Den 7. februar (EIRNS) – HARLEY SCHLANGER fra LaRouche-organisationen interviewede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger og formand for Schiller Instituttet, om rapporten, som vil blive frigivet i denne uge af Executive Intelligence Review om 'the Great Reset', ’Den store Nulstilling’ og dens forhold til 'the Green New Deal', politikken for malthusiansk befolkningsreduktion, som blev afsløret af hendes afdøde mand, Lyndon LaRouche, i slutningen af 1960'erne. ’The Great Reset’ var emnet for en online-konference, som Davos-milliardærerne afholdt den 25.-29. januar.

SCHLANGER: Helga, hvorfor bliver der skubbet så aggressivt på med dette lige nu?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Realiteten er, at hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er håbløst bankerot. Man gjorde ikke noget ved det, da den systemiske krise brød ud i 2008, bortset fra massive kvantitative lempelser, trykning af pengesedler, og nu er boblen ved at briste. Og dette er hele tricket: Den store nulstilling og den grønne nye aftale betyder, at de vil skyde 30 billioner $ ind i næste og sidste boble, hvorved det kun er dem, der deltager i spekulationen, dvs. milliardærerne, der bliver rige, mens hovedparten af befolkningen vil blive forarmet. Dette er ikke gennemførligt.

SCHLANGER: De kalder dette en "ændring af det finansielle regime". Hvad mener de med det?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Nuvel, regeringer og parlamenter skal ikke længere foretage den lovgivning, der afgør hvordan tingene skal forvaltes, men man ønsker at have et grønt diktatur, hvor det er centralbankerne, der beslutter, hvor meget kød man må spise, om noget i det hele taget; hvor mange rejser man må foretage, hvilken slags bil eller e-bil man kan køre, eller hvad som helst. Dette vil betyde et økodiktatur, der får ethvert tidligere diktatur til at ligne en skovtur.

SCHLANGER: Da din mand tog dette op første gang i 1971, beskrev han det som en schachtiansk korporationspolitik (efter Hjalmar Schacht, https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht –red). Hvad betyder det? Hvad er betydningen af ’Schachtianismen’?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det er en form for selvkannibalisering af arbejdsstyrken. Problemet er, at hvis man udskifter kul og fossile brændstoffer, og man ikke går over til kernekraft, bliver man helt afhængig af såkaldte grønne vedvarende teknologier og energikilder, så man får en meget lav energitæthed, hvilket betyder at man ikke kan opretholde moderne industrinationer. Dette vil være et hidtil uset anslag imod levestandarden, og for udviklingslandene vil det indebære folkedrab; fordi, som folk ved, har vi en pandemi, der er ude af kontrol; og som lederen af ​​Verdensfødevareprogrammet, David Beasley, advarer om igen og igen, kommer dertil en hungersnød af "bibelske dimensioner". Så hvis man således ødelægger den industrielle kapacitet i de industrialiserede nationer, efterlader man Den tredje Verden i en katastrofe. Man inviterer apokalypsens fire ryttere – sult, sygdom, pest og krig – og det vil føre til en gigantisk affolkning. Dette er essensen af, hvad Hjalmar Schacht (Hitlers centralbankmand og finansminister) drejede sig om, fordi det endte med koncentrationslejrene, og det er, på en anden vis, hvad vi ser på i dag.

SCHLANGER: Du har kaldt dette "den nye fascisme". Hvad er forskellen i forhold til ’schachtianismen’ fra 30'erne og 40'erne, og hvad mener du med "ny fascisme" i dag?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Bare fordi den ikke har alle aspekterne af den gamle fascisme i tradition af Mussolini, Franco, Hitler og så videre; hvis man indfører den form for reduktion af levestandarden, og man går til energi-gennemstrømningstætheder, som indebærer strømsvigt, hvilket igen vil betyde et sammenbrud af industriproduktionen, så er effekten den samme. Så man skal ikke se på etiketten, men på effekten af denne politik, som er en fuldstændig ødelæggelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne.

