvidenskab.

Vi ved, hvordan denne form for udvikling kan finansieres uden nogen grønne finans- eller centralbankfolk – ved at skabe nationale bankinstitutioner efter Hamiltons principper i hvert land. Som en første opgave skal der opbygges et moderne sundhedsvæsen og et offentligt sundhedssystem i alle lande.

Vi er nødt til at kæmpe med Biden-administrationen for denne industrialiserings- og udviklingspolitik, som den uforlignelige økonom for det amerikanske system, Lyndon LaRouche, udtænkte den. Smid den store nulstilling ud. Afvis Bidens ideer om "Earth Day" -topmøder, fordi det er at spille det britiske oligarkis spil. Vi må kæmpe for en konference til at iværksætte LaRouches "Nye Bretton Woods." EIR’s kommende hvidbog vil være det indledende våben i denne kamp.

 

Billede:Senate Democrats, CC BY 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

 




Prins Charles lancerer ‘Terra Charta’ for at ødelægge menneskehedens
fysiske økonomi og kraftigt reducere befolkningstallet

Introduktion: Den 24. januar (EIRNS) – Mandag begynder World Economic Forum i Davos, Schweiz for alvor. Søndagen bragte Klaus Schwabs velkomstbemærkninger, der pegede på temaerne 'stakeholder' (interessent-)kapitalisme og "global forvaltning" (en grøn overtagelse af forretningslivet og nedlukning af pålidelige energikilder). Ugens begivenheder vil presse kraftigt på for en nulstilling af global ledelse i retning af et ”regimeskifte” til fordel for storfinanserne og centralbankerne, som det blev promoveret ved mødet i Jackson Hole i 2019, og ”Terra Charta”-idéen om overnational kontrol over verden for at afværge den formodede klimatiske katastrofale nødsituation. De grønne drømme løber ind i barske realiteter, når de forsøges gennemført. En moderne, produktiv, vibrerende verden kan simpelthen ikke basere sig på "vedvarende" energikilder.

22. januar (EIRNS) — Hans Kongelige Højhed Charles, Prince of Wales, lancerede den 11. januar det han kalder en ”Terra Charta for Naturen, Befolkningen og Planeten”, eller “Jordens Charter”, for at gennemtrumfe et grønt folkemorderisk program for radikal befolkningsreduktion, gennemført med et diktatur af centralbankfolk.

Planen på 18 sider, der blev frigivet to uger før den specielle "Davos Dagsorden", World Economic Forum den 25.-29. Januar, skal aktiveres af prinsen af Wales' initiativ for bæredygtige markeder, som han præsenterede på Davos-konferencen i 2020. Charles understregede, at den private forretningssektor er nøglen til at gennemføre hans politik, idet regeringer kan formulere politikken, men har ikke beføjelser til at gennemføre den. Dette er en opfordring til en korporativ-synarkistisk topstyret indførelse af planen uden om regeringernes magt.

Den 19. januar rapporterede websiden 'Intelligent Living', at Terra Charta allerede har opbakning fra Bank of America, HSBC og BlackRock, som besidder aktiver for 7,8 billioner $, og som har spillet en central rolle i at presse på for et diktatur af verdens centralbankfolk.

Charles fremstiller mennesket som en ødelægger af naturen – "Menneskeheden… har forårsaget en enorm ødelæggelse af den planet, der opretholder vores eksistens" – og han angriber hele tiden menneskehedens kreativitet.

Artikel 8 hudfletter statsstøtte til videnskabeligt landbrug og opfordrer til at afslutte en sådan bistand: ”Undersøgelse af hvordan man tackler forstokkede subsidier, udlån og investeringer (f.eks. til fossilt brændsel, skovbrug, fiskeri og landbrug). At vende denne forkvaklede praksis har potentialet til hurtigt at omdirigere ressourcer for at fremskynde overgangen til bæredygtige industrier og en bæredygtig fremtid. Dette skift vil også ændre tilværelsen og levebrødet for millioner af små landmænd, jordbesiddere og fiskere, tillige med landdistrikter og kystsamfund rundt om i verden”. Dette ville i virkeligheden flytte mennesker til små primitive gårde – snarere end avancerede familiebedrifter – ude af stand til at brødføde andre end det siddende oligarkis udvalgte, på et tidspunkt hvor hungersnød, ifølge Verdensfødevareprogrammet, truer med at dræbe 270 millioner mennesker i år.

Der er ordninger for grønne spekulative bobler i artikel 1: "Tilskyndelse til innovative finansielle instrumenter for at øge og fremskynde overgangsfasen på tværs af virksomheder, industrier og lande".

Hvorfor kalde forslaget "Terra Charta"? Som det siges i en video med Charles sendt til The Times den 19. januar: ”I 1215 lagde Magna Charta grundlaget for universelle menneskerettigheder. Et af fire eksemplarer opbevares i Salisbury Cathedral. [Viser Charles, iført en grøn ansigtsmaske på spadseretur gennem Salisbury Cathedral.] Det er tid til at udvide de universelle rettigheder til ikke kun at omfatte menneskeheden, men til naturen". Som det meste af hans 90-sekunder lange video er sammenligningen af ​​universelle menneskerettigheder med noget, der kaldes "universelle naturrettigheder", dybsindig, men alligevel meningsløs. Faktisk undertvang 'Magna Charta', det store frihedsbrev mellem Kong Johans normanniske oligarki og den angelsaksiske adel, folket i det Plantagenet-besatte England for udplyndring af det normanniske oligarki. Tilsvarende vil Terra Charta underkaste menneskeheden udplyndring fra det britiske imperiums monarki og deres fejlslagne finansoligarki i City of London og Wall Street. Ved hjælp af undskyldningen om at "redde naturen" vil de plyndre så meget af menneskeheden som de kan, og dræbe dem de ikke kan plyndre.

Arvingen til House of Windsors trone skærer denne plyndring ud i pap: Han hævder, at der findes en naturlig kapital – floderne, regnskovene, koralrevene, regioner med "biodiversitet" – som, hvis mennesket "trækker dem for langt ned", vil ødelægge kloden. Derfor må mennesket foretage investeringer, ikke alene for at fremstille teknologier fra det 14. århundrede som vindmøller og solpaneler, men mennesket må have et charter om at investere for at ”genopbygge” naturkapitalen. I artikel 7 skriver Charles, ”Det er på tide at definere de fordele, som vi får fra den naturlige verden, og redegøre for naturlig kapital i virksomhedernes regnskaber. Uden dette kan virksomhederne ikke kende den sande værdi af deres aktiver eller vide hvor skadelig deres aktiviteter kan være”.

Desuden, for at finansiere denne plan, kræves "nye og innovative modeller som grønne/blå obligationer til skove, rev, mangrover osv." Dette ville suge alle investeringer væk fra produktive investeringer i et omfang, hvor det vil opbygge en grøn spekulativ boble tre til fire gange større end hvad der nu forudses. Det vil gøre det muligt for monarkiets ’firkløver’, City of London, Bank of England og efterretningstjenesterne, at reducere verdens energi-gennemstrømningstæthed til et niveau, der kun kunne understøtte 1 milliard mennesker.

 

Billede: Prins Charles, Licens: Dan Marsh, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons




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

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

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

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

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

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

Vi forlanger:

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

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

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

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

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




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 20. november 2020:
Hvis præsident Trump besejrer valgsvindlen
får vi en anden og bedre verden Posted 46 minutes ago

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Schiller Instituttet · Hvis præsident Trump besejrer valgsvindlen får vi en anden og bedre verden



Den ”Grønne New Deal” er fascistisk folkemord

Den 17. juli (EIRNS) – Tag et skridt tilbage for et øjeblik, og overvej spørgsmålet om den allestedsnærværende ”Grønne New Deal” – dens oprindelse, dens betydning og dens intention. Engang et fantasifoster for yderliggående miljøflippere, hippier, som ønskede at vende tilbage til naturen og ryge hash i deres træhytter – nu er det blevet til officiel politik for det demokratiske partis præsidentkandidat, Joe Biden, og for EU-kommissionens præsident, Ursula von der Leyen.

Det har åbenlyst ingen forbindelse til Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal, der iværksatte historiens mest massive, infrastrukturelle og industrielle opbygning til dato, og som Roosevelt begyndte at udbrede rundt om i verden, inden briterne orkestrerede 2. Verdenskrig, ”således at Tyskland og Sovjetunionen uundgåeligt ville støde sammen og forbløde hinanden” (som Vladimir Putin så rammende udtrykte det i sin artikel i The National Interest, d. 18. juni).

Mens Roosevelts New Deal mobiliserede befolkningen til at genopbygge USA, og skabte håb i midten af tilsyneladende håbløshed under den Store Depression ved direkte at konfrontere de internationale finansinstitutioner i City of London og Wall Street, som havde ødelagt de vestlige nationers produktive arbejdskræfter gennem spekulativ udplyndring, så lover den ”Grønne New Deal” intet andet end yderligere afindustrialisering og den uhyre reduktion af verdens befolkning, der fremsættes som et ønskværdigt resultat. Det eneste som er forblevet uforandret mellem dengang og i dag er, at de spekulative udskejelser fra overherrerne i City of London og Wall Street igen er bag ødelæggelsen af de produktive økonomier i den transatlantiske region over de seneste 40 år. Faktisk er det, som man kan læse andetsteds, lederne af den engelske nationalbank, Bank of England, Den europæiske Centralbank og den amerikanske Federal Reserve, der kræver, at de sidste måneders økonomiske sammenbrud, der har formindsket CO2-udslippet til 7% mindre end forventet, ikke er ”tilstrækkeligt” for at nå det vanvittige mål fra Paris-aftalen i 2015 og fra de grønne fascister. ”At reducere den økonomiske aktivitet er ikke nok”, skvaldrer de op, ”den produktive økonomi må ødelægges fuldstændigt, således at CO2-udslippet kan reduceres, og det er bankerne på Wall Street og i City of London sammen med centralbankerne, der må gennemtvinge denne politik ved at forhindre kreditter til alle aktiviteter med ’CO2-aftryk’.”

Amerikas præsident, Donald Trump, har afvist denne ondskab, gjort grin af den ”Grønne ”New Deal” og stoppet mange af de fremskridtsfjendtlige tiltag fra Bush- og Obama-administrationerne. Det er dette, sammen med præsidentens fortsatte forsøg på at ”gøre en ende på de endeløse krige”, og hans insisteren på at ”det er en god ting, ikke en dårlig ting, at være venner med russerne”, som danner grundlaget for det panikslagne forsøg på, at ødelægge ham og hans præsidentskab og forhindre hans genvalg.

Og alligevel er det hans egne regeringsmedlemmer, fra Wall Street og fra den neo-konservative fraktion, som er på krigsstien for at dæmonisere både Rusland og Kina for at sabotere det planlagte topmøde mellem de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd, hvilket er det eneste håb for at bringe Putin, Xi Jinping og Trump sammen, således at de kan tage fat på den eksistentielle krise, som menneskeheden står over for. De er så desperate for at forhindre dette topmøde, at de nu har anklaget de samme falske ”russiske hackere”, der blev afsløret som en fabrikation af de britiske efterretningskredse der stod bag ”Russiagate”-kupforsøget mod Trump, for at forsøge at ”stjæle” de vacciner, som nu er under udvikling i Storbritannien, Canada og USA. En fornuftig politik ville værdsætte et åbent samarbejde blandt alle nationer for at udvikle en vaccine så hurtigt som muligt – men sådanne bekymringer betyder intet for de geopolitikere, der er desperate for at knuse Trumps intention om at deltage i P5-topmødet.

Vi er i besiddelse af et magtfuldt våben, som kan råde bod på denne situation. Med omstødelsen af Roger Stones dom, samt ophævelsen af den korrupte dommers ordre om mundkurv, er Stone nu gået til offentligheden med det dossier, som blev forberedt af den tidligere tekniske chef for NSA, Bill Binney, hvilket (som dækket mange gange af EIR) beviste, at der ikke var nogen russiske hackere, eller overhovedet nogen hackere, mod den demokratiske nationale komité, som var involveret i den falske ”Russiagate”-historie. Ikke et eneste nyhedsmedie, udover EIR, har rapporteret dette – ikke engang Fox News, på trods af det faktum at Stone fortalte denne historie i denne uge på Fox News’ program! Hvorfor?

Der er næsten enstemmighed blandt medierne, de to politiske partier og præsidentens ”rådgivere” om at det ikke kan tillades, at han deltager i et topmøde med Putin og Xi Jinping. Det er vores ansvar – dvs. alle som læser dette – at kontakte alle dem vi kender, og dem vi ikke kender, i hver eneste institution i verden, for at motivere øjeblikkelig handling fra Præsident Trump for at realisere de bedste af hans intentioner. Bryd med Wall Streets ”Grønne New Deal”, bryd med repræsentanterne for det militærindustrielle kompleks, og bring ”fred gennem udvikling” tilbage til vores nation og til verden.

 




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…




Man kan ikke forhindre pandemier uden kernekraft

Den 15. juni (EIRNS) – En artikel fra Brookings-Instituttet, ”Man kan ikke bekæmpe pandemier uden strøm—elektrisk strøm”, som dækkede FN’s ”Rapport om Elektricitetens Udbredelse i Forbindelse med Målene for Bæredygtig Udvikling (SDG) 7”, der blev udgivet d. 5. juni, hjælper, til en hvis grad, med at bekræfte LaRouchePAC’s rapport, ”LaRouche-planen til at genåbne USA’s økonomi: Verden behøver 1,5 milliarder nye, produktive arbejdspladser”, som omhandler opbygningen af et nyt, verdensomspændende system for hospitaler og den offentlige sundhedssektor. Specifikt bekræftes den vigtige betoning, i denne indsats, som LaRouchePAC lagde på helt op til 70.000 MW i ny elektrisk kapacitet for udviklingssektoren. Brookings’ forfatteres pointe – og det FN-studie som de rapporterer om – er, at dette må skabes gennem sol- og vindparker – en fejl der ikke blot ville dømme sådanne anstrengelser til fiasko, men tilskynde udbruddet af pandemier som de foregiver at bekæmpe. Brookings-Instituttet har overhovedet ingen interesse i at forsyne fattige mennesker med elektricitet, men reklamerer for lokal elektrificering af hospitaler for at bekæmpe de pandemier, som den imperialistisk skabte fattigdom vil forårsage.

På samme tidspunkt hører vi de skrækkelige nyheder om, at hospitalsvæsener i indiske og bangladeshiske byer er overvældede af COVID-19, og at syge patienter er begyndt at blive vist bort og dør. For ikke at tale om Brasiliens hospitaler, Ecuadors, Chiles, Ghanas, Sydafrikas… men Indien er et land med 1,3 milliarder mennesker. Dette må og skal forandres.

