Her er et foredrag, som jeg holdt for “Forældre for klassisk kultur” om den undervisningsmetode i klassisk musik komposition, som den unge komponist Alma Deutscher lærte for at udvikle sin musikalske kreativitet.
Det var den metode, der blev brugt til at undervise forældreløse drenge i Italien fra slutningen af 1600-tallet til slutningen af 1800-tallet, kaldet partimenti, og som nu er ved at blive genoplivet.
God fornøjelse!  

Og her er en baggrundsartikel, som jeg har skrevet:

Den dybereliggende proces bag Alma Deutschers musikalske geni

Fra 2017:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

Beethoven and Creativity

by Michelle Rasmussen

[Print version of this article]

View full size

Lithograph by August von Klöber, 1818

Ludwig van Beethoven

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

Friedrich Schiller, in a portrait by Ludovike Simanowiz.

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

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

The Creative Process

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

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

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

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

View full size

Photo by E.O. Hoppe

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

Einstein:

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

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

Imagination is the language of the soul.[fn_12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

EIRNS/Philip Ulanowsky

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beethoven’s Struggle to Approximate
Divine Creativity

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sublime

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

Beethoven, sculpted by Hugo Hagen in 1898.

Beethoven for Us, Today

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—mich.ras@hotmail.com

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

View full size

EIRNS/Sylvia Spaniolo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beethoven Thought in Metaphor

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

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

His letter to Tobias Hasslinger continues:

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

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

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

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

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

[back to text]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

Beethoven: ‘To Spread the Rays of the Godhead’

In a letter to Archduke Rudolph, Beethoven wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom and progress are the aims throughout creation:

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

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

View full size

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBSCRIBE TO EIR

[back to text]

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

January 17, 1990

In the Garden of Gethsemane

by Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

[Print version of this article]

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

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

—Matthew 13:57

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

View full size

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Two Conflicting Views of Mankind

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agapē

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

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

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

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

Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.

Dictated from prison

Rochester, Minnesota

January 17, 1990

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

Herunder følger resten af talen på engelsk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Så for Leibniz er mennesket ikke Gud, men det er i stand til skabende fornuft af den form, som Gud har begavet det med i universets udvikling. Så for Leibniz er mennesket skabende, som det også er for Cusanus. Denne kreativitet, og kun denne kreativitet, er det, som skænker mennesket fri vilje. Med andre ord, så er mennesket i stand til at gøre noget, eller ikke gøre noget; eller at gøre A eller B; der er fri vilje. Og det er det samme som kreativitet, mener jeg, det er rimelig indlysende. Men det er også kilden til moral. Så kreativitet, fri vilje og moral er i realiteten det samme, videnskabelige begreb. Af den grund, siger Leibniz, så er det, der er formålet med vores liv, eftersom vi har fået denne kreative evne, at få det, han faktisk kalder lykke (happiness), at udvikle stræben efter lykke. Han siger ikke ’liv, frihed og stræben efter nydelse’; han siger ikke ’liv, frihed og stræben efter at undgå smerte’; han siger, ’liv, frihed og stræben efter lykke’, som han undertiden også kalder ’felicity’ (det betyder også lykke).

Dette er altså det stik modsatte af Benthams idé om nydelse; det er lige så modsatrettet som Satan er til Gud.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Billede: ‘Lysternes have’. Maleri af Hieronymus Bosch, 1403-15.

Vært Matthew Ogden: I sin afhandling, »Teatret som en moralsk institution«(original titel: Die Schaubühne als eine moralische Anstalt betrachtet), beskrev den tyske digter fra det 18. århundrede, Friedrich Schiller, noget ironisk klassisk teater og klassisk drama som det område, »hvor alle masker falder. Sminken fjernes. Sandheden er dommer«.

I klassisk drama, såsom i tragedierne i oldtidens Grækenland, eller Shakespeares tragedier, eller Schillers egne tragedier, f.eks.; eller i de største operaer af Giuseppe Verdi for at tage et andet eksempel, blev scenen, den klassiske scene, brugt som instrument for samfundets moralske og æstetiske opdragelse. Tragedie har evnen til at fremkalde i os erkendelsen af vore egne tåbeligheder, de fejl, der findes i os. Og vi ser reflekteret på scenen foran os, de ærefrygtindgydende konsekvenser af disse fejl, disse tåbeligheder, som, ifald de fik lov at bestå, udspilles på vores egen forestillingsevnes scener og tilbagekastes til os i det frygtelige spejl i form af en rædselsvækkende og frygtindgydende forudsigelse. I disse øjeblikke transformeres vi fra at være passive tilskuere til at blive levende medlemmer af dramaet, og vi forlader teatret med ny visdom og forhåbentlig en ny vilje til at handle for, for enhver pris, at forhindre de rædsler, vi så udspilles på denne scene, i at blive til virkelighed.