SCHLANGER: Du har netop offentliggjort en artikel om faren for en atomkrig. Hvordan er dette relateret til Den store Nulstilling? ("Helga Zepp-LaRouche om budskabet fra Biden-administrationen: Atomkrig er en reel mulighed, '" http://laroucheorganization.com)

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Det forholder sig sådan, at der en utrolig anti-Kina-, anti-Rusland-kampagne, hovedsageligt fordi Kina er for opadgående, Asien er for opadgående, og der er en indsats fra visse oligarkiske kræfter i Vesten for at inddæmme denne opstigning. Hvis nu man ødelægger de vestlige økonomier; hvis man afindustrialiserer Europa, USA og muligvis andre lande, der følger efter, vil man uundgåeligt komme i konflikt med Kina og Rusland. Kina vil muligvis snakke den grønne dagsorden efter munden, men Kina går efter rene, moderne kulkraftanlæg, kernekraftsanlæg; de har et meget ambitiøst program for termonuklear fusion, hvor de er så godt som førende i verden. Så den geopolitiske opposition siger allerede, i lighed med admiral Charles Richard, chefen for den Amerikanske strategiske Kommando, at en atomkrig er sandsynlig, og at Pentagon er nødt til at skifte fra tanken om, at en krig ikke er sandsynlig, til at det er meget sandsynligt. Jeg mener, hvis man lægger alle disse ting sammen, vil denne politik uundgåeligt føre til 3. Verdenskrig.

SCHLANGER: På trods for alt dette har du i de sidste par dage udtrykt en vis grad af optimisme for, at dette kan overvindes: Hvad er grundlaget for din optimisme?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Jeg mener, ​​at denne politik er så åbenlys, at der er folk, der begynder at diskutere det. Og jeg tror, ​​at den eneste måde at besejre det på er at få budskabet spredt ud så vidt muligt, om hvad der ligger bag denne politik, at sørge for at alle ved det. For eksempel sagde G77-landene og De alliancefrie landes Bevægelse på klimatopmødet i København i 2009, at de ikke vil underskrive en sådan selvmordspagt. Jeg er helt sikker på, at Rusland og Kina er meget opmærksomme på, hvad meningen er med denne politik. Jo flere mennesker, industrifolk, ledere af små og mellemstore virksomheder, iværksættere, fagforeninger – jo flere mennesker, der diskuterer det og forstår, at der findes et alternativ til det, nemlig at indføre Lyndon LaRouche's 'fire love' – en global Glass/Steagall-politik; nationalbanker i hvert land; og indlemme disse nationalbanker i et 'Nyt Bretton Woods-kreditsystem, nøjagtigt som Franklin D. Roosevelt havde til hensigt; og derefter gå over til en massiv industrialisering af Afrika og Mellemøsten, som har presserende brug for det. Så kan vi ændre dette. Og jeg tror, ​​at flere og flere mennesker inden for USA og Europa vil forstå, at det er i deres bedste interesse ikke at følge denne politik.

SCHLANGER: I betragtning af dette internationale potentiale er det afgørende hvad der sker i USA. Så hvad skal vores lyttere gøre for at sikre, at vi besejrer 'the Great Reset' og 'the Green New Deal'?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Få som sagt nyhederne ud så vidt man kan, om hvad der ligger bag dette; gør dine venner, dine bekendte, dine kolleger og fortrolige bekendt med dette; sørg for at dit kongresmedlem, dine andre valgte embedsmænd, borgmesteren, byrådet, at de alle ved besked om det, fordi indførelsen af denne politik vil lande på bordet hos de valgte embedsmænd, og det vil bringe dem i en helt utrolig konflikt med deres samvittighed og med de mennesker, hvis interesser de repræsenterer.

SCHLANGER: Helga, tak for dine indsigter i dette og for dit arbejde med at få denne rapport ud. Den udkommer i indeværende uge i det kommende nummer af {Executive Intelligence Review}, og kort derefter vil der være et mindre afsnit af det i en pjece distribueret af LaRouche-organisationen. Så Helga, tak, og vi ses snart igen.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Vi ses.

Her er de gratis artikler fra specialrapporten:

The New Deal for Humanity Is Not Green, But Human!  
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Prince Charles Invented and Runs the ‘Green New Deal’  
by Richard Freeman
 

British Crown Think-Tank: We Intend To Take Away Your Food  

by Gretchen Small

Bestil hele rapporten fra os: +45 53 57 00 51, si@schillerinstitut.dk

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

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

Engelsk Afskrift:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the policy of China, really, Helga?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

Den 29. november (EIRNS) — Det følgende er den 28. november blevet oversat fra Helga Zepp-LaRouches ledende artikel, der vil blive bragt den 3. december i det tyske ugemagasin Neue Solidarität.