Forfatterne fra Brookings skriver, at antallet af personer uden elektricitet globalt er faldet fra 1,2 milliarder i 2010 til lige over 800 millioner i 2018, men hvis målestokken ændres til den mere afgørende adgang til pålidelig elektricitet, har blot 28% af alle hospitaler i udviklingslande pålidelig elektricitet. Yderligere rapporterer de, at 25% af ambulatorierne i seks lande, undersøgt af FN’s Mål for Bæredygtig Udvikling 7 – Cambodja, Myanmar, Nepal, Kenya, Etiopien og Niger – er helt uden elektricitet, og dette har ikke forandret sig siden 2010. Et studie af 33 hospitaler i 10 lande konkluderede, at upålidelig elektricitet var den mest almindelige årsag til svigtende medicinsk udstyr.

Næsten alle nuværende diagnose-tests for COVID-19 kræver strøm; kommunikationen af patienters data kræver strøm. Elektricitet bestemmer effektiviteten af ”de mange ressourcer, som gør det muligt for sundhedssystemet at spore, forhindre og behandle smitsomme sygdomme; rent vand, acceptabelt udstyr, kvalificerede medarbejdere og medicinske forsyninger… Patienter, som behøver yderligere diagnose (f.eks. pulsoximetri, måling af ens iltindhold –red.), behandling med respiratorer eller iltmasker må placeres i klinikker med pålidelig elektrisk forsyning; udfald, selv i blot et par minutter, kan være livstruende. Derudover er elektricitet nødvendig for desinfektions- og rengøringsinstrumenter, såsom autoklaver (trykkoger til sterilisering) og luftfiltrering, samt, visse steder, oppumpet rent vand. Alt dette er nødvendigt for at forhindre spredningen af infektioner blandt patienter og sundhedspersonale.”

Personalet på hospitaler og klinikker, om de er garvede professionelle eller nyuddannede til de nybyggede faciliteter, vil ønske at bo i hjem med pålidelig strømforsyning.

Og når vi ser fremad mod leveringen af en vaccine, når først denne er blevet godkendt og produceret i milliarder af enheder: ”Verdenssundhedsorganisationen (WHO) skønner, at næsten 50% af frysetørrede og 25% af flydende vacciner går til spilde hvert eneste år, meget ofte pga. strømafbrydelser i nedkølingskæden.”

Alle disse udviklingslande, såsom Ghana og specielt andre afrikanske nationer, som nu ønsker at mobilisere for at bygge nye lokale og regionale hospitaler og klinikker til at bekæmpe COVID-19, står over for fire udfordringer: Opbygningen af nye faciliteter med moderne kapaciteter; rekruttering og træning af personale; at sørge for store mængder frisk vand; og at forsyne disse faciliteter med strøm. Brookings-artiklen gør det klart hvor vigtig elektricitet er for sundhedspleje. Ligeledes, om ikke endnu vigtigere, er nødvendigheden af strømforsyning til de befolkninger, som sundhedssystemet tjener.

Så LaRouchePAC’s beregning af op mod 70.000 MW i ny elektrisk kapacitet er livsvigtig. Det må være en kombination af små gasturbiner og små modulære kernekraftværker; sol og vind er så forholdsvis ineffektive, at denne nye energi ville kræve et areal 50-70 gange større, end det ville med kernekraftværker – og den førnævnte (energiforsyning) ville være uregelmæssig – utilladeligt for sundhedsfaciliteter – og ville alligevel have brug for gasturbiner som backup.

LaRouchePAC’s rapport viste, at 50 millioner nye, produktive arbejdspladser kunne skabes indenfor en generation i USA, inklusive 6 millioner nye produktive arbejdspladser i 2020-21, som en del af at skabe 1,5 milliarder produktive job verden over, 110 millioner af disse i 2020-21 – alle skabt gennem præcis denne opbygning af energiproduktion til og bemanding af et nyt, verdensomspændende sundhedssystem.

USA og Indien må straks påbegynde et partnerskab for at tilvejebringe de kreditter og det ingeniørarbejde nødvendigt for nye, fuldt udstyrede hospitaler, som må bygges ”på samlebånd” med Kinas udstedte kreditter og deres metoder for hurtigt hospitalsbyggeri, fra bunden af, som set i Wuhan. Dette betyder, at USA’s Internationale Finansinstitution for Udvikling (DFC) og Eksport-Import-Bank, med Indiens nationale Udviklingsfund og Kinas Eksport-Import-Bank, må finansiere opbygningen. Hvad angår strømforsyningen, er alle tre lande eksperter, og det er Rusland også, som er førende i at forsyne lande verden over med kernekraftværker.

Og dette må gøres i hele udviklingssektoren, og det øjeblikkeligt.

Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har siden begyndelsen af året opfordret lederne af de fire mægtigste nationer – Indien, Kina, Rusland og USA – til at afholde et topmøde for at iværksætte dette nye kreditsystem og opbygning.

I USA må Obamas forbud mod kreditter til konstruktion af kernekraftværker i udlandet ophæves, gennem handling fra regeringen, hvilket DFC har anmodet om.

For at få yderligere kreditter til at bygge infrastruktur i USA, må H.R. 6422 i Repræsentanterne Hus, lovforslaget for den Nationale Infrastrukturbank, vedtages.

Og Glass-Steagall (bankopdeling) må genindføres, via H.R. 2176 i Repræsentanternes Hus, for at gøre en ende på den amerikanske centralbanks ensidede redningsaktioner af Wall Streets investeringsbanker, og genoprette kommercielle banker som vil låne til disse infrastrukturprojekter.

 




Videoer af tre paneler, invitation og afskrift af Panel I:
Schiller Instituttets internationale konference lørdag den 27. juni:
Vil menneskeheden blomstre op eller gå til grunde?
Fremtiden kræver et ‘Fire-magts topmøde’ nu

Et afskrift på engelsk af Panel I findes nedenunder.

Ovenover: Panel I: “Til erstatning for geopolitik: principperne for statsmandskab”

Schiller Instituttets stifter og præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche og internationale diplomater, amerikanske valgte politikere, osv.

  • Keynote speaker: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: “The Alternative to a Dark Age and a Third World War”
  • Dr. Jin Zhongxia, Executive Director for China, IMF; Washington, D.C., United States: “The Fundamentals of East-West Philosophic Relations”
  • Boris Meshchanov, Counselor, Russian Federation Mission to the UN, New York City, United States: “Russia’s Global Economic Perspective, Post COVID-19”
  • Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon-General of the United States
  • Ding Yifan, Deputy Director, Research Institute of World Development, China Development Research Center, China: “A Chinese Perspective on a Post-COVID Paradigm”
  • Daisuke Kotegawa, former Executive Director for Japan at the IMF; Research Director, The Canon Institute, Japan
  • Mayor DeWayne Hopkins (fmr); Former Mayor, Muscatine, Iowa; The Mayor’s Muscatine-China Initiative Committee, United States: “A View from the Iowa Farm Belt: the Muscatine-China Cultural Connection”
  • Question and Answer session

******

Panel II: ”Producenter i Verden, foren jer! Hvorfor et program for skabelse af 1,5 milliarder produktive job kan afslutte krig, hungersnød, fattigdom og sygdom”

Jacques Cheminade, lederen af LaRouche-bevægelsen i Frankrig og fhv. præsidentkandidat, og landbrug, fagforening og politiske ledere fra Afrika, Sydamerika og USA.

  • Jacques Cheminade, President Solidarité & Progrès, France: “How Food Production Can Unite the World”
  • Diogène Senny, Founder of the Pan-African League: “Thrive or perish: An Introduction to the Geopolitics of Hunger and Poverty”
  • Walter Formento, Director, Center for Political and Economic Research, Argentina; “South America on the New Multipolar Road”
  • Dr. Kirk Meighoo, political economist, broadcaster, and former Senator, Trinidad & Tobago: “The Caribbean’s True Importance in the Making and Re-Making of the Modern Global Economy”
  • Mark Sweazy, former UAW trade union leader, United States: “Returning the U.S. Work Force to a Culture of Scientific Progress”
  • Robert L. Baker, Schiller Institute, United States
  • Mike Callicrate, Board of Directors, Organization for Competitive Markets, Owner Ranch Foods Direct, United States: “Food Unites People Around the Planet”
  • Alicia Díaz Brown, Citizens Movement for Water, Sonora, Mexico: “Let Us Return to the Best Moments of the U.S.–Mexico Relationship”
  • Question and Answer session

******

Panel III: Ungdommens opgave

Daniel Burke, senatorkandidat i New Jersey, USA fra LaRouche-bevægelsen, og universitets og andre ungdomsledere fra Frankrig, Yemen, Colombia, Mexico, Tanzania, og USA.

  • Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Institute, Germany: Opening Remarks
  • Keynote: Daniel Burke, Schiller Institute, United States: “If You Sat Where They Sit, What Would You Do?”
  • Carolina Domínguez Cisneros, Mexico; Sebastián Debernardi, Peru; Andrés Carpintero, Colombia; Daniel Dufreine Arévalo, Mexico: “Getting Back the Great Ideas That Were Stolen From Us”
  • Franklin Mireri, YouLead Partnerships Coordinator, Tanzania: “The Greatest Want of the World is for True Leaders.”
  • Sarah Fahim, Student from Morocco Studying in Paris, France
  • Chérine Sultan, Institut Schiller, Paris, France
  • Lissie Brobjerg, Schiller Institute, United States: “Are You a Large-Scale Geological Force?”
  • Areej Atef, Education Committee Vice President of BRICS Youth Parliament, Sana’a, Yemen: “Youth of the World Face Two World Systems: The Old and the New”
  • Jose Vega, Bronx, NY: “A New Space CCC”
  • Youth Day of Action Invitation Video
  • Question and Answer session

Invitationen: 

Efter vore vellykkede internetkonferencer den 25.-26. april samt den 9. maj på V-E-dagen, vil vores næste konference være den 27. juni, kl. 16:00. Hjælp venligst med at sprede denne meddelelse bredt blandt venner, sociale medier osv.

Siden januar har Schiller Instituttets formand Helga Zepp-LaRouche insisteret på, at USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien skal mødes. Deres ledere må vise det statsmandskab, der kræves for at overvinde åndsforladt koldkrigerisk propagandataktik og geopolitik, og tage del i en hastemission for at opbygge en fuldt funktionsdygtig sundhedsinfrastruktur for verden, især for Sydamerika, Afrika og dele af Asien, der kræver opførelse af hospitaler, vandværker, vejsystemer og uddannelsesfaciliteter til unge læger, sygeplejersker og lægeassistenter.

 I over 35 år, og især i de sidste syv år, har Schiller Instituttet kæmpet for netop den slags statsmandskunst.

 Verden må nu vælge mellem to modstridende syn på menneskehedens næste 50 år:

 Et synspunkt kræver at vende den forestående affolkning af jorden på grund af globale pandemier. Disse pandemier er uden undtagelse resultatet af mislykkede finansielle, økonomiske og militære politikker, og især af den fuldstændige deregulering af de finansielle markeder igennem de sidste tre årtier. Det andet, modstridende synspunkt, kræver en ‘Green New Deal’ -energipolitik, som umiddelbart vil forværre planetens nuværende sundhedskrise og kunne muligvis endda resultere i døden for størstedelen af den menneskelige race.

 Vi må tage afstand fra denne affolkningspolitik, organisere den transatlantiske verden for at tilslutte sig det nye kulturelle paradigme, der nu føres an af Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ, og bevæge verden til det som Schiller Instituttet har kaldt ‘Verdens Landbroen’.

 Netop mens Kina igennem præsident Xi Jinping´s Bælte- og Vejinitiativ har engageret 150 nationer i et forsøg på at stoppe fattigdom i hele verden, har malthusianske økonomiske kræfter i USA og Europa, der er imod dette, stigmatiseret Kina som ‘virussets udspring’ – en slet skjult genoplivning af den racistiske doktrin for 100 år siden kaldet ‘den gule fare’.

 I 1923 skrev medlem af det britiske Overhus Lord Bertrand Russell:

 ”De hvide befolkninger i verden vil snart ophøre med at stige i tal. De asiatiske racer vil blive flere, og negrene stadig flere, før deres fødselsrater falder tilstrækkeligt til at stabilisere deres antal uden hjælp af krig og pestilens. Indtil det sker, kan fordelene som socialismen sigter mod kun delvist realiseres, og mindre reproduktive racer bliver nødt til at forsvare sig mod de mere reproduktive ved metoder, der er oprørende, selvom de er nødvendige”.

 Verden, og især vores ungdom, der skal opbygge planeten i de kommende 50 år, må så stærkt som muligt afvise sådanne ideer og politikker for at pålægge systemisk tilbageståenhed globalt, herunder i forklædning af “Green New Deal”. Der kan ikke længere være nogen tvivl om, at verdens mest avancerede teknologier – i rummet, i fremstillingsindustrien, i minedrift, i landbruget – straks, i kraft af hasteprogrammer, må anvendes mod den globale pandemi og den økonomiske krise, som ellers kan føre til snesevis af millioner døde og fordrevne på kort sigt. En sådan massedød forekommer allerede i Brasilien og andre nationer. ‘Verdensfødevareprogrammet’ advarer om, at vi om nogle måneder vil kunne se så mange som 300.000 mennesker dø af sult dagligt, primært i udviklingslandene.

 Et nyt dokument, ‘The LaRouche Plan to Reolen the U.S. Economic; The World Nees 1.5 Billion New, Produktive Jobs’, (LaRouche-planen til genåbning af den amerikanske økonomi; Verden har brug for 1.5 milliarder nye produktive job) skitserer, hvordan denne tragedie kan vendes ved at søsætte den største økonomiske ekspansion i menneskets historie, herunder 50 millioner produktive job i henholdsvis USA og Europa.

 Da den sydafrikanske præsident Ramaphosa lykønskede Elon Musk, der har dobbelt sydafrikansk-amerikansk statsborgerskab, med den vellykkede gennemførelse af den amerikanske mission til Den internationale Rumstation, udtrykte han den form for nationalt lederskab, der kræves for endeligt at bringe globalt tyranni med globalisering og geopolitik til ophør. De seneste gennembrud inden for videnskab, gjort tilgængelig for de mest nødlidende, kan nu indlede en ny æra, der kunne kaldes ‘menneskelig økonomi’. Som Lyndon LaRouche redegjorde: “I stedet for disse for nærværende fejlslagne ideer, må vi antage en forestilling om økonomi, hvis målestok er funktionelt i overensstemmelse med det afgørende særpræg: princippet om kreativ fornuft”.

 Denne stræben efter økonomisk retfærdighed, især for de af verdens børn, der er født ind i livstruende omstændigheder, vil have den yderligere fordelagtige virkning at tage fat på andre problemer med social retfærdighed, der for nylig har fået så megen international opmærksomhed.

Kontact os for at få tilsendt udgaver med tysk, fransk eller spansk oversættelse. Ring +45 53 57 00 51

*****

Panel I afskrift:

Panel 1: “Instead of Geopolitics: The Principles of Statecraft”

DENNIS SPEED: My name is Dennis Speed, and I want to welcome you to today’s international conference and webcast. We had a technical problem for a moment, and now we think we’ve solved that problem.