Men hvis denne moralske og æstetiske opdragelse af et samfund imidlertid slår fejl, eller mislykkes, og et samfunds tåbeligheder finder sted uden at blive rettet, så ophører tragedien med at være begrænset til scenen og flyder over i det virkelige liv, hvilket undertiden fører til ødelæggende, virkelige konsekvenser.

Vi ser nu de faktiske og ligeledes de potentielle, virkelige konsekvenser af et sygt samfunds systemiske tåbeligheder, og af en forfejlet ideologi, som nu udspilles for vore øjne. I kølvandet på de forfærdelige begivenheder i Parkland, Florida, den 14. feb., ser vi nu en generel opvågnen i vores befolkning, en erkendelse af, at der er noget i vores kultur, som er meget, meget sygt; at noget i vores samfund er råddent, og at noget har fået lov til at gå forfærdelig galt, og som har bragt os til dette punkt.

Og det er ikke slut med de forfærdelige begivenheder i Parkland. Vi har netop hørt, i dag, at der er en situation med en aktiv skytte, der fortsat er under udfoldelse på et college i Michigan. Og Parkland var på ingen måde det første skoleskyderi.

Dette er blevet identificeret af guvernør Matt Bevin fra Kentucky, som selv har måttet håndtere et af disse skoleskyderier, på Marshall County High School i januar. Han har identificeret dette som en »dødskultur«, hvor han sagde, at selve værdien af menneskelivet er blevet degraderet.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:

I want to just play for you a short excerpt from some
remarks that Gov. Matt Bevin had after this school shooting that
occurred in his own state, at Marshall County High School in
Kentucky, and this was weeks before the Parkland shooting even
occurred.  Here’s what Gov. Matt Bevin had to say.

KENTUCKY GOV. MATTHEW BEVIN: Hi this is Kentucky Gov. Matt
Bevin.  I want to start a dialogue with you, I want to start a
conversation about something that is imperative, not only for
Kentucky, but frankly for America.  We have a cultural problem.
The mores of America — there will be many that will confuse that
with morality, although morality is certainly part of it — but
the mores that define who we are and what is or is not
acceptable, what we do or don’t tolerate, where we draw lines and
where we put boundaries, these things have been changing, and not
for the better.
You look at what’s happening in popular culture; this is not
a religious issue.  There’ll be the nay-sayers and the
pooh-pooh’ers who immediately think, “oh, you’re going to talk
about religion.”  I will tell you this, I’m going to talk about
morality.  Because if people don’t believe they have
responsibility to anyone other than themselves, that there is no
pecking order of authority, that there is no absolute right and
wrong, that everything is morally relative, when we live in that
time of morally gelatinous state, we have a problem.  Because
individuals, young and old alike, done assume that their actions
matter in any kind of consequential way beyond that immediate
moment, and that is a problem, and this is what’s happening to
our culture:  We are crumbling from within.  And we are seeing
this throughout our society.  We’re seeing in our classrooms,
we’re seeing it in our communities, and  — let’s be honest — it
starts in our homes.
I am challenging everybody who has anything to do with what
I’m about to say, to take this to heart and let’s start a
conversation.  Look at our popular culture.  Look at our movies,
— the violence, the disregard for the value of human life; we
are becoming increasingly desensitized, our young people are
desensitized to it.  We have a culture of death in America.  We
can pretend we don’t.  We can think that people can separate that
from fiction, from their lives, from that which they see, but if
they’re immersed in it at every turn — in television, in movies,
in music, all of it!  Listen to the lyrics of music today, it
celebrates a culture of death!  Not all of it — fair enough —
but an amazing amount of it.  And parents, I’m asking you to wake
up and be aware of what it is that your children are listening
to.
Do you young people, be mindful of what you put in, because
it becomes a part of your entire physiology, your entire mental
makeup.  It becomes a part of who you are.  You are a creation of
what you surround yourself by.
Parents and others, I’m asking you to look at what kind of
movies you go to see.  For those that produce movies, I’m asking
you, think about what you’re feeding in — I know that we live in
a day and age, where we need to shock people, more than the last
time, or they won’t pay attention, in sensationalism, in the
shock value, maybe gets people to pay attention to something,
puts eyes on something, and you can make a buck.  But at what
price?  It’s robbing us of the very fabric of our nation, and
it’s killing our young people.
Watch the television shows:  We glorify murder, we glorify
killing.  It is becoming increasingly explicit, and we are
desensitizing young people to the actual tragic reality in
permanency of death.  It’s important for us to recognize this.
Look at the video games that are played.  Yes, they may be
marked for “Mature audiences,” but I’m telling you, those of you
who make a dollar producing these movies, and those of you who
buy them and bring them into your homes, you know full well, that
many young people — and old people — are playing these games
and becoming desensitized.  When you get extra points and are
encouraged to brutally kill people, and when the blood and the
mayhem and the carnage is increasingly real, it desensitizes
people.
And if it’s a shock to us now, that suddenly we are seeing a
prevalence of, and increasing amount of this happening, not in a
video game, not on a television show, not in a movie, not in the
lyrics of a song, but in real life as young people act out that
which they are surrounded by, that which they’re immersed in,
this is a cultural problem in America!  And I’m asking the people
who produce this media, the people who produce this
entertainment; I’m asking the people who profit from it; I’m
asking for those of you who are executives in the social media
ranks — and I am a big believer in the Constitution of the
United States, and in our freedom of speech — but we have got to
start to think about the {filth}, let’s be honest, that is
feeding through so many of the mediums, covered and protected by
things that perhaps are not good for us; protected by a
Constitution that is good for us, but creating an end-result that
is not.
What are those boundaries?  I don’t know.  Should there be
any?  Should there be some content that is not given to us, and
to children, without any kind of filter or screen?  These are
conversations we need to have:  It is a cultural problem.
Our culture is crumbling from within, and the cost of it is
high.  The societal and emotional and psychological and moral
cost is becoming more than our nation can bear.
I’ve spent time with mothers and fathers who have lost
children in tragic instances.  And there is no ability, there are
no words to describe the grief of a parent, the grief of a
sibling, the grief of a friend, the grief of classmate, of a
teacher, of a community, who have lost someone that is an
immediate part of their family or their community.
Something has to be done.  Let’s start a dialogue.  How
exactly it forms, I don’t know.  But I’m calling on other
governors, I’m calling on the President of the United States, I’m
calling on our U.S. Congress; I’m calling on anyone who’s in a
position of influence, every superintendent, every CEO of every
media company that produces a video game, that is violent in its
nature, the movie producers that make the movies, the record
producers who produce the music that we listen to — all of you
— we’ve got to step up.  We’re the adults, let’s act like it!
Let’s step forward, let’s start a conversation, and let’s figure
out how to try to repair this fabric of America, that’s getting
shredded beyond recognition.
Thank you. [end video]