Selvom de etablerede medier overgår hinanden i at præsentere Joe Biden og hans forventede kabinet med super-krigshøge som den næste amerikanske regering, og præsident Donald Trump som et populistisk monster, der bavler løs om valgsvindel, venter der muligvis de samme medier en slem overraskelse. De edsvorne vidneerklæringer dokumenterer forskellige aspekter af valgsvindel i ”sving-staterne’, og udgør juridiske beviser. Statslige repræsentanter og senatorer i Pennsylvania har netop meddelt, at de agter at gøre brug af deres forfatningsmæssige ret til selv at udnævne valgmændene til valgkollegiet.

Der er adskillige muligheder for, at der i tide kan fremlægges bevis for elektronisk stemmesvindel via Dominion og Smartmatic-stemmemaskiner, og at dette bevismateriale vil være tilstrækkeligt til at vende valgresultatet. Skulle dette ske, vil verden være på randen af et dæmningsbrud, så der bogstavelig talt ikke længere vil være to sten, der hænger sammen, og de fleste af de nuværende antagelser om den politiske virkelighed i den transatlantiske verden vil blive fejet væk. Formodentlig vil vi i løbet af de næste to uger, der leder frem til Valgkollegiets beslutning om bekræftelse af den næste præsident for USA, se mange aspekter af valgsvindelen blive bragt frem i lyset på trods af forsøg på censur.

I forbindelse med dette spørgsmål bemærkede præsident Putin i sin tale til det nylige årlige møde i Valdai Club, idet han berørte de dybere årsager til den nuværende civilisationskrise, at vi lever i en æra med åbenlyse internationale chok og kriser. Som årsag til denne krise citerede han det paradoks, at menneskeheden på den ene side har nået et højt niveau af teknologisk og socioøkonomisk udvikling, men på den anden side står over for en erosion af moralske værdier og referencepunkter, og følelsen af at dens eksistens ikke længere giver mening, eller at formålet med menneskeheden på denne planet Jorden er gået tabt. Denne krise, fortsatte Putin, kan ikke løses gennem diplomatiske forhandlinger eller selv en stor international konference, men kræver en komplet revision af vores prioriteter og mål. Og dette må begynde med hvert enkelt individ, forklarede han, ethvert samfund og enhver stat, og først da kan der oprettes en global struktur. Udgangspunktet for en sådan transformation, sagde han, kunne være Covid-pandemien.

Reaktionen på pandemien fører os faktisk til hjertet af problemet. Asiens relative succes og Vestens manglende evne til at bringe Covid-19 under kontrol er så indlysende, at selv almindelige aviser som Neue Zürcher Zeitung eller Die Zeit nu taler om Europas arrogance og stædighed, der forhindrer det i at uddrage lærdom af metoden, der blev brugt i flere asiatiske lande til at udrydde pandemien, snarere end blot at prøve halvhjertet at inddæmme den. Som et resultat af disse to forskellige tilgange har der været et ekstremt lavt niveau af nye infektioner og dødsfald i Kina, Taiwan, Vietnam og Sydkorea, mens pandemien i Europa og USA truer med at nå eksponentielle vækstrater i flere lande og helt overvælde de medicinske kapaciteter. Hvad er forskellen?

Helt fra starten af gjorde præsident Xi Jinping det klart, at den kinesiske regerings absolutte prioritet var at redde hvert eneste liv, og at det især var vigtigt at beskytte de ældre, og derfor dem der er mest udsatte. Efter strenge foranstaltninger, der blev truffet i starten, såsom massetestning, kontaktsporing, isolering og karantæner i Wuhan og Hubei-provinsen, var det muligt at bringe pandemien under kontrol, og derefter ved hvert nye udbrud, såsom i Beijing og Qingdao, at finde og isolere de smittede individer takket være testning og effektiv digital kontaktsporing, og dermed stoppe spredningen af virusset.

I Asien generelt, hvor befolkningerne allerede har haft oplevelsen af at bekæmpe udbrud af SARS- og MERS-vira, var der hverken det irrationelle afslag af at bære ansigtsmasker eller den vestlige mistillid i forhold til at bruge mobiltelefonappen, skønt Vesten bevidst ignorerer den totalovervågning, der udføres af NSA og GCHQ. I mellemtiden er den økonomiske vækst i Kina tilbage på 4,9% i fjerde kvartal, og folk er vendt tilbage til deres normale sociale liv.

På samme måde prioriterede Rusland bevarelse af liv som en nøgleværdi i landets kultur og åndelige tradition. Under henvisning til de dramatiske demografiske tab, som Rusland led i det 20. århundrede, understregede præsident Putin i Valdai, at det var uomgængeligt at kæmpe for hver enkelt person og for enhver russisk families fremtid. Han understregede også, at et traditionelt, væsentligt træk ved russisk kultur er at prioritere beskyttelsen af menneskeliv mest muligt.