Today’s conference is called “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish? The Future Demands a ‘Four-Power’ Summit Now.” We’re going to begin today by the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche. He was keynoting a panel of the Schiller Institute — this was in Germany — and the name of the particular panel on that occasion was “Rescuing Civilization from the Brink: The Role of Classical Culture. An Imperative for Mankind.”

LYNDON LAROUCHE video:

This is truly the most important of all strategic questions we have to face today: the fact that the human species is absolutely unique in its capabilities. There’s no other known species in the universe, ever known to have existed, or could exist — even though we have not fully explored, of course, the Crab Nebula or similar parts of the great galaxy which we’re involved in, called the Milky Way. There may be many species with cognitive powers out there. Because the Solar System of which we are immediately a product, although always under the control of the galactic processes — and we know a good deal, today, about those kinds of things: Our organization in the United States has spent a good deal of effort on concentrating, inclusively, on just this question: How old is life? How long has life existed in this galaxy, or within some place in it? What is the nature of mankind, who’s been on this planet only for a few million years? There was no human being on this planet, to the best of our knowledge, until a few million years ago.

And yet, we’re talking about billions of years of this galaxy, during which all living processes known to us have come into existence. And all life is creative, but there’s a sad part: that over 95% of all known living species have been rendered extinct, as failures, in their time. The question, therefore: Why, in these times, when we have entered a period in which there will be more great kills of living processes, at this phase of the movement of the Solar System through the galaxy, why should we be so presumptuous as to imagine that human life is not about to disappear as the dinosaurs did in the last great kill?

What is there about human beings that says they’re not just another animal species, ready to get to the chop in the course of their time?

The answer is a very little-known question. Most people don’t have an inkling of what the answer is! As a matter of fact, our societies are run on the basis of people who have no inkling what the human species is! All they can come up with is an explanation of some kind of an animal, with animal characteristics of pleasure and pain, and things like that, that might control the behavior of this animal.

So why should we expect that we have a right to claim that the human species is going to survive the approaching point of a great kill in the course of the movements of the Solar System up and below and around the galaxy we inhabit? How do we know that this 62-million-year cycle is not going to take the human species away, as it’s taken so many away before? And then, before that, and then before that?

And here you have all these people talking about politics; they’re talking about issues of politics; they’re talking about “practical opinion,” and public opinion, and differentiations in customs, and all those kinds of things! And here we are: We’re approaching the time of the great kill, where everything about us may suddenly disappear; so what are we worried about? If we’re going to disappear, why do we worry? Why do we fight it? [laughter]

What is there in us, that is not in other living species known to us? That might, somehow, miraculously, pronounce a destiny for our human species which we grant to no other living species? The name for that specific quality, which we know in the human species, which does not exist in any other known living species: There’s a quality of creativity, which is absolutely unique to mankind. And if you’re not creative, and if you don’t understand creativity, you haven’t got a ticket to survival yet! Because creativity won’t save you, unless you use it. [end video]

SPEED: We’re continuing to experience highly unusual technical difficulties. There were some problems in some of our international connections….

As soon as we have this technical problem somewhat under control, we’re going to go directly to our keynote speaker, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. We are about now 15 minutes behind schedule, but we’ll be able to do certain things to make that up. We want to apologize again, so that people have an idea, this is a highly unusual circumstance, we’re not going to talk a lot about that right now. Let me simply say so that the format is known, we are going to have first our keynote speech, followed by representatives from China and from Russia, and several others. The topic of the panel, as we announced before, is “Instead of Politics, the Principles of Statecraft.”

Let me say about the Schiller Institute and what we’ve been doing with this conference, or this process of conferences, because it actually began back in April of this year. April 25th and 26th, we held the first of what is now the three conferences. These conferences were devoted to the idea of the creation of a Four-Power summit — Russia, China, India, and the United States. There are various processes that have been able to move in that direction already, and we are in a process today. In fact, among many of the things we’ll be talking about today is a new proposal that has been put forward by President Vladimir Putin of Russia to that effect. Let me also say that for people in the United States in particular, the crisis that has been on people’s minds, as exhibited in the social and political crises in the streets of America, is merely one predicate of a broader international process. And that’s what why we’re starting today with this first panel, to give that broader overview, and to allow you and others to become part of an international operation to reverse that circumstance.

Now, as I said, I think the primary problem that we are dealing with is that we are trying to make sure that the international contacts are also connected. We have translators and we have a need to make sure that everything is moving in sync; that’s one of the particular problems of this kind of international operation.

Let me say one other thing concerning the excerpt that you saw from Lyndon LaRouche, which was done in 2011. LaRouche’s conception there concerning the idea that was strategy; the idea of thinking about strategy from the standpoint of a galactic process, and then looking then — and only then — at the various political episodes that were occurring on Earth, was a way of trying to actually look at what he often also referred to often as intelligence. He was the founder in 1974, of Executive Intelligence Review. And that publication, which is still published to this day, specialized in trying to make his method of intelligence and investigation available generally in American analysis.

This was very successful, in particular, in the drive for certain policy changes that occurred in the United States; most notably, that of March 23, 1983, with the creation of the Strategic Defense Initiative. This was the product of a process of negotiation that LaRouche carried out as a back-channel negotiator with the then-Soviet Union, and with the knowledge of the National Security Council and then-President of the United States Ronald Reagan. That policy, and the creation of that policy, and that dialogue with the then-Soviet Union, is, in one sense, not a model for now, but is the same sort of process that must needs be allowed to continue and to happen between President Donald Trump, President Vladimir Putin, President Xi Jinping, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, among others. The idea of the Four-Power summit is not exclusionary. It doesn’t say that other powers are not involved. In fact, recent proposals have amplified or expanded the number of persons that might, in fact, be involved.

But what is important to understand is that, as LaRouche once said in another document published in 1980 called “A Dialogue with Leonid Brezhnev,” then the head of the then-Soviet Union, “The Content of Policy Is the Method By Which It Is Made.” So, in the clip that you’ve seen, there, today, the idea of culture and the idea of what a culture actually is, is a strategic matter. In the case of the United States, and in the case of the present-day United States, these matters of a cultural paradigm-shift are actually often far more important than the particular political issues that people talk about. For example, if you look at today’s United States, the issue of our having gone away from being a productive culture, in fact the most productive economy in the world’s history, between the period in particular of the 1933 resurgence of America that occurred under Franklin Roosevelt, through the period of 1945, and then the subsequent period of 1944 through 1971 with the Bretton Woods system. It’s been the need to return to that, and to return to these ideas — those that had come into currency under Franklin Roosevelt’s Presidency — that is the template for what we are saying should be the character of discussion between President Trump, President Putin, President Xi, and Prime Minister Modi.

I want to make one thing clear to everyone as we are about to transition, to get to the keynote, that in thinking about what we are all involved in today — namely, that global pandemic condition created by the coronavirus: Clearly what has happened is, there is a need for all of us to change our axioms. That the idea of international cooperation among sovereign, independent nation-states, for the purpose of creating a worldwide alternative to what’s otherwise going to be, perhaps, the destruction of civilization — not because absolutely everybody would die of the coronavirus or something like that — but the cascading effects and the interconnected effects of a global pandemic condition that we don’t really medically understand, plus the ongoing problem of the financial virus that has, of course, plagued humanity particularly since the time of the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, this combination would create a circumstance in which only all nations working together can possibly achieve an actual reconciliation of this process.

I think we’re about ready to begin.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of the Schiller Institute — that was back in 1984. She also, of course, is the wife of the late economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche, who passed away in February 2019. She played a crucial, decisive role in a set of conversations and dialogues with the government of China during the period of 1993 to 1996; launching the process that became what we now know as the New Silk Road. And we’re happy and proud to present her to you now, to begin the dialogue again. The panel as a whole is, “Instead of Geopolitics, a New Form of Statecraft.” So, it’s always my honor to introduce Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

The Alternative to a Dark Age and a Third World War

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: After this difficult beginning, I’m all the more happy that I’m finally connected to you. And I’m going to talk about the alternative to a Dark Age, or the danger of a new world war. And even if it’s inconceivable for most people at this point, if we do not succeed in the relatively short term in replacing the hopelessly bankrupt financial system by a New Bretton Woods system, exactly as originally intended by Franklin D. Roosevelt, that is, to create an instrument for forcefully overcoming the underdevelopment of the so-called developing sector, then the current orientation of the world….

I don’t know if you heard what I said before because there were some technical problems, but I was saying that even if most people cannot imagine that that can occur, that unless we, in the very short term, implement a New Bretton Woods system, exactly as Franklin D. Roosevelt had intended it, that the current orientation of the world towards ever more conflicts, both domestically in many states of the world, but also on a strategic level, threatens to escalate into a great new world, a Third World War, which because of the existence of thermonuclear weapons would mean the annihilation of the human species — the “great kill” even if it is meant in a slightly different way than Lyn just was heard on this video clip.

Although it is absolutely astounding how many misguided people still believe that the COVID-19 pandemic is either no worse than the flu or a just conspiracy of Bill Gates, the much more likely perspective is unfortunately what epidemiologist Dr. Michael Osterholm has said: namely, that we still have an incredibly long journey ahead of us. Until now, 10 million people have been infected, half a million have died from COVID-19, and we have still not reached the peak of the first wave. The almost non-existent health systems of many developing countries are already hopelessly overstretched. The pandemic has ruthlessly exposed the fact that the neo-liberal economic system not only depends on cheap production in the so-called Third World, but has even created in the United States and Europe slave-labor conditions, as can be seen in the outbreak of the virus in the many slaughterhouses in Europe and the United States.

The economic shutdown has thrown a spotlight on the fragility of what is called “globalization.” In the U.S., around 40 million jobs were lost in three months; the central banks pumped an unbelievable over $20 trillion into the financial system and various government support programs could just barely cover up the timebombs still ticking until expiring of the short-work programs. The IMF currently expects global production to decline by 4.9% this year, and only China is expected to have an increase in production of 2%, which is obviously is much less than it used to be, but nevertheless it grows. Sectors such as air traffic, catering, tourism, the car industry, have suffered massive declines, some of them long-term, but also a large number of medium-sized companies fear they will not survive a second wave and another economic lockdown. The result would be a huge increase in unemployment, poverty and price deflation, while at the same time the central banks’ liquidity pumping is creating hyperinflationary bubbles. Bail-outs of large systemic corporations and banks, as well as politically explosive bail-ins would be further desperate options for governments to implement, but they could not prevent a collapse of the global financial system. A plunge into chaos and anarchy would follow.

In the meantime, a continuation of the current policy would not only lead to increased death rates as a result of the pandemic, but would do absolutely nothing to counter the hunger catastrophe, of which David Beasley of the World Food Program is warning that it will soon take the lives of 300,000 people a day.

Whoever may have thought that a dark age could be ruled out in our modern times, is in for a reality shock. And last but not least, the hedonism acted out by demonstrators who confuse liberties with freedom, is reminiscent of the flagellants and the descriptions of the 14th century as they are given by the writings of Boccaccio, and the paintings of Breughel.

Against this background, it is to be expected that the attempt, originally instigated by the British secret services, to oust President Donald Trump from office by a coup, impeachment or assassination — such was the headline of the British publication The Spectator on Jan. 21, 2017 — or by a “Maidan” coup, as President Putin warned in 2016, these will intensify. The instrumentalization of the outrage resulting from the murder of George Floyd by violent groups funded by George Soros is part of this campaign. The reason for the relentless hostility of the neo-liberal establishment and the mainstream media on both sides of the Atlantic against Trump after what, for them, what his unexpected election victory, was, and still is, the intention he expressed at the beginning of his term, to establish good relations with Russia and a good relationship with China. And of course, Trump’s promise to end the “endless wars” of his predecessors, to bring U.S. troops home.

What followed was a three-and-a-half-year witch hunt against Trump. The war cry “Russia, Russia, Russia,” based on grounds for which not the least shred of evidence subsists, was followed by an attempt at an impeachment, followed by the no less malicious war cry “China, China, China,” although there is just as little substance to the charges against China as there was for Russiagate.

During all that, the representatives of the neo-liberal system were not ready for one second to consider that it was the brutal consequences of their own policies for the majority of the population worldwide, that had triggered the global wave of social protest, which included the Brexit and Trump’s victory, as well as the mass protests worldwide from Chile to the Yellow Vests in France. But this establishment is never interested in discovering the truth, only in controlling the official political narrative, in compliance with Pompeo ’s principle, as he explained in his speech in Texas: “I was the CIA director. We lied, we cheated, we stole … we had entire training courses for that.”

NATO’s official narrative about Russia’s allegedly increasing aggressiveness, accused of “redrawing borders by force in Europe,” fails to mention of course the broken promises made to Gorbachov, that NATO would never extend its borders all the way to Russia’s borders, and the preceding color revolutions that can be described as acts of war, and finally the coup in Kiev with the open support of Victoria Nuland, which triggered the referendum in Crimea in reaction.

China’s “crime” is not only that it has lifted 850 million of its own citizens out of poverty, and has become, with an economic policy based on scientific and technological progress and a population of 1.4 billion people, the second most powerful economic nation, and in some technological areas, such as high-speed rail systems, nuclear fusion, aspects of space exploration and 5G telecommunications, already the number one. In addition, China’s offer for cooperation on the New Silk Road, and the Belt and Road Initiative, is the first real opportunity for the developing countries since the time of colonialism, to overcome poverty and underdevelopment by building infrastructure.

NATO’s response to China’s regaining its role as a leading nation in the world, a role it played during many centuries of its 5,000-year-long history, has been global expansion into the Indo-Pacific region. This is the stuff of which world wars can be made. And yet, that is exactly the direction that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has indicated in his outline for “NATO 2030,” which he just presented in a video conference with the Atlantic Council and the German Marshall Fund. German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer took part in another webinar last Wednesday with Anna Wieslander, director of the Atlantic Council for Northern Europe, who, in opening the event quoted Lord Ismay, NATO’s first general secretary, who said that the purpose of NATO is “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.” But AKK (as she is nicknamed) did not even seemingly realize the insult in these remarks. The geopolitical scenario of a globalized NATO, which is openly designed to instrumentalize NATO for the purposes of the British Empire, on based on the Commonwealth, and which would also rope the EU into playing that role, and would finally position India against China, must be totally rejected by all those who have an interest in maintaining world peace.

President Putin has just written, on the occasion of the 75th anniversary of the end of World War II, a striking article on the pre-history of the Second World War and the course of that war, and called on all nations to publish all the up to now classified historical documents from that time, so that by studying the causes of the greatest catastrophe in the history of mankind up to that point, the lessons will be learned for avoiding an even greater catastrophe today. Putin writes in a very personal tone, he speaks of the suffering of his own family, of the immense importance June 22nd has for the Russian population, the day on which “life almost comes to a halt,” and why May 9th, the anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War in which 27 million Russians lost their lives, is Russia’s most important holiday. But the indirect message is also that just as the Soviet Union defeated Hitler’s Germany with a gigantic effort, the Russian people will never surrender to renewed threats. Just as Napoleon was led through a long line of defense into the inhospitable Russian winter, and his army was finally as good as wiped out, the evacuation of the people and industrial capacity to the east from 1941 on allowed the Soviet Union to surpass the military production of the Nazis in only one and a half years.