OGDEN:  Now, Gov. Matt Bevin did something very unique
there.  Instead of what we’ve become accustomed to, in the
aftermath of one of these horrific events, to point at one or
another scapegoat, or one or another mechanism that failed, or
one or another thing that maybe went wrong, we fail to perhaps
consider that the fault lies within ourselves, that the fault
lies within our own culture.
Now, it’s obviously unspeakable beyond words, for an event
like one of these mass shootings or school shootings to occur
even once, as we were horrified to witness.  But it is absolutely
inconceivable that we’ve allowed these shootings to occur, again,
and again, for now almost 20 years, since the first high-profile
event happened at Columbine High School, in Littleton, Colorado
in 1999,  — almost 20 years ago.  But the tragedy lies in the
fact that it didn’t just happen once, it happened over and over,
and that the society which witnesses each one of these events
might be appalled and outraged, but the underlying cause remains
unaddressed.
As the father of one of the victims in the Parkland shooting
said, in tears, during a listening session that President Trump
hosted at the White House, with family members of the victims, he
said, “My child is dead!  I will never, ever see her again.  But
why — why do we keep letting this occur?  Why does this keep
happening to so many people?”  And he vowed that he will not
sleep until something substantive has been done to prevent this
from ever happening again.
Now President Trump has responded to this, to Parkland in a
way that no previous President has, frankly.  In addition to this
listening session, which he hosted at the White House, he’s held
multiple meetings with members of Congress, with governors, with
state and local elected officials to discuss actual solutions,
emphasizing that something needs to be done.  Action is needed,
and not just posturing and not just political talk which will
make us feel as if we are doing something, he said, but we must
actually do something.  So, while many of the so-called solutions
which have been put on the table are practical, and specific,
such as hardening sites, and increasing police presence, and
improving the early warning system to prevent persons, like this
shooter, for example, from slipping through the cracks when there
were many, many warning signs stretching over years — for the
first time, in addition to these practical solutions, which are
necessary — for the first time, in addition to this, the more
systemic and underlying problems of the culture have now been put
on the table, along the lines of what Gov. Matt Bevin has raised.
I’d like to share with you, first, a short clip from a
roundtable that President Trump held state and local officials on
Feb. 22nd; this occurred at the White House, where President
Trump himself, goes right to the core of this pervasive culture
of violence, which is promulgated through popular entertainment.
Listen to what President Trump had to say:

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We have to look at the internet,
because a lot of bad things are happening to young kids and young
minds, and their minds are being formed.  And we have to do
something about maybe what they’re seeing and how they’re seeing
it.  And also video games:  I’m hearing more and more people say,
the level of violence in video games is really shaping young
people’s thoughts.
And then you go the further step, and that’s the movies, you
see these movies, they’re so violent, and yet, a kid is able to
see the movie if sex isn’t involved.  But killing is involved.
And maybe they have to put a rating system for that.  And you get
into a whole, very complicated, very big deal, but the fact is
that you are having movies come out that are so violent, with the
killing and everything else, that maybe that’s another thing
we’re going to have to discuss.  And a lot of people are saying,
you have these movies today where you can go and have a child see
the movie, and yet it’s so violent and so disgusting, so we may
have to talk about that also…. [end video]

OGDEN:  Now, this came up again at a Feb. 26th roundtable
meeting which President Trump hosted with the governors from
around the country.  And first what you’ll see in this clip is a
brief mention, by President Trump in his opening remarks, of this
topic, and then you’ll see Gov. Matt Bevin himself, who was
present, and used that forum to repeat his point about the
prevailing culture of death which undermines the morality of our
population and degrades the image of man and the value of human
life.  And he challenges {every} person in a position of
authority in this country, to use that position of authority, to
address this cultural problem.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We must strive to create a culture
in our country that cherishes life and condemns violence and
embraces dignity…. Matt?

KENTUCKY GOV. MATTHEW BEVIN:  I do think it’s important for
us to start at every level, with your office, with our respective
offices as well, to seize the bully pulpits that we have to talk
about the culture in this society.  And I would challenge those
in the media who would want to mock and ridicule this, and would
want to say that anybody who advocates for this, to find some
fault in that person as a reason why that person should not be
the one advocating for a higher level of moral authority or
higher mores, to think twice, because these are your children and
grandchildren as well.  And when we mock and ridicule the very
foundational principles that this nation was built upon, where
you treat people the way you’d want to be treated, where you
respect human life, where you respect the dignity of women, and
of children, and of people who we have increasingly degraded in
our society.  This culture of death is becoming pervasive.  And
if it’s not addressed by all the imperfect people in this room,
with a sense of purpose and a sense of aspiration, I think we’re
going to see a continued trajectory that’s not good.
Many things have not changed.  There have always been guns,
and there were fewer restrictions.  There have always been guns
in homes, and fewer rules.  It isn’t to say that these rules and
these restrictions are necessarily bad, but what has changed is
what we do or don’t do as it relates to acknowledging the value
and the dignity of every human life.  And when you couple that
with the number of psychiatric drugs that are increasingly
systemic and that have very severe warnings associated with them
related to depression and suicidal thoughts, you put all these
things in a mess and no one among us is bold enough or willing to
step up and challenge the fact, that this is a problem, this is
why it goes unchallenged.
And I would call on you, Sir, as I’m calling on my
fellow-governors and myself, to seize the opportunities we have
to call America to higher action as it relates to our mores.
Thank you.

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you Matt.
And that’s why we’re here.  And I think  — I don’t know if
it’s going to be mentioned, but you have to also look at videos
— they’re {vicious}, you look at some of these videos; I mean, I
don’t know what this does to a young kid’s mind.  Somebody
growing up and forming, and looking at videos where people are
just being blown away left and right.  The internet movies, you
look at these movies that are out today, I see just by a
commercial, the level of craziness and viciousness in the movies
— I think we have to look at that, too.  Maybe we have to put a
ratings system on that.  They have a ratings system for other
subjects, maybe we have to do a ratings system for that.
But it has to have an impact on — it doesn’t take many
months — if it was 1% or less, that’s a lot.  That’s all it
takes.  It just takes one person to do tremendous damage.  I
think it’s something we have to look at also. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, we can see an awakening happening in this
country.  And it’s very significant, when confronted with the
real world consequences of a failure by our society, by our very
culture itself, a failure to protect our children, to protect our
young people, to protect our future; where literally, we have led
ourselves to a culture where {children kill children}, and this
is almost becoming commonplace.  Finally, people are beginning to
wake up.
But the discussion, while very good, to the extent that it
has progressed, it must, must go much further, and much deeper.
Let’s look back 20 years, and this was at the moment that
the first such high-profile, horrific school shooting happened,
which many people who were alive at that time, remember today:
Columbine.  Ironically, a lot of the kids that are now in school
today, have lived their life under the shadow of Columbine and
were not even born at the point that that shooting occurred.
But Lyndon LaRouche, in the immediate aftermath of that
horrific event, wrote a paper in which he addressed the reality
of what actually that horrific event represented. This is in the
aftermath of that, but not only should the realization of
LaRouche’s prescience for what we’re seeing today, and what we’ve
seen over the past 20 years be shocking to you, and think about
how many children, and how many other victims have died and have
suffered in the intervening period, because nothing was done, at
that time, to address what the root cause of this sickness was.
But also, you should be challenged by the depth of what he
addresses as the necessary cure to this cultural sickness that
has led to these events.
So let me read you some excerpts from this paper that Mr.
LaRouche wrote, and this was back in June 11, 1999. [“Star Wars
and Littleton,” {EIR} July 2, 1999:
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1999/eirv26n27-19990702
/index.html]