Dette bringer os til kernen i sagen: Den påståede modsætning mellem redning af menneskeliv og “økonomiske interesser” har længe ført til en udhuling af de værdier, der – i det mindste førhen – var forbundet med kristendommen, og som var baseret på menneskelivets hellighed. Årtier før coronavirus, da sundhedssystemer blev privatiserede, var værdierne allerede skiftet over til profit, hvilket er hovedårsagen til, at Europa og USA så katastrofalt blev taget på sengen ved udbruddet af pandemien.

Manglen på masker, beskyttelsesudstyr og intensive sengepladser i starten af pandemien, og den dramatiske mangel på sygeplejepersonale i dag, er resultatet af dette sæt af falske prioriteter. Nye indikationer kommer løbende frem om hvordan den svenske model, som blev så højt rost af nogle, var baseret på at opnå flokimmunitet, hvilket kostede mange ældre på plejehjem livet. I stedet for at modtage dyre behandlinger fik de simpelthen symptombehandling og overladt til at dø. Som SPD’s sundhedsekspert, Karl Lauterbach, udtrykte det: “Groft sagt ofres der mange ældre, så caféerne ikke behøver at lukke”.

Det er ikke mindre skandaløst, at den forudsigelige mangel på lægebehandling i Schweiz, et af de rigeste lande i verden, har ført til en åben diskussion om prioritering af patienter. I Italien var skrækbillederne fra Bergamo, hvor kisterne blev stablet i gaderne sidste forår og til sidst skulle transporteres af hæren, åbenbart ikke tilstrækkelige til at sikre, at der blev truffet passende forholdsregler til den helt forudsigelige anden bølge. Som et resultat heraf protesterer læger i Milano nu over, at de beslutninger de er tvunget til at tage både er klinisk og etisk uacceptable.

Den 26. februar afsagde den tyske forfatningsdomstol i Karlsruhe en principiel dom, om at forbuddet fra 2015 mod fagligt assisteret selvmord var en overtrædelse af grundloven (forfatningen). Da retten til en selvbestemt død er garanteret, hævdede domstolen, at folk skal have lov til at gøre brug af tilbud fra tredjeparter til at gøre det. I denne ånd udsendte tv-kanalen ARD den 23. november filmen “Gott” (“Gud”) som en interaktiv tv-begivenhed, baseret på et skuespil af Ferdinand von Schirach, der skildrer en sund 78-årig mand, der efter sin kones død ikke længere ønsker at leve og søger et medicinsk assisteret selvmord. I lyset af pandemien og de deraf følgende alvorlige risici for ældre og syge, skal dette forsøg – i form af et iscenesat show for at fjerne de historiske forbehold på grund af det faktum, at nazisterne systematisk udryddede “værdiløse liv”- ses som hidtil uset kynisme og som et propagandastunt. Og det lykkedes: Efter begivenheden sagde 70,8 % af tv-seerne, at de gik ind for retten til selvmord.

Som en påmindelse: I Nürnberg-retssagerne advarede Dr. Leo Alexander, en medicinsk rådgiver for anklagemyndigheden, om den pragmatiske tænkning, der ligger bag dødshjælp, idet han sagde, at den begyndte med et ganske subtilt skift i lægernes holdning til omkostningerne ved behandling af patienter, som derefter hurtigt blev kategoriseret som “uværdige liv.” At bevæge sig ud på dette skråplan igen under de samtidige betingelser af en kraftig voksende økonomisk og finansiel krise, kan i et land som Tyskland kun betegnes som historisk hukommelsestab.

Lige nu befinder vi os midt i tektoniske ændringer i den strategiske situation, i en tid hvor det, der i virkeligheden står på spil, er krig eller fred, og hvor først og fremmest den dramatiske udvikling i USA ikke kan forstås, medmindre man betragter den som et udtryk for en eksistentiel kamp mellem det gamle, døende paradigme med en unipolær verden, og et nyt paradigme, der sigter mod at skabe en ny verdensorden, der muliggør den langsigtede overlevelse af den menneskelige art. Som berørt af Putin, må revisionen af de prioriteter og mål for samfundet, der skal blive grundlaget for dette nye paradigme, begynde med et menneskesyn, der betragter menneskelivet som helligt. Hvis man ønsker at skildre dette som en konkurrence mellem værdierne i Kina og Rusland på den ene side og Vestens på den anden, vil vi gøre ret i at genoplive vores kristne, humanistiske tradition, hvis vi skal undgå at tabe konkurrencen i vanære.

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