But also the short-sightedness of the Versailles dictate, the support for Hitler from members of the aristocracy and the Establishment on both sides of the Atlantic, and above all the Munich Pact, which is simply called in Russia the “Munich betrayal” or “Munich conspiracy,” is considered as the real trigger for the Second World War. Because it was there, where not only the appeasement of Hitler, but also the joint divvying up of the booty took place, as well as the ice-cold geopolitical calculation, that focussing Hitler’s Germany on the East would inevitably lead Germany and the Soviet Union to tear each other to pieces.

According to Putin, what is the main message of the study of the Second World War for today? That it was the failure to take up the task of creating a collective security system that could have prevented this war was the most important piece! Putin’s article ends with an urgent reminder of the summit of heads of state of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, which he has been proposing since January, and which should address precisely these principles of how to maintain world peace and overcome the world economic crisis.

The most important aspect of that is that this format will put the United States, Russia and China around the same table to negotiate the principles that must be the basis of international policy if mankind is to avoid wiping itself out! And yesterday after a long phone call between Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron, Macron said that he stands for a Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which opens not only the perspective of an integration of the European Union, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative, but also the establishment of a common security architecture based on common economic interests.

However, if we are to meet the gigantic challenges of the pandemic, the global economic crisis and the profound social shocks that have destroyed the trust of large parts of the population in their institutions in many countries around the world, further steps are necessary. Obviously, cooperation between the United States and China, as the two largest economies, is indispensable. Even if this currently appears to be an insurmountable hurdle, the extremely tense relationship between the United States and China must be replaced by cooperation on the common aims of mankind.

Who, if not the governments of the strongest economies, the countries with the largest populations and the greatest military potential, should solve the problems? The Boltons must be removed from these governments and replaced by responsible people who are able to find, in the cultural phases of their respective cultures, the starting points for cooperation on a higher level. Benjamin Franklin’s admiration for Confucian philosophy and Sun Yat-sen’s orientation to the ideals of the American Republic are better advisors than Gene Sharp’s “How To Start a Revolution” or Samuel Huntington’s different scribblings.

One has to define a plane on which the solutions for these quite disparate problems become visible. There is one philosopher, born in the 15th century, known in Russia as Nikolai Kusansky, Nikolaus of Cusa, who developed exactly that method of thinking: the coincidence of opposites, coincidentia oppositorum. This concept expresses the fundamental quality of human creativity, which is able time and time again and at increasingly more developed levels to find solutions on a higher plane, where the conflicts that have arisen on the lower levels, are dissolved.

This can only be the immediate implementation of a credit system, that provides the global economy with credit for industrialization, and thus the real development, of all nations on this planet. The entire life’s work of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, was primarily devoted to achieving this goal; he drew up his first plan for the industrialization of Africa in 1976, the Oasis Plan for the industrialization of the Middle East in 1975; then followed the 40-Year Plan for India in collaboration with Indira Gandhi, Operation Juárez with then Mexican President José López Portillo for Latin America; a 50-year development plan for the Pacific Basin; and then finally, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Eurasian Land-Bridge, as a peace plan for the 21st century. Many of these projects are being implemented today thanks to China’s New Silk Road, and all nations of the world are called upon to contribute to this World Land-Bridge! This is the blueprint for the creation of the 1.5 billion jobs, that are necessary today to overcome the crisis! It should begin with the establishment of a modern health system in every single country, in order to combat the current and future pandemics, which will not only benefit poor countries, but also the so-called developed countries, that can only avoid new waves of infections in that way. Most countries have a large number of unemployed or poorly employed youth, who can be trained as medical personnel and deployed to build up such health centers.

When millions of people are threatened with starvation, as the World Food Program warns, why can farmers not double their food production and be paid a parity price that guarantees their existence, including with regard to the expected increase in the world’s population to over 9 billion by 2050? Can we not consider ourselves as one single human species, and help to build mankind’s common construction sites with the same solidarity that the entire Chinese population helped the people in Wuhan and the province of Hubei? Is it not time that we stopped wasting trillions on military build-ups, as President Trump said he would soon take up together with Putin and Xi Jinping, when we could use those resources to overcome hunger, disease and poverty, and to develop the creative potential of the current and future generations?

I think it is time for us, as mankind, faced with an unprecedented disaster, to take the qualitative step of making the 21st century the first truly human century!

Thank you very much.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Helga.

Our next speaker is Dr. Jin Zhongxia, who’s the executive director for China of the International Monetary Fund, located in Washington, D.C.

DR. JIN ZHONGXIA: Thank you, Mr. Speed. I would like to thank Schiller Institute for the invitation to attend this important conference. Also, I thank Madame Helga for her excellent keynote speech.

2020 is a very special and challenging year. The trade war, the eruption and spread of coronavirus, the riots in the U.S., world economic recession, and escalated geopolitical tensions, I just name a few major ones. Global growth is projected by the IMF at negative 4.9% this year.

In the following discussion, some of my observations and comments are kind of thoughts in research and of academic by nature, I will speak in my personal capacity only.

Global challenge should be handled globally with a multilateral approach. No country will be safe until every country is safe.

When we start to discuss the multilateral approach in dealing with the pandemic and the global crisis, I recognize that there is a debate on the value of multilateralism and the multilateral institutions. Some people are talking about economic decoupling, a Cold War, and even a conflict of civilizations. Since I am from China, I ask myself: Is there any fundamental conflict between civilizations in the East and West?

Chinese civilization is unique in many aspects, but it’s not fundamentally different from Western civilization. One example: In the 6th century B.C., China had Taiji or Yin Yang concept, which is the co-evolution of two opposite forces. I found in surprise that this was also a core concept in physiological theory in Greek medicine in the same period of time. Another example: A core concept of Confucianism is the “middle course approach,” that also corresponds to the “doctrine of the mean” that was explored extensively by Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle in ancient Greece.

In 16th century, the brilliant Jesuit missionary, Matteo Ricci, recognized the striking parallels in Confucius and Mencius to the Christian concept of man in the images of the God and devoted his life to building an “ecumenical alliance” between China and the West.

During the evolution of trade tension between the United States and China, some opinions in the media have demonized China as an evil trade partner that is systematically engaged in illegal subsidizing, cheating and stealing. That reminds me of the overwhelming public opinion in the media against Jewish people in some parts of Europe before World War II. The truth is that after more than 40 years’ market-oriented reform and opening-up, China has already been transformed into a market-based economy. In fact, the share of fiscal resources in GDP mobilized by some European governments is higher than that in China due to extensive social welfare arrangements, but no body in Europe complain that this welfare has distorted the market.

China has profound tradition of market economy both in theory and practice. In the 6th century B.C., Laozi, a famous philosopher and the founder of Daoism, advised his government to “rule without intervention,” which is an ancient version of the invisible hand of Adam Smith. Another famous economist and philosopher Guanzi, in the 7th century B.C., suggested that in the years of economic depression, government could increase expenditure to implement seemingly wasteful projects for the purpose of creating employment. That is the ancient Chinese version of Keynesian economics. Financially, China was also highly developed. As early as in 11th century, China introduced the first official paper currency in the world.

On the issue of economic and technology decoupling, the attempt to block a major people and civilization from competing fairly with other countries and getting access to new scientific and technological knowledge is morally wrong, and will help China to win sympathy around the world.

On the other hand, China has the largest pool of educated labor force, including a largest pool of engineers. That will enable the country to be more innovative, professional, practical and rational.

Compared with other multi-country free trade zones, China has already become the largest single-country retail market by itself. It is more than equivalent to a free trade zone with a highly integrated infrastructure network, centralized fiscal and monetary policy, and deep and liquid labor and capital market. The authorities have also determined to further open its economy, greatly enhance intellectual property (IP) protection, and implement structural reforms, including introducing competitive neutrality for state-owned enterprises (SOEs). In the end, it is the effectiveness and efficiency of China’s domestic resource allocation that will determine China’s international competitiveness.

I am not specialized in geopolitics. But I learned that the scenario of decoupling and a new cold war is based on an old strategy called “divide and conquer,” or “offshore balance.” It is very smart from the offshore players’ perspective. But it will benefit the offshore manipulator at the expense of onshore neighbors. I wonder whether those equally smart onshore players are willing to buy this, and how high a price the offshore player wants to pay to convince so many countries to engage a long-term conflict with their major trade partner.

It is not objective to exaggerate China’s conflict with India at the border. It is important to recognize that the current border is largely a stable equilibrium. The common interest of these two ancient civilizations is to cooperate and develop their economies and achieve a joint historical revival. The two countries should benefit from their common cultural heritage based on centuries of peaceful and friendly cultural exchanges, particularly the exchanges in the form of Buddhism.

The history issue between China and Japan often looks like a deadlock, but a forward-looking approach is the key. China has largely recovered its self-confidence, and it is very clear that China’s revival does not mean revenge. When new generations from China visit Japan as tourists, most of them feel they like Japan. Japan is China’s only neighboring country that has maintained a lot of Chinese characters in their written language, and they use chopsticks, eat rice, use soy sauce, and practice calligraphy, all of these are the typical reflections of East Asian culture.

A healthy and stable Sino-Russian relationship can be much more sustainable than many people’s imagination. Their stable cooperative relationship can be attributed to many factors. It is not a coincidence that their combined territory maps the Mongolian Empire in history. Toward the end of last century, China and Russian leaders reached a wise and visionary agreement to delimit and confirm their common border. Their mutual respect and support to core interest of each other can go a long way.

The biggest loss the United States could incur from a decoupling and a new cold war is that many of the 1.4 billion Chinese people, who are otherwise very friendly toward America, could turn into opponents. By contrast, a friendly and cooperative China will be definitely the Americans’ greatest fortune in Asia.

I believe a constructive competition and cooperation between China, the United States and other countries under a rules-based multilateral system should be the right choice. Fortunately, the IMF is still functioning normally and has played a constructive leading role, which is also supported by the World Bank and other multilateral banks.

In just a few months, recently, the IMF has implemented debt relief to more than 27 countries, supported by contributions from a group of better- resourced members, including China. The Fund has augmented its lending instruments to low-income countries by more than 10 billion SDR, and approved emergency financing (RCF and RFI) of 47 billion SDR for more than 74 countries. It has created a new short-term liquidity line (SLL), and is pushing for approval of new agreement of borrowing of 365 billion SDR, and preparing for a new round of Bilateral Borrowing Agreement of 138 billion SDR. China has actively participated in all the above efforts and made its own contribution.

The Fund and the World Bank jointly proposed a Debt Service Suspension Initiative that has been endorsed by the G20. China has further called for an extension of this initiative to 2021. A fair burden-sharing and full participation of all creditors is critical for a successful implementation of this initiative.

China has made more efforts outside the multilateral framework, including 1) additional $2 billion grant assistance to most affected countries, especially developing countries, to combat COVID-19 and recover social and economic development; 2) establish a Sino-Africa hospital cooperation program covering 30 hospitals in Africa, China has recently sent five emergency professional medical teams to Africa, which is in addition to the existing 46 Chinese medical teams in Africa; 3) in addition to implementing the G20 debt moratorium initiative, China will provide more assistance to countries that have been most heavily affected, together with other stakeholders; 4) China has promised that once it completes developing and testing its own vaccine, it will provide this product to developing countries as global public goods; 5) China will establish a comprehensive storage and transportation hub to support global medical supplies, under the direction of the United Nations.

The merit of multilateral assistance is that it is rules-based, approved by a collective board representing all its member countries; and the recipient countries are facing the multilateral institution, rather than a particular country or country group, therefore it can reduce (although not eliminate) geopolitical sensitivity. Although there are different views on many different issues, and even bilateral tensions between some member countries, the majority of the Fund’s membership have been able to find common ground on many issues.

The Bretton Woods institutions could do two more things, in my view.

First, a general allocation of SDRs that will increase the supply of international reserve asset, reduce the burden of any single country to supply its reserve currency excessively and provide low-income countries necessary resources to alleviate their debt distress.

Second, the multilateral banks should greatly expand their lending to include not only developing countries, but also developed countries, including the United States, itself. That will fully utilize the low interest rate environment and greatly stimulate global demand and pull up growth in receiving countries.

In conclusion, I wish the after-COVID-19 world a more cooperative and peaceful one. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much.

Now we will hear from the Hon. Boris Meshchanov, Counselor, Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations

HON. BORIS MESHCHANOV: Dear and distinguished Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche,

Dear colleagues and friends from so many countries,

Our video broadcast audience,

The problems put in the center of today’s discussion are of high importance. We welcome highlighting acute questions of international relations through the prism of development, building physical infrastructure, cooperation between major powers in the interests of the poorest and most vulnerable, in accordance with the United Nations Agenda 2030. We fully share the crucial significance of industrialization, eradication of poverty, reforming of international credit-generating institutions and ensuring food security. Those are basically in the spotlight for the whole global community. We emphasize that the right to development persists as a basic human right. Development beats inequality, contributes to peace and is an indispensable condition for building just, peaceful and inclusive societies.

I would like to start my presentation, citing the report by the United Nations Secretary-General saying: “As we are facing multidimensional and multifaceted impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, global solidarity with Africa is an imperative — now and for recovering better. Ending the pandemic in Africa is essential for ending it across the world.” In the context of this challenging crisis we all seek to re-assess the model for development with the needs of the most vulnerable at its cornerstone. I would like to address this issue with respect to how our country deploys relations with the African continent.

It is justified that today more than ever before, our eyes are directed to the regrettable fortunes of populations in remote corners of the world, where governments are grappling with triple crisis of health and finance, trying to avoid widening social disparity and future economic distress. Aware of its historical responsibility for the formation of the modern system of international relations and its further improvement, the Russian Federation considers international development assistance as an effective mechanism to solve global and regional problems, and to respond to new challenges and threats. Our priorities have been the eradication of poverty and promotion of sustainable socio-economic development of partner states; influencing global processes in order to form a stable and just world order based on universally recognized rules of international law and partnership relations among states as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters and other emergencies.

In doing so, as it can easily be seen through the ideals of Russian philosophers and artists and classical Russian literature, assisting our friends abroad has always been based on the respect of the other’s dignity. It has been reflected in our national policies and priorities, and technical and humanitarian assistance has always been delivered at the request of the recipient side. We have proceeded from the assumption that any approaches in the spirit of colonial rule, like the General Act of Berlin of 1884, bringing about the principle of “effective occupation” that prejudiced the freedom of the Africans themselves, attempts to come to an agreement behind one’s back and act solely from the standpoint of mercenary calculation, will most likely not be accepted by these peoples themselves. On the contrary, we value and promote equitable partnership on the international arena ,upholding the principles of truth and justice, respect for the civilizational identity of each people, the path of development chosen by each people themselves.