“Unless the U.S. government, and many relevant other
influentials, change their view of this problem, abandoning the
useless approach they have publicized thus far, the horror will
continue, gun laws or no gun laws. Unless relevant institutions
get down to the serious business of addressing the actual causes
for this pattern of incidents, this murderous rampage will
persist….My function, in this report, is to define the methods
which must be brought to bear, if the danger posed by this new
form of terrorism is to be brought under control…. If you are
willing to be serious, at long last, you will now turn your
attention to the scientific roots of the problem….
“…Merely ending the sale of satanic video games, such as
Doom…, will not put this horror back in the box from whence it
came. This new problem of terrorism must be attacked, by
focussing on the conditions which many readers have been
complicitly condoning. Face the fact, that it might be your
negligent tolerance which has contributed to the popularizing of
such video games and cult films, especially the spread of these
among suggestible children and adolescents.
“…What are the methods which have, similarly, turned so
many among our children and adolescents into such “zombies” as
those killers?…
“To grasp the horror posed by such cases, restate the same
problem as a national-security topic. For that purpose, the
leading subject for discussion, as posed by the Littleton and
kindred cases, is {terrorism by children}. Stating the problem in
that way, brings the sheer, satanic horror of the matter into
focus.
“The following pages … will represent a serious
intellectual challenge for many readers, but, for those who
really wish to bring an end to the spread of more horrors like
the Littleton massacre, the extra reading-time and thought this
report requires, is more than well worth every second spent….
“How does one corrupt innocent children into becoming
psychotic-like killers? The quick answer to that question, is:
{dehumanize} the image of man. The details of the way this leads
to the production of youthful ‘Nintendo’ terrorists, are a more
complicated matter. Nonetheless, it is no oversimplification to
say, that once that first step, dehumanizing the image of man, is
accomplished, the axiomatic basis has been established, to make
war, and killing, merely a childish game….
“Before you pull that trigger, tell me: ‘What is the
difference between a human being and a beast?’…
“…[T]he focus should be on the conflict between the view
of mankind as specifically human, as against the intrinsically
immoral view of the human species as ‘just another animal.’ …
“The difference between the man and the beast lies in the
quality of human cognition. This is otherwise known as those
cultivatable creative mental powers through which an individual
mind may contribute to all mankind the original discovery of a
single, validatable, universal physical principle. This is also
the method used in those Classical humanist modes of education,
in which the student’s re-enactment of some historic discovery of
a validated universal principle, is the mode of education
employed, as opposed to so-called ‘textbook’ learning. This is
also to be recognized as the principle of metaphor central to all
Classical artistic composition since the time of Classical
Greece.
“The fact that we are able to demonstrate the validity of
these discovered universal physical principles, shows that the
universe itself is predisposed, by design, to obey man’s will
when such universal principles, discovered in this way, are
applied to man’s increasing mastery over nature. {The act of
discovery of a universal physical principle, whose application
directly increases mankind’s power in and over the universe, is,
in first approximation, the only rational definition of truth,
the only proof that human reason is in accord with the Creator’s
definition of truthfulness.}….
“This faculty, of validatable cognition, is the quality of
the human individual which sets all persons apart from, and above
the beasts….
“…See a child’s face suffused with happiness, at the
moment the child senses a validatable original rediscovery of
some principle. The passion which ennobles the great performance
of any accomplished work of Classical artistic composition,
whether in poetry, the performance of great tragedy, great
Classical painting, or music, is the same joy with which the
child is illuminated by experience of a cognitive act of
discovery of some principle–whether or not the child knew that
many people had made that same discovery earlier….
“…The non-deductive process of discovery, which leads to
proof of principle through experimental validation of that
discovery as a universal principle, is the proper strict
definition of the term {Reason}. …It is that capacity for
{Reason}, so defined, which defines the unique quality of the
mentally healthy human specimen, as representing a distinct
species, apart from and above all beasts.
“This quality of the person, this divine spark of Reason
innate to the human individual, is the kernel of the proof of
Moses’ formulation, that man and woman are each made (equally) in
the image of the Creator of the universe….
“An idea, is any validatable discovery of universal
principle, which is generated within the mind of the knower, by
no different means than cognition, as I have defined cognition
above. The tragedies of Aeschylus and Sophocles, and the
dialogues of Plato, or the tragedies of Shakespeare and Schiller,
are models of artistic compositions, by means of which the artist
prompts the regeneration of his idea respecting principles of
social relations, within the mind of the audience….
“…[T]he underlying social relations among persons must be,
axiomatically, the relations among their cognitive processes. The
underlying issue of social relations, is how individuals interact
in terms of the ordering of, or, the inertness of their
respective cognitive processes….
“The progress of civilization has been shaped by a process
of humanizing the image of man, as distinct from, and higher than
the animals. Christ and his Apostles embedded this principle
within European civilization. The process of Nietzsche’s and
others’ de-civilization, is to attempt to reverse that process,
to dehumanize the image of man, to bring man’s status back … to