As the Russian President Vladimir Putin recently emphasized, the development of relations with the countries of the African continent and their regional organizations is one of the priorities of Russian foreign policy. Links between us are based on the friendly relations between the Russian Federation and African states and the traditions of the joint struggle for decolonization and achieving the independence of African states, as well as on the rich experience of multifaceted and mutually beneficial cooperation that meets the interests of our peoples.

Dear colleagues and friends,

One of the main lessons learnt from this pandemic is an urgent need for international solidarity and cooperation, without exclusions and exemptions. In line with this objective, we have committed to giving Russian-African interaction a truly systemic and integrated character. African states are confidently gaining political and economic weight, affirming themselves as one of the important pillars of the multipolar world, and are taking an increasingly active part in working out the decisions of the international community on key issues of the regional and global agenda. We need to respect their rights to benefit equally from globalization, whatever shape it will take following the impacts of the pandemic.

In our strong opinion, the world needs Africa not just like a pantry of valuable minerals or a bread basket, but strong and sovereign region, developing an equal dialogue with its partners in accordance with the norms of the national legislation, based on the multilateral nature of the world order. Today, when proposals are made to reform the global governance system, we are consistently upholding the need to reflect the role of Africa in those structures that are engaged in global governance.

Our fundamentals are not only ensuring the wide global participation of African states, but also resolving conflict situations, on the principle of “African solution to African problems.” Together, we are able to counteract political dictatorship and currency blackmail in the course of international trade and economic cooperation, in order to put pressure on objectionable countries and unfair competition. Introduction of unilateral coercive measures not based on international law, also known as unilateral sanctions, is an example of such practices. Joint efforts are needed to promote trade, investment and sustainable development in order to make the global economic system more socially oriented, to oppose any manifestations of a unilateral approach, protectionism and discrimination, to support the world trade, based on the rules of the World Trade Organization.

Under this paradigm the first Russia-Africa Summit and Economic Forum took place in October 2019 in Sochi, with 92 agreements, contracts, and memoranda of understanding, worth $12 billion signed and problems of trade, investments and banking, industry and construction, transport and logistics, energy and high-tech addressed, among others.

We paid special attention to identifying promising areas of economic, trade and investment partnership of the Russian Federation, as a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, with the African Union, as well as with the leading regional organizations of Africa — the Arab Maghreb Union, the Sahel Five, the Southern African Development Community, the Common Market for East and South Africa, the East African Community, Economic Community of West African Countries, Economic Community of Central African States, and others.

In our movement towards Africa we need to be creative and promote new mechanisms for partnership, encourage active participation of business in exhibitions, fairs, and congress events, and develop the practice of exchanging business missions.

Moving towards Africa in this new old world would be impossible without learning each other better, taking into consideration local customs and traditions for our partners, rich cultural and linguistic variety. In Sochi in 2019, we have committed to develop cooperation in the field of education, implement vocational training, and academic exchange programs to promote social stability by protecting people, especially youth, women and persons with disabilities, and expand their capabilities by increasing the availability of education, technical and vocational training. Participants in the Russia-Africa summit confirmed that obtaining quality education and developing skills by young men and women can become a driving force for structural economic transformation and industrialization in African countries, as well as the basis for strengthening the industrial potential necessary to diversify the economy.

It so happened that our country has already contributed to the development of the African continent, in particular, in industry, infrastructure and energy security, areas promoted by the Schiller Institute as the fundamentals of the so-called physical economy, so I would focus on them briefly.

So far, Russia has been involved in the creation of the Russian industrial zone in Egypt. Among the key competencies of Russia for Africa, one cannot overestimate the role of rail infrastructure for the development of Nigeria, Egypt, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Angola. Under current conditions, it is important that the use of technologies such as medical trains in Africa will prevent the spread of infectious diseases and fight epidemics.

In energy, we count on the future construction of the first nuclear power plant in Egypt and the Russian Center for Nuclear Science and Technology in Rwanda facilitating the development of integrated solutions in the field of nuclear energy in agriculture, health, education, science and industry. Those two are not the only countries in Africa that intend to develop nuclear energy. Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria, Sudan and Zambia are also on this growing list. Most African countries suffer from severe electricity shortages. Accordingly, in the near future they should double their generating capacity to meet current needs. The current pandemic-caused crisis, apparently, has aggravated this challenge for them.

In saying this we should not forget about stepping up efforts to combat climate change in Africa, transfer relevant technologies, build the capacity of African states. Meanwhile, general greening of the economy, in our approach, needs to be based on responsibility, consistency and realism. Key to that is technological progress. Serious efforts are being deployed to improve energy efficiency in industry, agriculture, housing and transport. In our country, we have launched national project “Environment” to create incentives for Russian business to implement best “green” technologies, to ensure the environmentally friendly low-emission development. And we will proceed to provide assistance to developing countries, including Africa, to help them meet their own climate goals without prejudice to the objectives of ensuring inclusive and sustainable economic growth, industrialization of economies and leaving no one behind.

The pandemic is spreading across the world, threatening to backslide the efforts applied to build a more resilient architecture. It’s high time for humanity, responsibility and spirit of partnership to be demonstrated. A truly systemic issue with reference to today’s discussion, is food security, which holds a special place among Russia’s priorities in its efforts to achieve sustainable development globally. First of all, we believe that it has to be addressed at the level of supplying the world enough high-quality food to stabilize international markets, and make it more accessible and affordable for a maximum number of people. At the same time, the zero-hunger goal must be addressed as a matter of urgency for those countries that are food insecure. To that end, over the last 20 years, Russia has been steadily and consistently increasing its own production and export of food — grain, cereals, pulses, meats, poultry, oils, milk and dairy products, etc. Russia has become one of the world’s largest exporters of food.

During the pandemic, food supplies were transferred to the Union of Comoros (172 tons) and Madagascar (about 500 tons).

Apart from tackling the problem of food security, Russia donated hundreds of KAMAZ trucks, together with the necessary parts, equipment, and technical support, for key World Food Program operations in Africa. Starting from 2020, $10 million are being reserved exclusively for Africa. It is the first time that Russia assigns a geographic priority for its voluntary contribution to the World Food Program.

In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, East Africa is experiencing its largest invasion of desert locusts in decades, and our country is making a $10 million contribution to support FAO [Food and Agriculture Organization] operations in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan and Uganda.

In connection with the coronavirus pandemic, Russia received requests from a total of 29 African countries, as well as from the African Union, asking for assistance in combatting the impacts of COVID-19. To date, units of laboratory supplies and personal protective equipment have been provided to the Democratic Republic of the Congo; multi-purpose medical modules, tents and accessories to Djibouti; test systems to South Africa and Guinea.

At the same time, we believe that helping a sick person with a virus is paramount, but only part of the problem is solved. A fundamental factor is the availability of an effective preventive and educational system in the countries affected by the epidemic. As an example, I refer to the example of the Republic of Guinea, where two mobile hospitals have been deployed, and where mobile laboratories based on KAMAZ vehicles were transferred, and medications were delivered. With the participation of Russian experts in this country, more than 800 specialists have passed specialized training since 2015. Russia makes a significant contribution to the scientific research of the Ebola virus. With the support of one of the flagships of Russian business, the United Company RUSAL, the Russian-Guinean Research Center for Epidemiology and Prevention of Infectious Diseases was established in the Guinean city of Kindia.

Last, but not least, long and intensive discussion is ongoing concerning the unbearable debt burden of African states. Russia actively contributes to alleviating it under the debt-for-development program intergovernmental agreements. Those between Russia and Madagascar, Mozambique, and Tanzania, are being implemented. For instance, as part of these arrangements, the Government of Mozambique in cooperation with the World Food Program, has launched a multi-disciplinary national school feeding program. It provides for the conversion of a part of the county’s debt to Russia amounting to $40 million during 2017-2021, into activities that address malnutrition among sick children and foster primary education in Mozambique.

With that, I deeply thank you for your attention, and look forward to your questions.

SPEED: And we want to thank you very much, also, Mr. Meshchanov, because we had some problems with the video as you were speaking. We’re going to first of all make sure the entire speech is made available immediately in terms of the actual text, and we’d like to also apologize. We’d like to have, at some point and I want to say this publicly, if we can actually re-do your video, because it was not quite in synch. The audio was fine, people could hear it very clearly and it was an extremely important message. And so, I want to thank you, again, very much for what you just did.

MESHCHANOV: Thank you.

SPEED: Our next speaker is Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former Surgeon General of the United States.

DR. JOYCELYN ELDERS: Hello. I’m Dr. Joycelyn Elders, and I am happy to speak to the Schiller Institute conference today, whose theme is “Will Humanity Prosper or Perish?” I hope, as I am sure you all do, that humanity prospers.

Ironically, a lethal disease, the coronavirus pandemic, may be the only way to unify the world to reverse what might otherwise appear to be a sure slide into disaster.

We are here to discuss a new paradigm for the whole world—not just for the richer or more well-off nations. Helga Zepp-LaRouche has proposed that a world healthcare platform must be constructed to respond to the present crisis. She has circulated a short memo to this effect, calling for a Committee of Opposites to be formed to implement it. I would like to respond to one passage of that memo in particular. Here is what it said.

“A very large number of youth in the U.S. and the European nations coming from the economically disadvantaged segments of society are presently looking without a perspective into the future and are therefore exposed to an entire specter of perils. They could be educated through a training program in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s CCC program to become medical auxiliary forces and could be deployed together with doctors and medical professionals in the building of first temporary, and then permanent hospitals and hospital wards in African and other developing sector nations. For the countries of the Southern Hemisphere the support from the industrialized nations is existential: Therefore it will be possible to find cooperating institutions, such as governments, religious and social organizations, as well as youth organizations, who can help to set up such facilities and win the trust in the population for such an approach. In the industrialized nations, for example, hospitals could set up partnerships with existing hospitals in the developing nations, which then could be used as affiliates for the construction of an expanded health system. One can also draw in nongovernmental organizations with experience in so-called conflict areas, such as the Peace Corps, catastrophe protection organizations, and various relief organizations.

“In the U.S. and European nations retired doctors, helpful individuals, and social and religious organizations could work in a Committee to put together teams of medical personnel and apprentices for this deployment….”

Now, I think that this can be done, but we must think about how we would do it. It will be very important, for example, in the countrysides of Africa, just as it is important in the cities of the United States, for people from these neighborhoods and communities to be very involved in this process. Therefore, young people from Africa should be paired with young people from America, and be trained together from the beginning. We should remember that they are significant communities of African-American youth that are in the United States, whose parents came from Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Senegal, and many other nations. Importantly historically black colleges and universities could be used, as well as high school campuses in the urban centers, as central coordinating points, to assemble volunteers that want to participate in such a program. More broadly, various land-grant colleges, community colleges, and churches, and other organizations already deeply involved in such outreach, need simply be encouraged by young people who want to assist in doing what perhaps only they can do—save the lives of their peers in Africa, the Americas, Asia, and elsewhere through demonstrations of hope and health.

First, we will need many community healthcare workers. We can take a page out of what was done in the American Civil War in 1861 in New York City, with what was called the Sanitary Commission. We just take some people in the community, give them some basic health education, and develop them as medical assistants and medical technicians. Most importantly, they will be very well known in their communities. They can communicate very well with the people in their communities. You can have supervisors of these community healthcare workers, who are also trained, and of course coordinate with nurses, nurse practitioners and doctors. But this gives you a far larger force to work with, which is what we need.

We can’t teach what we don’t know, and we can’t lead where we won’t go. We have to have tiers of people who are from the community, healthcare workers who understand the community and know the community, as well as immediate supervisors, to people with enough medical training, all the way up to nurse’s assistants, practitioners, doctors, and others, right up to the level of super-specialist. We often do too much special care, and not enough public health. We do not do enough of the basic public health which would do far more to maintain the health, more than 100 surgeons.

This is not an attack against specialization, but it is an assertion that we are in a condition like that of a world war, which requires something that Martin Luther King and others have often talked about—creative, nonviolent directed action, but in the field of health. And we need volunteers, just as the American civil rights movement had volunteers. They will be the backbone of this effort. In this case, we need to establish brigades and battalions of courageous young people, who may even risk their lives, but in a responsible way, to save the lives of others, both here and in other countries.

This is not, by any means, completely new. Many nations have tried elements of such programs, which have worked relatively successfully in the past, and members of the African Union , or WHO, are well aware of these measures. This, however, is a circumstance that requires the equivalent of a wartime alliance, but this is truly a wartime alliance for progress. Here we can count successes, not in the numbers of enemies killed through combat, but through the numbers of lives saved through healthcare. We will also be aided by the omnipresence of certain social media capabilities that can provide means of close coordination that would otherwise be unavailable.

The fight against this virus must have a human face. There is no section of our population we can afford to ignore. For example, our already-overcrowded and often abusive prisons will see an explosion of infections. Should such people who have been accused of a theft or other non-violent crime, or anyone else, for that matter, be given a de facto death sentence, or be put in harm’s way, solely because the rest of us have decided to forget who they are? What about the families that visit them? What about the children, or spouses, or parents attachéd to those people? And I believe that this can be a mobilization that replaces the image of young people as a problem, or a potential source of unrest, with the image that they are the healers, those dedicated to preserving life, not destroying it.

There may be more than 2 million American young men currently held in prisons for non-violent offenses who could be more than willing to become part of this solution, to help bring health both in their communities here, as well as to other nations. And it would only be in such an emergency as this, that this sort of bold thinking would be attachéd to an urgent, dire, but resolvable crisis.

I pray that this moment may find us equal to this challenge to our normal way of thinking. All the world is at stake, and all the world is in need. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Elders.

We’re now going to hear from Dr. Ding Yifan, Deputy Director, Research Institute of World Development, of the China Development Research Center of China.

DR. DING YIFAN: Dear Friends,

It’s a pleasure talking with you on this very important, historical moment. The COVID-19 pandemic has caught the whole world by surprise. Not only have the economies been paralyzed and human life threatened, but all life habits have changed also. Moreover, in many countries, people have not been able to effectively curb the spread of the virus, because they have no experience. Although many institutions have tried to produce vaccines, but are now afraid that the vaccine would be short-lived because the virus evolves so quickly.

In the face of an epidemic, we humans are very vulnerable. If we’re not enlightened and work together to fight the virus, the time for the virus to spread will prolong, and the longer we will suffer. So, here, I’d like to highlight four points:

Firstly, when China’s epidemic broke out, many countries helped China and provided China with various materials for prevention and to fight the virus, in creating masks. Countries, such as Japan, have picked up sentences from ancient Chinese classics, and write on the boxes for transferring those materials to China, to show the close relationship and cooperation between East Asia area’s countries. Once the epidemic situation had been brought under control in China, and the situation became intensified in Japan and South Korea, China sent a lot of materials to Japan and South Korea, to help people there fight the virus.

Secondly, many such token stories have also been staged between Chinese and American companies. Once the epidemic situation got worsened in the United States, many Chinese companies had sent materials for prevention and to fight the pandemic in the United States, as well as masks, protective clothing, protective glasses, ventilators and even [s/l ratings] for nucleic acid detection. So this cooperation showed that our humanity in society is really a community of common destiny.