the status of just another lower form of life….
“…The only moral purpose of education, is to develop an
entire population up to the level of scientific and moral
knowledge necessary, not only to perpetuate society at no less
than its present level of power in the universe, but to carry the
process of development of the whole population a step upward.
“The purpose of education is to develop the cognitive
potentials of each and every person up to that standard of
quality as a citizen, to develop an individual whose life
qualifies as a permanent part of the simultaneity of eternity.
{The proper purpose of education, is to affirm the universality
of humanity, and to accomplish this through embodying the history
of the discovery of universal ideas within the cultivated
personality of the matriculated student.}
“See, from this standpoint, how things went so terribly
wrong. Think of the successive downward steps in our educational
systems and popular culture, which brought us up to the point of
decadence that phenomena like the Littleton horror are now a
typical feature of our culture in this time….
“…When we allow the natural, human nature of children and
adolescents to be crushed …, when we seek to suppress the role
of the cognitive function, when we substitute the act of merely
learning for the act of actually knowing, we produce, as was
done, increasingly, during the first post-World War II decades,
the kind of future adult who will come to haunt us, and menace
our world, when we have become old.
“What happens, when we allow those changes in national
policy, which create an economy in which the adult members of the
family household must work two or three jobs, or even more, among
them, ‘simply to make ends meet’? … What happens when we have
done to education what has been done during most of the recent
three decades? Did you ever think about that, or do you avoid
pangs of guilty pain by refusing to think about that?
“What happens, when your toleration of the past decades’
changes in U.S. economic policies, creates a situation, today,
when the family is no longer able (between many jobs to work each
week, and much commuting between besides), to provide nurture to
the children and adolescents of the family household? If your
economic situation compels you treat your children so, as if they
were stray dogs to be let into the house at feeding and sleeping
times, how are you educating them?…
“…Think! What kind of a social identity are such
unfortunate children and adolescents expressing?
“Perhaps you were building the road to the Littleton
massacre? Not everyone who expresses such a poor sense of
personal self-identity in those ways, is necessarily going to go
all the way to becoming a Littleton-style terrorist; but, such
low self-esteem is a step down in the direction which might lead
to such a horrible result in the succeeding generation of youth.
You may not have intended that outcome, but, year by year, the
parents and grandparents built the road which made reaching that
destination possible.
“That explains, in part, how the road to the Littleton
massacres was built….
“To understand the kind of mentality which fosters the
proliferation of horrors such as the Littleton massacre, look at
the way in which so many in the U.S.A. responded to the way in
which the British monarchy’s Blair government used its U.S.
puppets…. British financial oligarchy, and its debased
monarchy, have openly stated their intent to revoke the doctrine
of international law established by the 1648 Peace of Westphalia,
this time in the case of Bloody Blair’s Balkan War….
“The moral nation-state, the modern sovereign nation-state
which our U.S. republic was intended to be, never conducts wars
for pleasure, as the Littleton killers and Blair have done, or
wars for revenge….
“When we examine the role of sections of the U.S. military,
in shaping the policies and techniques carried into action by the
Littleton killers, we must take into account the fact that there
is a connection between the recently increasing tendency for
moral degeneration in our military and related institutions, and
the causes for the Littleton horror and related cases…. If such
thinking within our military, is among the well-springs of
phenomena such as Littleton, how shall we be rid of the latter,
without purging ourselves of the former?…
“The American way, is [to use] the power of victory to
establish an order which is justly beneficial, to the victor and
formerly vanquished, to rebuild, as Lincoln’s last public address
proposed to rebuild the nation as if the Civil War had never
occurred.
“Similarly: only by bringing that spirit back into our
nation now, can we wean the damaged souls among our adolescents,
of that wont for Nintendo warfare so horridly displayed at
Littleton….
“If we take into account, together, the present physical
state, and direction of the world, and also the deteriorating
mental and moral condition of populations throughout most of the
planet, as in the U.S.A. itself, we have already reached the
threshold of the worst disaster known to the recorded history of
the human species. Unless we reverse the policy-trends of the
recent several decades, especially those cultural trends inside
the U.S.A., there is little possibility of the survival of
civilization in the Americas, western Europe, or Africa much
beyond the beginning of the coming century.
“For most among you, that means that you must change, must
free yourself from, especially, those habits of thinking you have
built up during the recent quarter-century or longer. In a sense,
you must be prepared to go back to the way we used to think when
John F. Kennedy was President. Admittedly, there were lots of bad
habits loose back then; but, that is still a good point of
reference at which to begin the process of cleaning away the mass
of cultural rubble which, unless cleared away, will ensure that
our nation does not survive.
“Look at the Littleton horror as an omen, as the hands of
the clock of history, pointing to the time in which we are living
at this moment.
“You must change this nation, and perhaps yourself, too,
before this nation, soon otherwise dies. Take Littleton as that
kind of warning. It is past time that you acted to change the set
of definitions, axioms, and postulates which have been
controlling your opinions and other behavior during recent
decades.”

OGDEN:  So, that was Lyndon LaRouche on June 11, 1999,
almost 20 years ago.  And it is shocking how prescient Mr.
LaRouche’s warning were, at that time, in the aftermath of the
{first} of what has proven to be countless numbers of {horrible}
spectacles that we saw at that Littleton massacre.
Now’s the time for us to let that sink in, and not be
satisfied with just halfway, practical measures and partial
solutions, but to realize in a moment of truly self-conscious
reflection, in true Classical tragedy form, that the horror we’re
witnessing today, really is the sign of the disintegration of our
society, a potential Dark Age, as Mr. LaRouche said in that
report.  And a stirring within ourselves of the realization that
the only solution, is a clean break from those follies which have
led us down that path, and decisive action to create a
Renaissance in our understanding of what it means to be human,
our view of man, a re-humanizing of the human individual, not to
just try to negate evil, but to try to replace this reigning
culture of violence and this culture of death, with rather, a
culture of creativity, which recognizes and celebrates that
unique nature of the human species.  And cultivates that divine
spark creativity within every human individual, {every} child.
Now, as Mr. LaRouche pointed out in that report, one cannot
separate this sort of sickness in our culture, from the policies
which have been expressed by our governing leadership for the
last 50 years; especially the policy of endless war, killing,
endless warfare, which has dominated our nation, really, since
the Korean conflict, but in ever-increasing rates since the death
of John F. Kennedy. And this was very usefully pointed out, just
last week in an interview podcast by Coleen Rowley, who was a
former FBI agent, and a whistleblower, actually, in the months
leading up into 9/11. And you can see there, on the screen, that
her podcast with “WhoWhatWhy” is titled, “FBI Whistleblower:
American Culture of Violence Starts with Perpetual Wars.”
In this interview, Coleen Rowley addresses the issue that
this kind of “domestic terror,” as she calls it, as we’re seeing
with these mass shootings, in schools and otherwise, really does
have very much to do with this culture of violence which we now
have in the United States. And she pointed to the media’s role in
fostering this kind of widespread culture of violence.
She stated that while the tendency in law enforcement is to
try to treat every single one of these as the specific set of
circumstances, which led down the path to every single one of
these crimes, she said, the reality of what we are dealing with
is really something much larger.  She said: “Our culture is doing
this, it’s promoting this violent culture. And of course this is
over and above the availability and easy access to weapons.” You
put all of this together and just those added up on their own
“does explain the question. Columbine, why is this happening? Why
are we experiencing an epidemic of mass violence? Again, our news
never mentions that because … we want to compartmentalize this
and make it seem as if it’s easily, it’s not us as a culture.”
And then she pointed to some specifics.  She said, it really
is the influence of this perpetual war mentality on our society.
She indicated that there are several studies that have come out,
that veterans of these perpetual, endless wars are twice as
likely to become mass shooters; and she also pointed out that the
CIA and the Pentagon have had a sort of devil’s bargain with the
mass media and the entertainment media, movies and video games.
And she said that “The CIA and the Pentagon have been backing,
helping make about 1,800 movies,” including among them are the
famous “American Sniper” movie from 2014, “Zero Dark 30” from
2012, and numerous others. She said in those movies, the hero
will always be someone who is wronged, and then in the end, they
shoot everyone: “A mentally impaired or emotionally troubled
person is seeing themselves as that hero in those movies.”
That’s a very useful affirmation of exactly that point, that
you cannot compartmentalize, you cannot separate out all of these
different, sick, sick phenomena.  And our tendency is to try to
scapegoat one thing, as opposed to realizing that the fault,
perhaps, lies within ourselves as a culture.
But it goes even further than that, and I think as Mr.
LaRouche made clear, we have to not be satisfied with partial
remarks, and partial considerations.  In the last number of
years, more than just perpetual war and bloodshed, in an age of
thermonuclear weapons, the ultimate conclusion of a culture of
death, and this culture of perpetual war and violence, in which
human life has lost its value and weapons of greater and greater
destructive capability have become the central pillar of
international policy and relations of states with other states,
in this age of thermonuclear weapons, the ultimate conclusion of
this mentality is the extinction of the human race.
We’ve now reached a point of decision.  With the
announcement just yesterday by the Russian President, of a new
generation of weapons which have been developed by Russia which
have the power to evade all known ballistic missile defense
shields, flying at hypersonic speeds, some reaching Mach 20 —
unbelievable speeds — under the power of nuclear propulsion,
which allows them to fly almost endlessly, and can deliver, as he
said, a doomsday payload literally anywhere on the surface of the
planet at any time, truthfully, the era of belief in survivable
limited nuclear war, or preventive nuclear first strike, or this