Thirdly, unfortunately, the political opinion and the political spirit in the United States have made China unintentionally a scapegoat. Radical Congressmen and Senators try to compete with the hoax in the Trump Administration to show off who has the hardest line toward China. These attitudes cannot help Americans fight the epidemic, on the contrary it can only exacerbate the mistrust between China and the United States, making cooperation even impossible between the Chinese and the American governments, within an obstinate pandemic.

Fourthly, in fact, the world economy has not come out completely from the last financial crisis in 2007, and then, a new crisis happened. The pandemic might make this crisis deeper and more difficult to deal with, because we are faced with a dilemma: Restoring the economy and preventing the virus from spreading. The largest economies in the world need to expand their cooperation and take joint measures to fight the virus, and to boost economic growth. We have to use a stimulus package not only to alleviate the problem of the population in trouble, but also to use this stimulus package to invest in infrastructure, not only in traditional infrastructure, such as highways, bridges, or telecommunications means, but also in the development of new infrastructure, such as means of prevention of epidemics for the masses, and the treatment of these masses in pandemics, also including the remote means to check the temperature of the masses.

Only by rebuilding trust among big powers can we unite and fight the coronavirus with success. Then we can bring humanity back to the harmonious development path again. So, I think we have to unite our forces or strengths in the middle of the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, and then, we could try to find a way to common development, after the pandemic.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much Dr. Ding.

Our next presentation is by former Mayor DeWayne Hopkins, mayor of the town of Muscatine, Iowa. And he represents the China-Muscatine Friendship Society.

FORMER MAYOR DEWAYNE HOPKINS: Good day, everyone. My name is DeWayne Hopkins. I’m the former mayor of a small community in eastern Iowa, located right on the Mississippi River.

And I have a story to tell you. But in order to tell this story, where it begins I’m going to have to move the clock back in time to 1985. Back in that timeframe, the country of the People’s Republic of China, sent four individuals to Iowa. These individuals had never been in the United States before, but through the Sister Cities and Sister States organization, these individuals came right directly to Muscatine, Iowa. One of these individuals was Xi Jinping, and of course at the time, he was pretty young, and he was a provincial official in Hebei province.

Well, they came to Muscatine, and they toured some of our plants around town, and so on and so forth. They even enjoyed a barbecue with spareribs and corn on the cob and things of that nature. In any case, they spent three days in Muscatine, and then moved on to Des Moines, Iowa, where they met with then-Governor Terry Branstad.

Now, I’m going to fast forward a little bit to 2016. Our governor was on a kind of an agricultural mission trip to Beijing in the People’s Republic of China. And he was meeting with Xi Jinping, who at the time had moved up in the ranks to the position of Vice President. Xi Jinping just happened to ask Governor Branstad, because he had known him for that length of time from 1985 to 2016, he asked him how his friends Sarah and Roger Lande were. Well, Sarah and Roger Lande are residents of Muscatine. Roger is a retired attorney. Back in 1985, Sarah was the President of the Sister States organization here in Iowa. Well, Governor Branstad responded that they were in good health and everything was fine, but that’s what started the wheels in motion about a revisit to Muscatine from then-Vice President Xi Jinping. That happened on, I believe it was February 12th. He was on a trip from Washington, D.C., then to meet President Obama in Los Angeles, California. He thought he would have time to stop by Muscatine, Iowa, which he did.

We all greeted him on the porch of the Lande residence. We all went inside, and enjoyed snacks and conversation, and sort of rehashing old times, thus become the title “old friends.” So, a great number of his old friends — that is, Xi Jinping’s — were in attendance at the Lande residence, and they all had just a marvelous time. Xi Jinping’s time came about, he had to leave, and that was OK.

But a short time after returning to China, Xi Jinping suggested via email to Sarah Lande, that we engage a community in China about having a sister city relationship. So, that’s what started the wheels churning for that adventure. That city in China became Zhengding. The rest is kind of history. I went to China and visited with the folks in Zhengding; their mayor, Mayor Yang, came to Muscatine and visited with our folks. We sat down and signed a letter of intent to become sister cities. So, that’s kind of how that went.

As time went on, Xi Jinping became the President of the People’s Republic of China, and Sarah Lande is still in Muscatine, and they stay in contact every now and then. But it’s a relationship that started here in Muscatine, and it’s ongoing.

I will say that we have moved hopefully into the future, and we now have in our high school, four years of Mandarin language. We also have an orchestra that is fairly well-versed in the usage of Chinese instruments, which as you may know, are all stringed instruments. They have sent us some of these instruments, and we’ve learned to play them. And of course, every year, here in Muscatine, is a concert put on by an orchestra either from Beijing or from Shanghai. I believe we’ve done four of those already. And we’re done with this pandemic of the coronavirus, I look for more of those kinds of events to be scheduled.

That’s just another element of the relationship that we have with the People’s Republic of China. They’re outstanding musicians and they communicate with those in attendance at their concerts very, very well. It’s a pleasure to have them here. It’s a pleasure to know that they’ll be coming in the future, and we enjoy having them very much.

I guess, what I’m saying to you is, we’re a small community, and we have a friendly relationship with the People’s Republic of China: That isn’t going to change, and we really don’t care a lot about what they do in Washington, D.C., or what they do in Los Angeles, California. We have a relationship with the People’s Republic of China. They’re great people, they have a good sense of humor; and I wouldn’t mind having one of them as a neighbor.

[Mr. Hopkins then played a short clip from a very lively concert by the Chinese orchestra.]

SPEED: Just one correction: Former Mayor Hopkins misspoke: Actually, when Xi Jinping returned to Muscatine in 2012, he was the Vice-President, not the President at that time. And he came back, and that’s when the meeting was, and it was in 2012, not in 2016. We apologize, and the Mayor apologizes for that unintentional misspoken phrase.

Our final presentation is by Daisuke Kotegawa, Research Director at the Canon Institute, and former Executive Director for Japan at the International Monetary Fund.

“Recollection My Involvement in Economic Assistance”

DAISUKE KOTEGAWA: 1. In the mid-1980s, when I worked as a staff member of the World Bank, I had an opportunity to complain about the slow development of African countries despite a large amount of aid to Africa to a British and a French staff, both of whom had devoted their lives to economic development in Africa. Their answer was amazing. “Mr. Kotegawa. It is wrong to expect fast economic growth in Africa which can be compared to those in Asia and Japan. Because Africa is trying to achieve what humanity has done in 2000 years within 100 years.”

  1. When I returned to Japan in 1987, I became the budget examiner in the Ministry of Finance in charge of the budget of the foreign economic assistance. We reviewed Japan’s basic policies regarding economic assistance to Africa, and we started to try to create a country that will become a model for development in Africa, that is, “Japan” in Africa. I was convinced that it was very important to create a Japan in Africa, because at my days at the World Bank, I realized that Asian countries found Japan as their model and hope, having come to believe that Asian countries can reach the level of Western countries if they work diligently like the Japanese.
  2. The first step is to select the target country. The target country had to have a moderate economic scale, but small enough not to have internal contention such as tribal conflict. We chose Ghana, Cameroon and Malawi. As for Ghana, young and clean leader Rawlings were also a major factor. We poured all three kinds of economic aid into three countries: concessional loans with focus on the construction of economic infrastructure, grants focused on construction of social infrastructure in the medical and educational sector, and technical assistance with the aim of technology transfer through dispatching experts and inviting trainees.
  3. A backlash from the former colonial powers was expected, and Japan, which had historically little relationship with African countries, lacked the know-how to build aid projects there. So, we made an arrangement with Crown Agents, a British aid agency, for consulting our projects in Africa. As a result, about one-third of its total annual income in the early ’90s came from Japan. Ghana, in particular, has achieved great economic growth and if we had continued to do so, a “Japan” in Africa could have been realized within 1990s.
  4. However, having watched the success of such Japanese aid, the British and French began to be vigilant. Ms. Cresson, who became French prime minister in 1991, made such remarks as, “Japanese are yellow ants” and “The Japanese are enemies and are plotting to conquer the world without obeying the rules” and repeated such remarks as “Japanese economic assistance is Jurassic.” Against such criticism, Japan was forced to review its aid policy and had to reduce aid to Africa before Ghana became a Japan in Africa. Since then, proposals for UN Millennium 2000 Target, including the debt relief, which mainly targeted Japan’s yen loans, have been drafted mainly by the U.K., and Japan’s presence in the world of economic assistance has gradually been lost.
  5. I think that there is a fundamental difference between Western concept of economic assistance and that of Japan. The underlining idea of Western aid is a charity. This leads to the emphasis on “humanitarian aid,” and the idea of economic independence of recipient country is scarce. On the other hand, the basic idea of Japan’s aid is recipient country’s economic growth and independence. This is the idea that flows to the root of Japan since the Meiji Restoration, which has been trying to catch up with and overtake the West, witnessing the plight of Asian colonies under imperialism.
  6. On the issue of economic assistance policy, I had to fight with the Western countries wannabe scholars, critics, and mass media at home, as well as those abroad, with friends of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who had the same sense of mission. Mr. Ishikawa, who wrote several books at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, was my greatest collaborator.
  7. One day, a Japanese journalist came to me and started to criticize Japan’s aid policy. His argument was not original which echoed the well-known Western criticism of Japan. For example, he said that Japan built hospitals in developing countries, but only some wealthy people in the country can use such hospitals, and it is not for the poor general public. Or he said that Japan is building telephone network in developing countries where most people do not have a telephone, or that Japan has built international airports in the capital in order to advertise its aid. It would not benefit at all the general public in the developing country who did not have the chance to go abroad. He also took the example of the Philippines, claiming that “It is wrong that Japan has built a hospital for the rich in Manila. Sweden built apartments for the poor in the slums of Manila.” I asked him, “By the way, what would you be most worried about if you were asked by your company tomorrow to go to Manila next week?” He replied, “Whether I can call up Tokyo smoothly, whether is the airport there is fine, or whether there is a proper hospital.” So, I told him, ” What you said are exactly what foreign companies which make investment in the Philippines are concerned about. If there are no problems on such matters, overseas companies will build factories in the Philippines in search for cheap labor and hire people with low wages with minimal education. In this way, employment increases, and the gap between the rich and the poor decreases. I visited to the Smoky Mountain in Manila, which is the core of slum where Sweden built an apartment. The place is a garbage dump, and residents sleep on the bench on the pile of garbage and they protect themselves from rain by the roof made by tablecloth. It stinks very bad. People living there dig out what can be used from the pile of garbage and sell it in the city. The apartment built by Sweden became a slum again in less than six months. Because residents don’t have regular employments, and no income. It is not possible to maintain the apartment no matter how splendid the dwelling is. Japan’s aid help companies increase employment by building economic infrastructure such as railways, ports, airports, roads, power plants, and telecommunication networks with yen loans, creating preconditions for overseas companies to enter the country, and help provide facilities for basic education as a social infrastructure. Gradually, technology will be transferred from the foreign company to the local company, and the industry will grow in the developing country. Just as we were providing economic assistance to Asian countries with this way of thinking, the value of the yen doubled as a result of the Plaza Accord, and the relocation of factories to Asia began by Japanese companies that were no longer able to stand up to labor costs in Japan. The relocation began in Malaysia, where politics were stable and the power generation capacity built by yen loans was firm, and proceeded to Thailand, Indonesia, and China, and the so-called geese-type economic growth started in Asia. This steady economic development continued until the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s.

I allocated to my Japanese colleagues to join the Belt and Road Initiative as proposed by China, especially when they proposed the establishment of AIIB, and also with the United States. Because I thought the cooperation among these three countries are the best mix to build up economic infrastructure in the developing countries. Because, in my view, the Chinese have a shortfall in their capacity to build up the new projects, which is actually the major part of the advantage for Japanese bankers as well as American bankers.

So United States and Japan can draw up a kind of blueprint for economic development and China should be in charge of financing and also actual construction of those projects. And after the completion of those projects, Japan would like to take the lead in maintenance and the rehabilitation of those completed projects, if they are needed. Because this is the kind of area that Japanese companies are quite good at.

So I believe this is the best way of collaborating, for these three countries for the future of this globe.

Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much, Dr. Kotegawa.

We’re about to go to the questions and answers. What we’re going to do is to allow the panelists who are with us live, to have some cross-talk, to discuss things and to respond to what they have all heard. Not everyone is with us live.

And just prior to doing that, I’d like to introduce my colleague Diane Sare, who has something to say.

DIANE SARE: Right now, we are going to have a greeting from the leader of the LaRouche Society in South Africa by video — Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane.

RAMASIMONG PHILLIP TSOKOLIBANE: From the Republic of South Africa, I offer my greetings to those of you gathered virtually around the globe for this important conference. My name is Ramasimong Phillip Tsokolibane, and it is my great honor to lead the LaRouche Movement in South Africa.

The matters upon which you are deliberating will determine whether or not mankind survives our turbulent times. Around the globe, people are in the streets, rising up to protest the intolerable injustice of the dying neo-colonial order that has enslaved all of us. It is a deadly monetarist order that values pieces of speculative financial paper above human life. The collapse of this global British financial empire is certain. What will replace it is not. What must be brought into being is a New World Economic Order based on the unleashing of the greatest power in the universe: the power of human creativity to build on this planet a world of hope, peace, and posterity, where we will be truly, finally free.

We shall extend our dominion beyond Earth into the vast expanse of the universe beyond. This was the mighty dream of the great Lyndon LaRouche, who taught us that the final conjunctural crisis of the old evil British Empire was coming, and that we must, as revolutionaries, be prepared to seize the moment to shepherd the great change for the good.

As we deliberate today, we must remember the teachings of Mr. LaRouche. It is now truly his time, a time in which troubles can be turned into opportunities. To do otherwise, would be to allow those evil people, who lorded over us as the masters of the old empire, to continue their rule in an even more brutish and deadly form. A global fascist order whose policy intention it is to kill more than three-quarters of all people on Earth — that is, if they don’t stumble into a general thermonuclear war that kills all of us. As the COVID-19 virus slashes its deadly path across my continent, which will leave tens of millions dead in its wake, if not more, we see the results of the British Empire policy of enforced underdevelopment, combined with the equally deadly famine and attempts to start wars here and around the globe. We can count more millions murdered through the Empire’s policy.

It does not have to be this way. LaRouche’s policies and programs for development and jobs point the way to the future. For Africa, it is go with LaRouche, or die with the old neo-colonial empire. Africa wants to lead, and we have, with some help, the means to survive and prosper. My country, the only full-set economy on the continent, can help produce both the machinery and the machine tools required for the industrialization of Africa. We can help train the hundreds of millions of new productive workers that will be needed. We have one of the most advanced nuclear energy industries on the globe, which is under constant attack from London.

So, it is our future and the future of billions of Africans to come, that this conference is discussing. Best wishes for the success of your deliberations.

Panel 1: Questions & Answers

SPEED: Thank you very much, Phillip Tsokolibane.

So, now we’re going to go to our live panelists: That will be Helga Zepp-LaRouche, I see Dr. Elders who is there; and Mr. Meshchanov is there — great.

I just want to first ask any of the panelists if they have any response or any thoughts about what they’ve heard? Helga, I’d like to start with you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the reason why we wanted to have this conference is to show a way how governments can actually work together; how people can support that, and in that way help to create an environment where the absolute urgent question of a new world economic order, a new financial system can actually be put on the table.

I’m very encouraged, because what Dr. Jin did is very much our approach; that you need a dialogue of cultures. That you need to look for those ideas which resonate in the other culture even if the predicates are different. I think he did an excellent job in doing that.

I think the fact that Mr. Meshchanov chose to focus on Africa is a sign of the times, because I believe that the fate of the Africa continent is really what will decide if we are morally fit to survive. If we cannot get our act together and work together as nations to help to overcome the dangers coming from the locusts, the famine, the pandemic, I think that this is the most crucial focus. Also, to put aside all kinds of geopolitical contrary interests and really work together in the common task of getting humanity into a different age, really into a different era.

I was very happy with what Dr. Elders said, because I think this idea to call on the youth; that they have to have an absolutely important role, because it’s their future, it’s their world. Young people always like to talk to other people from other countries and work together, so I think that is one of the leverages how we can influence the governments to go in the direction in which they need to go.

Naturally, very delightful was what Mayor Hopkins demonstrated, because it really beats back the idea that small communities can’t do much. He has demonstrated that it can be done, and the fact that the great community of Muscatine has a relationship to Xi Jinping, it just is very bold and is a very good example. I think especially in the end, when he blended in these musical performances, it touched off exactly what needs to be touched off — namely, love between different cultures. Because different cultures are not a threat, they are actually an enrichment once you start to know them and to encounter them.

I also want to thank Ding Yifan, who is an old acquaintance of ours going back to the 1990s, and so is Mr. Kotegawa. So, I think this was really a very powerful and very useful demonstration of how you can work together on different levels and set an example.

SPEED: Counselor Meshchanov, I have a particular thing I’d like to ask you, because we had a question which is going to come your way, and also your speech very much dealt with the question of Africa. But one of the questions that came in, I think you can maybe answer as you give us your own reflections is: “What is President Putin’s thinking in calling for a P5 summit [Five-Power summit], and how does this compare with Mrs. LaRouche’s proposal?”

MESHCHANOV: Thank you for your question, but first off, thank you for inviting us. Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak and deliberate on very acute and intelligent problems of the current moment.

Actually, at the United Nations, we have been involved in organizing the summit even before the pandemic, and we’re still looking forward to having it under the new circumstances. We proceed from our President Vladimir Putin’s own statements earlier this year from Jerusalem, when proposing the summit of the United Nations Security Council Five. The rationale for organizing the summit is not to miss, as he said, new sprouts of hate and discrimination between people and peoples.

According to our President, the country’s founders, the United Nations, and the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, that the responsibility for preserving civilization lies with them. These countries are called upon to become an example for other states in this regard. So, such a summit would demonstrate loyalty of countries to their responsibilities; countries that combatted together back to back against Nazism and fascism, back 75 years ago. [http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/62646]

So, this is how we see it, and how we see the objectives of this summit. We believe that this current moment unfortunately has contributed to this rationale, because borders and discrimination and inequality between countries are getting worse. That is why we have selected the issue of Africa for our presentation at this event of the Schiller Institute. Because we are strongly convinced that, as one of the previous speakers has stated, and it’s commonplace in the United Nations, no one is safe, if someone is not safe.

Reflecting on my colleagues’ presentations, I was highly impressed by our friend from Muscatine’s presentation on the cultural links between the peoples of the United States and China; specifically because my previous posts were somehow associated with promoting direct links between people, between human beings, in consular posts in Greece and Mongolia. It’s very timely now to speak about culture, about eternal values that unite peoples and actually can overcome the politicizing trend in international economic relations.

We also, to conclude, speak of Africa, and many thanks to our colleague from South Africa, a member country of the BRICS association, an association that we’re trying to build on principles of dignity and respect for sovereignty, and promoting independent ways of making decisions. That is the only way our new multipolar world is capable of saving humanity from new conflicts and new wars. Thank you.

SPEED: Thank you very much. Dr. Elders, we’re going to ask you for your comments, but I also see someone who is a colleague of yours, who I think is up there on the screen. If I’m not mistaken, that is Dr. Kildare Clarke from New York City. I know Dr. Clarke has sort of a short time, and he’s been waiting in the queue. Dr. Clarke, is there something you’d like to say, before we hear from Dr. Elders?

DR. KILDARE CLARKE: I would like to say a lot, and I don’t think I probably have the time here. So, for the 4 o’clock youth meeting, I hope I can get by. I agree a lot with Dr. Elders. The problem to me is that I recognize that we’ve got to fundamentally change the educational system in this country, if we really want to get out of the problems we are facing. And we cannot continue to have groups upon groups, planning groups and proposals — we’ve got to act emergently. We’ve got to change educational systems; we do not have to wait until he tries to get to high school or college, before he knows that he’s going to go to medical school. These things can begin in the elementary school. You’ve got to expose people. When they are exposed, they get interested. We are selectively excluding a large part of the population who can become excellent healthcare workers. They might not start in medical school. They could be assistants, learn, understand what it takes to get there, and go back to school. But if we do not expose them now, we’re going to lose a whole generation of excellent physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, because we don’t think it was OK to educate them now….

SPEED: I need to tell you, Dr. Clarke, your audio is bad. I think we got the basic thrust of what you were saying, which is you were pointing out that the entire educational system has to be changed. If you didn’t know this, we’ve been having some technical problems all morning. Dr. Elders, were you able to make out what he was saying?

DR. ELDERS: Yes.

SPEED: Dr. Clarke, I’m going to ask you to let her respond, and also get her reflections, because I think she knew clearly what you were getting at. So, Dr. Elders?

DR. ELDERS: I thank first of all, the Schiller Institute for putting on this conference. I think it’s been excellent in bringing up some problems that we all have. One of the things we all have to know is, whatever we’re talking about doing, you can’t do it unless you’re healthy. So, I feel very strongly we’ve got to have healthy populations, and we’ve got to start early. I agree with Dr. Clarke. I always tell people that children are half as tall as they’ll ever be by the time they’re three. They know half as much as they’ll ever know by the time they’re four. Hope, will, and drive has been determined by the time they’re five. So, we’ve got to start early. Children can’t be what they can’t see. So, we’ve got to make sure that they’re exposed, and we can start them early. They don’t have to start out being a brain surgeon, but they can start out being what they can be.

And most of all, we’ve got to keep them healthy. All human beings feel that the three things that they need to be, more than anything else, they need to feel that they can be successful. We need to make sure they’re healthy, educated, motivated, and have hope for the future. I thought, that’s where we can start, and every country can start with that. What we’ve heard about what we’re doing for countries, but we’ve got to start with health. And we’ve got to educate them. You can’t keep an ignorant population healthy. So, we’ve got to start with educating the population, and we’ve certainly got to start with doing everything we can to keep them healthy. We have to know that we’ve got our trust and global solidarity. If we don’t trust each other to do the things we need to do, we can’t get it done. We have to go out and work in the communities. Find out what the communities need, rather than giving them what we think they need.

I especially enjoyed the Counselor from Japan’s talk on the things that they were doing. Sometimes you think you’re doing exactly what a country needs. Going into Africa and doing what they needed; but maybe they needed something else. Involve the African nations to find out what does the nation feel that they need, and help them develop what they think they want and need. And we may have to start in our small communities, starting out with the young people; training them to be community health workers. Later, they grow up to be nurses, and nurse-practitioners, physicians, and then to being super-specialists. But we want to improve the health of the world, which we’ve got to do, because we all know this coronavirus has taught us that anytime one country is not healthy, all the rest, we’re all at risk. So, we’ve got to make sure that we help every country to be healthy and improve their health. We’ve got to start with the young people who are going to determine what the world’s going to be. We have to do everything we can to train them to be the best that they can be.

I never fail to go to an old Chinese proverb that says that “The society grows great when old men and old women plant trees under whose shade they know they’ll never sit.” To me, this institute, what you’re trying to do with the Schiller Institute is pull the nations together in solidarity, globally, so that they can plant trees for the bright young people of the future to sit under. Thank you.

SPEED: Helga, do you have anything you’d like to say at this point, either to Dr. Clarke, or in response to this?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No, I just feel very — my heart is moved by what you are saying, because it is that kind of human spirit which is needed now to move mountains. And these mountains need to be moved quickly, because the dangers are many. So, I’m very happy that you are saying what you are saying.

SPEED: So Dr. Clarke, we’re going to move on, because we have other questions. But I need to know if you will be able to join us for the later panel, when we will have a panel of youth. That’s going to be later this afternoon. I don’t know if your schedule allows it, but it would be important.

DR. CLARKE: I’ll make myself available.

SPEED: And we have to do something about your audio over there on the other side, too. Thank you.

Diane, we’re going to come back to you now. Do you have something for us?

SARE: Yes. I have a question from the Ambassador from Ghana to Canada. But I actually wanted to bring up one thing, since it turns out Mr. Meshchanov has been involved in cultural affairs, which is to express my desire that at some point, somehow, the city of St. Petersburg, which apparently had an absolutely phenomenal chorus, was the location of the premier of Beethoven’s sublime work, the Missa Solemnis. I know the chorus there must have been excellent, because our chorus is working on it, and it’s very difficult. This being the Year of Beethoven, and Beethoven being a composer who I think really embodies the love of mankind as a whole, I think it would be something we have to figure out how to commemorate, if not this year because of the COVID, then as soon as possible.

So now, having said that, I have a question from Ambassador J. Ayikoi Otoo, who is the High Commissioner from Ghana to Ottawa, Canada. He writes:

“I think the suggestion for four leaders to meet to brainstorm on the effects of the pandemic in order to find universal solutions is a brilliant one. But, with President Trump reeling under pressure for not having taken the pandemic seriously, and with this leading to several deaths, with President Trump pushing the blame on China and making derogatory remarks about China — Can you see these two leaders working together? Considering the fact that President Trump recently withdrew from a Zoom conference organized by leaders of the EU and China, on the subject of the raising of money to fight the pandemic worldwide, what are the prospects for the four leaders, whom you cite [I think he’s referring to Mrs. LaRouche], to come together?”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: First of all, I want to make one important correction in your question, because it may be true that President Trump was not picking up on the warnings coming from China quickly enough, but neither did the European countries. They also lost precious time. But I want to emphatically make the point that this pandemic would not be a pandemic if there would have been a good health system in every country. And that is a provable fact because, in Wuhan and Hubei province, the Chinese were able to contain it, to put strict quarantine, and then after two months it was under control. That approach, if you had a similar health system in every country in Africa, in Latin America, in Asia, in Europe, you could have stopped this from becoming a pandemic. Therefore, I think it’s very important to say that the blame of all this is the neo-liberal system which prevented the building up of infrastructures and health systems in the whole world.

This was a point made by my late husband already in 1973. He warned, and actually set up a biological holocaust taskforce to investigate the effects of the IMF policies at that time. And in the following years, of the so-called IMF conditionalities, which prevented developing countries from investing in their health systems, because they were forced to pay their debt burden first. These conditionalities actually created the condition that the pandemic even could arise. Naturally, the predecessors of Trump, such as the Bushes, such as Obama, they did much more to contribute to create the conditions than President Trump in his admittedly slightly delayed reaction. So, I just wanted to correct that, because it’s very easy to say it’s the guilt of Trump, but he definitely did not cause the problem 50 years ago.

I think that unfortunately, I believe that this situation will get so much worse. I think the surges which you see now in more than two dozen states of the United States, you see it in Brazil, in India. In general, it is estimated that this is not even a second wave; this is still the first wave which has not yet peaked. Several of the American epidemiologists and virologists said it’s no point to talk of a peak; the peak is not yet here.

So, I fear that the kind of collapse which we are seeing right now in terms of the effects of the economic shutdown, is also just the beginning. I think the situation will worsen in the short-term, long before the election takes place in November, and that the kind of social ferment which exists right now — which in part is due to the murder of George Floyd and others, but it’s also naturally manipulated and taken over by people who just want to create social trouble in the same way like President Putin warned that Trump would be faced with a “Maidan.”

So, it definitely has absolutely elements of that as well. I think this will get worse, and that means our intervention in the United States, but also around the world will be absolutely crucial. Because it is my absolute conviction that if you have more examples like that of the Mayor of Muscatine, people who just start relationships and create an environment which counters the absolutely malicious lies in the mainstream media and the crazy talk by such people as Marco Rubio or Menendez, or such people who just are completely irresponsible in what they say. There should be a standard of truth that you shouldn’t say things which are made up; but some of these people have lost all hesitations to just, for their own purposes, lie.

So, I think it’s very important that this is being countered by a lot of citizens. And I think if we can get this initiative, which I proposed with this taskforce to find solutions on the level of the coincidence of opposites, that can become an important factor, because the idea that you have to replace geopolitical confrontation with cooperation to solve this pandemic and all the other problems together, must become the steamroller in the population. I also think that if there is a chorus of countries — from Africa, from Latin America, from other places — and individuals of positions, who demand that the problems of humanity are so big that they only can be solved by the leading countries; the most powerful economically, the most powerful militarily, and those countries which have the most population, that they must get together. Because where else should the solution come from?

I think if we all work together, we can orchestrate an environment where these ideas are being picked up, and all the advantages which lie in that may convince even those countries which seem to be at loggerheads right now, to actually come together and work together, because it will benefit them more than to keep the confrontation going.

SPEED: Thank you. Our next question is from Isaiah K. Koech, Counsellor for the Kenyan High Commission [embassy] in Ottawa, Canada. I think this question will be largely for Helga and for Mr. Meshchanov.

“Whereas there is advocacy for the world’s powerful countries to meet in the ‘Four-Power’ Summit to discuss solutions that would mitigate global crises, how sure are we that the powerful leaders will incorporate issues that directly affect African countries? (This question is based on the premise that the Four-Power Summit will not have any representation from the African continent which is equally large and full of potential).”

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Mr. Meshchanov, if you want to go first?

MESHCHANOV: OK. With this, I will try to briefly focus on several questions posed before, starting with a positive conversation of our colleague referring to cultural links. We would like to reiterate our deep understanding that culture is stronger than politics, and we are availing of this opportunity to thank the Schiller Institute for issuing brilliant chorus song in Russian associated with Victory Day in May, which we would highly encourage everyone to see a brilliant and bright presentation of cultural links and culture bridging gaps between our countries. We are deeply appreciative of this work by the Schiller Institute. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcLGy8yIOVM&t=5s]

And of course the Year of Beethoven deserves to be commemorated. Our embassies, consulates, and missions all over the world are open, especially in these difficult times, to any proposals of collaboration in the cultural sphere. So, thank you very much for your remarks.

As for the four leaders summit proposal by the Schiller Institute, we believe it’s a great idea, and not contradicting the Russian President Vladimir Putin. I would like once again to reiterate the idea of five countries, specifically the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, was issued and proposed in association with the 75-year anniversary of victory in the Great Patriotic War — the Second World War, talking globally. It is addressing the idea of recollecting the common responsibility of our countries for preventing discrimination, hated, hatred on borders between countries, bearing in mind the responsibility lying with these specific countries, which are founders of the United Nations, and winners in the Second World War.

So, that was the rationale to reiterate, but that doesn’t prejudice against deliberating on any alternative forums. I’m speaking in my personal capacity of course now, but that reminds me of the rationale behind the establishment of the BRICS association, which somehow started back in the 1990s from the ideas of our outstanding and well-known academic and diplomat, and former Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Yevgeny Primakov, who tabled the idea of Russia, India, and China collaboration and systemic cooperation, meetings, and summits. That was sort of an idea that could also be taken into consideration, because our great predecessor Mr. Primakov foresaw the rising role of India, and the rising role of African countries, as a natural process of moving forward the multipolar world after the collapse of the bipolar system. That is why we strongly believe in multilateralism, multilateral forums.

Coming to the third question of the United States and China, and the possibility of cooperation, and all the controversies and conflicts that we see now. We also do not have very smooth and easy relationships with the Western world and the United States, as you are, of course, aware. But still we try to find mutual interests; that we did even under the Cold War situation back many decades. Now, something that contributes to finding solutions is the pressure of business circles, investors, diasporas, cultural links, parliamentary relations. Even being oppressed by coercive measures by several Western countries, we stick to the policy of cooperation and collaboration with our Western partners. China is also objectively interested in developing relationships with the United States, as well as the United States cannot do without China in the modern economic system. That is why we are sort of optimistic on U.S.-China reconciliation.

To focus briefly on African countries, we believe that the development of the African continent recently, not only in terms of economic growth, but also diversifying trade and investor partnerships, and maturing political collaboration between African countries, will contribute to their capability of speaking in one voice. That probably opens good perspectives of African countries joining the global governance system which is going to be revisited and reformulated. As I also stated in my presentation, our country has always spoken on raising involvement of African countries in any global forums. It should be inclusive, not exclusive.

With this, I thank you.

SPEED: OK, very good. Helga, do you have anything?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to add that there is probably not any problem globally, both regionally and economically and otherwise, which could not be solved if the geopolitical confrontation between the United States, Russia, and China in particular, would be eliminated. Because the entire game plan of what we call the British Empire, which is really the City of London, Wall Street, the financial institutions which are behind the neo-liberal system; their entire ability to keep the rule over the world’s institutions depends on the geopolitical game to divide the United States and Russia and China. People don’t realize that it is exactly the same forces financial, media, political, who are behind the coup attempt against Trump; who are behind the anti-Russia campaign; and who are behind the anti-China campaign. Once you realize that, you have a completely different view, and the reason why my husband originally many years ago picked up on the idea of Prime Minister Primakov, and added the United States to this combination of Russia, China, and India was the recognition that you need a combination of states which are powerful enough to be stronger than the City of London and Wall Street. Once these four, or especially those three, get together, then you can solve any other problem. I have said many times, this summit is not going to be only one summit. Because the problems are so deep and many, that you probably need a whole summit process, where you start to put the kinds of mechanisms like for a New Bretton Woods system into motion; you start to take care of the cultural question, the health system. So, I look at it more that once you have this format, that the presidents of those countries start to cooperate to solve the common problems of mankind, you can develop it to become an integrative process where naturally other countries, other continents, other states are absolutely welcomed to support that process. But I think it’s important to first put together the core of power which can actually change the world, and not just have it like many conferences where you have a democratic kind of back and forth and nothing gets accomplished. I think this is also why President Putin wants to keep the veto power in the Permanent Five countries so that it doesn’t degenerate into just a debate where no results can be accomplished. It should be open; we are organizing that countries such as Japan or Germany, Italy, France, countries from Africa. They should absolutely support that. The best thing is to it now; to add your voice that such a summit must take place, and I think it can be done. I think it’s absolutely doable, but we need a worldwide mobilization to accomplish it.

SPEED: We’re getting a lot of questions, and that’s very good. But we have the problem that we lost some time at the beginning of the broadcast. So, what we’re going to do here is, first of all, we’re going to encourage people to keep going with the questions. Several of them are with respect to the coronavirus pandemic and related matters. The next panel, which will begin at 1:30 p.m., will continue to cover that, and we will try to refer some of the questions there. Also, we certainly will refer all of your questions to any of the panelists to have them answer.

We’re going to take two more questions, one of which will come from me, and then the other one will be from Diane. We’ll then ask the panelists to conclude.

This is a question from Dr. Abdul Alim-Muhammad of Washington, D.C.; well-known to the Schiller Institute, and very important in our work over the years. This one, I believe, is for both Dr. Elders and for Helga: “How can the rest of the world learn and benefit from the Chinese and Cuban collaboration in flattening the curve of the epidemic centered in Wuhan? How can those lessons be applied here in the United States and elsewhere, like Brazil and countries in Africa, to flatten the curve? Why isn’t Cuba’s interferon alpha-2B available to save American lives? Should there be an international standard of criminal public health neglect?” Then, he just appends to this “The Crime of Tuskegee”; he’s talking about the Tuskegee syphilis experiments. “Was the deliberate withholding of known effective treatments to suit a racist agenda? Is history repeating on a global scale?”

So, that’s his question. Either Dr. Elders or Helga, whichever would like to start.

DR. ELDERS: I think we all realize that we have a global pandemic now. But as in all pandemics, we’ve got to have the right leaders if we want to come out of this, and I think what the Schiller Institute is doing, we’ve got to have the kind of leaders who are willing to lead. And they have got to make the sacrifices and do the things that they need to do to lead and move forward. Our public health system has not been well funded. We’ve got to invest more in our public health, but when we think of public health, we’ve got to always remember, that public health is not just about individuals. It’s about the whole community; it’s all of us. We’ve all got to be involved, and you can’t keep our people healthy if we don’t educate them to be healthy. I think that that’s an important issue that all of our communities have to be aware of. The reason? I won’t say the reason, I don’t know the reasons. Some of the reasons why we in the United States, our curve is not flattened as well as that in China and some of the other countries is because of our culture and the education of our people. We’re not willing to do the things; we know we need to do them, but we just didn’t do them. Like our social distancing, which we could do. Handwashing. Wearing a mask. Then, everybody wanted to get back, and start socializing again. So, these are things the Chinese were willing to do and did. They enforced it, and we did not do it. That was partly related to our leadership, that we’ve not done.

If we think about the Tuskegee Institute, I think that was a public health, leadership mistake. We’ve worked through that now. I do not feel in any way that anybody was trying to take anything away or trying to not provide therapy or treatment. And I do not feel that we’re not trying to do everything we can now to make sure we do what we can to eliminate the coronavirus. But we do not have a vaccine; we do not have adequate medications. All we have are the public health issues that we know we need to follow in order to get it done. We’ve got to educate our people. The reason why we’re seeing more problems in our very low-income, less well-educated people is because of what’s happened. We know that we’ve got to address those issues if we’re really going to make a difference.

And I think the same is true for Brazil. I think Brazil is behaving much like America; we’re not doing the things we know we need to do.

SPEED: OK. Helga, do you have anything, or should we continue?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just would like to add briefly that if people remember, in January, when China started to take these very rigid measures — quarantining people, tracing contacts, cutting out social contact by allowing families to go shopping only once every three days and only one member of the family — all of these things. There was a huge freak-out in the West, saying “This is a dictatorship! See how horrible! They’re violating human rights again.” But in reality, what helped them to contain is aided by a deep cultural difference between Western and Chinese culture. In the West, it was a big accomplishment that the rights of individuals were held high. This is a good thing, but unfortunately, this individuality became excessive. People mistook freedom with liberties and hedonism. What Dr. Elders just said, people wanted to go back to the beaches, they wanted to go back to partying. You have these really insane behaviors which are an expression of such exaggerated individuality. While the Chinese culture — and all Asian cultures, for that matter — have traditionally much more focus on the common good as the primary thing. And that the individual right is sort of subsumed under the right of the community and the cultural good. The individual cannot prosper if the community does not prosper. I think this is a cultural difference which I think is very much worth to study. Because we will come out of this pandemic with the need to adjust some of our values. They may not be exactly what people tout to be the so-called “Western values”; because these Western values — that’s a whole other subject. But I think we have to really think how we can give humanity principles for our durable survival. And that is part of this process that we are trying to do with these kinds of conferences; that people start to really reflect and say, “How can we become a species of rationality and creativity, and not compete with some piggies who are trying to get to the trough the quickest?” I think it’s really a fundamental question of identity, of moral values, which has to be addressed.

SPEED: OK. Last question for this panel will be from Diane Sare.

SARE: This question is from Dr. Katherine Alexander-Theodotou of the Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association. It is in four parts.

“1. What do you suggest to do in an effort to bring the European nations together to reflect on democracy, basing the institutions on democratic lines, creating a real democratic union, including Russia? The vast culture of the civilization of Europe will be the fortress of prosperity and peace.

“2. How can the Schiller Institute assist? The Schiller Institute can assist by continuously advocating unity, cooperation, education, and preventing the undermining of nations’ sovereignty of Europe by others ruled by undemocratic institutions such as Turkey, threatening the sovereignty of its neighbors such as Greece and Cyprus.

“3. There is a need for European health policy and coordination of the health authorities in order to have common standards of health policy and provide competent healthcare to the peoples of Europe.

“4. There is the question of slave populations throughout Europe, especially in the U.K., where there are almost 1 million people living for almost 15 years with no identity, as they are immigrants [I think she means no legal identity] whose voice is being suppressed by the immigration laws. There are also others in other European countries. How can we stop this system of slave labor?”

Those are the questions.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think this present EU needs to be changed, because I think the EU has developed into a gigantic bureaucracy which is very little in touch with the interests of its member states. I could cite you a whole list of examples for this. I think we have to really think how to integrate Russia. I think one of the lessons Putin said in his article was that there was a failure before World War II to develop an integrative security system. I’m quite interested — I’m putting it carefully — I’m quite interested about the report that between Putin and Macron in a long phone conversation yesterday, Macron said that he stands for a Europe which goes from Lisbon to Vladivostok, which obviously would mean that you really talk more about the Eurasian Economic Union, the Belt and Road Initiative integrated into one body. I think I’m a firm believer in the principle of sovereignty. I think this present crisis has demonstrated that in any case the EU did nothing. It was the nations which jumped in and recognized that you need food security in a nation; you need sovereign control over your production of medicine and health equipment.

Nicolaus of Cusa, who I quoted earlier, was the first one to develop the concept of why only a sovereign nation-state which has a reciprocal relationship between the government and the governed, which I think is the only way how you can guarantee how the common good is being defended; especially under conditions of crisis. So, I think this present EU, which is trying to attach itself to a NATO globalization, to play all kinds of geopolitical games, is not necessarily the vehicle with which Europe should be reformed. Maybe that should be the subject of a whole other webinar, because this is a very complicated question. But I think an alliance of sovereign nation-states in the spirit of de Gaulle would make much more sense to represent the interests of all the people.

As for the slave labor, I think that has come out, that this present neo-liberal system depends not only on the exploitation of cheap labor in countries like Bangladesh or some other countries, but that you have slave labor conditions inside the Western countries. Like in Germany, where it’s now seven or eight slaughterhouses which have all Romanians and people from other East European countries, who are living in horrible conditions. They have become the breeding ground for COVID-19 break-outs, because there is no health system, no social distancing is possible. I think taking care of the health system is the first precondition for everything to function, exactly as Dr. Elders says. If you are not healthy, you cannot do anything. So, protection of the health of the citizens has to really start in every country, not just in some.

SPEED: All right. So, we’re now at the conclusion. We’ve got about one minute per person for responses. I’d like to get kind of a summary idea. We’ll start with you, Mr. Meshchanov, if you have any remarks that you’d like to make in conclusion.

MESHCHANOV: Thank you. I had some technical problems, and unfortunately couldn’t catch the last part of the discussion. But now, wrapping up what has been laid out in this very important discussion, I see in an optimistic way what is happening. Meaning that when the situation is up-ending, and this is something that has been happening in any crisis in history, the word crisis derives from the Asian-Greek word of krisi, which means taking decisions; taking choice. So, we need to take the right decision, the right choice; and I fully support Mrs. Helga LaRouche’s statement on changing values after this crisis. We believe that in this crisis, constructive forces such as the Schiller Institute and many others in our country as well, are heard better. That’s probably one of the systemic significances of this crisis. Briefly, speaking on our President’s article, which you have repeatedly referred to, Mr. Putin underscores in his article devoted to the 75th anniversary of the war end, the Munich conspiracy. That is something that he starts with, but he finishes his article by underscoring the significance of cooperation, collaboration, and shared responsibility of great powers. That is why we are optimistic on this future cooperation which sometimes crises and great systemic catastrophes can contribute to.

SPEED: Thank you, Counselor. Dr. Elders, any concluding remarks?

DR. ELDERS: This has been one excellent conference, and I think what is talked about is how in all conferences we need to trust each other, we need to learn to work together, and that our cooperation and trust is going to do more to overcome this virus and the health of our people than anything else. The more we squabble among each other, the more this virus grows, divides, and spreads. So, the first thing is, we want to improve our economy, educate our people. We’ve got to first do everything we can to keep them healthy. We just can’t develop an excellent working society unless we have a healthy society. We know how; and it’s time we began to use the knowledge we know and make our leaders stop squabbling about where, when, and how it started. Let’s look at what we can do to make a solution. We need to get all nations that we can involved, so we can all work together to try and make a healthy global world. That’s how I feel we’re going to also address our economy.

SPEED: Thank you. Helga?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would like to bring people’s memories back to what we saw in the beginning — the video of Lyn; who focussed very much on the fact that we are the creative species. At least, the only one which has been discovered in the universe so far. I think if we strengthen that quality of our species which distinguishes us from all other ones, the creativity, then also the question of trust will be easy. Because a human being who relates to the creativity of another one, doesn’t have prejudices. At best, you have a wish to increase the creativity of the other one for the common good of all of humanity. I think it is that rethinking of trying to make people better people, to make them do more good, to really get rid of all of this hedonistic decay of our culture which prevents people from being creative. Because if people just want to go partying and get drunk and have dope, they are ruining that which makes them human. I think may be hopefully one of the outcomes, because I believe absolutely that we need a renaissance of cultural values, of Classical culture. That we all have to learn to think like Beethoven, and to think like Lyndon LaRouche. Then we are best equipped to deal with this and any other problem.

SPEED: Thank you. I want to thank all of the panelists who were with us today. We’re going to conclude this first panel. But I think we managed to soldier through all of the difficulties that may have some metaphorical importance to what we’re going to have to do in the world as a whole to make this dialogue work as well.