global strike policy, which believed that you could knock out one
nation’s defenses and then launch a nuclear or conventional
attack against them, that age is now definitely over.
And this announcement has really caught the world by
surprise.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche characterized this: If everything
which President Putin announced is in fact real, and there’s no
reason not to believe that to be the case, this is a complete
“Sputnik-type” shock.  It’s also being compared to the Soviet
development of the hydrogen bomb in the 1950s, which completely
shifted the so-called “strategic balance of power,” and took the
entire idea, at that time, of a preemptive nuclear strike against
the Soviet Union off the table.
What Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s assessment is, is that this
announcement of an entirely new weapons system, based on
“completely new physical principles,” an obvious echo of course,
of the language that was originally used in discussing the
Strategic Defense Initiative, the SDI, that this is a qualitative
leap of extreme significance, which shifts the entire
international strategic framework.
And the follies of our belief in statecraft based on
Mutually Assured Destruction, of dominance and so-called
“deterrence” of geopolitics, all of these follies have now been
exposed.  The mask has fallen away.  And humanity itself now sits
before the judgment seat.  Will we continue collectively, to
pursue an ideology of nihilism, which necessarily, in the end,
must lead to the destruction of civilization and the extinction
of the human species in its ultimate consequence, if allowed to
proceed to that point? {Or}, will we finally recognize the
horror, {which we ourselves have wrought}, and awaken to the
awful reality of the ultimate, real-life tragedy in the making,
which is now unfolding around us
President Xi Jinping of China talks about creating a
“community of common destiny.”  Now obviously, he discusses that
in a beautiful sense, a win-win relationship among nations, where
all nations are working toward the mutual benefit of others and
are working towards the “common destiny of all mankind.”  Well,
ironically, that common destiny already exists, but, in a
negative sense, with this thermonuclear Sword of Damocles hanging
over our heads, the potential for a “common destiny of humanity”
for a global annihilation, is a very, very real thing.  As Lyndon
LaRouche made the point with regards to the warning that he
delivered in that report that I read excerpts from — which he
wrote, now, almost 20 years ago — when he foresaw the horrors
which the events in Littleton presaged.  Survival under these
conditions will not come from within the theories, the axioms,
the postulates, of the prevailing system, but survival can only
be delivered through the overturning of those failed ideologies
which form its foundations, and the construction of an entirely
new outlook, based on truth, truthful principles; based on a
recognition of what it really means to be man.
The ultimate principle which must come before, and precede
everything else, not only in philosophy and education, and social
relations, but in international strategic policy, and economic
policy, is the recognition of the true nature of man, a species
which is unique from all other species in its capacity for
creativity, and the necessary ordering and subordination of
everything else, to the cultivation and promotion of that.
So how does that principle play out on the world stage?
It’s through rejecting the kind of anti-human, anti-development,
anti-progress ideology, which has prevailed in the form of
competitive strategic geopolitics, zero-sum economic
policymaking; and instead, to consciously and scientifically
decide, that the common destiny which man must pursue is not
thermonuclear extinction and Mutually Assured Destruction
warfare, but rather, mutually beneficial development and shared
creative progress: Space exploration, the Strategic Defense of
Earth from asteroids and other cosmic threats in our cosmic
environment; the development of limitless power through the
development of fusion energy  — all of these, the list goes on
and on and on.
{But this New Paradigm is already there. It’s already in
existence.}  Just look at what China is doing, with the Silk
Road, with the One Belt, One Road initiative.  Look beyond all of
the propaganda that you’re being fed, about “Chinese hegemony”
and so forth and so on.  This is where the future lies:  Mutually
beneficial progress, development, the giving of the opportunity
for the full cultivation of creative reason to every man, woman
and child on this planet.  The most beautiful example of this,
just in the recent months, has been what China has already
accomplished in the otherwise hopelessly destitute areas of
Africa.  And a beautiful report has just come out of Nigeria,
where the idea of the Transaqua program to refill Lake Chad
through massive water development and water-transfer projects,
this idea which has been on the books for 20 years or more, is
now becoming a reality.
These are the kinds of projects, these are the kinds of
visions, these are the kinds of goals which bind us together as a
common humanity, and will affirm, for our children and for
ourselves, the beauty of mankind, and the true creative nature of
this species.  This is the antidote for a culture of death and a
culture of despair which has plagued our nation and this is the
vision which will inspire us, as we work to build this shared
destiny, this common future.
It’s not only through negating what is evil, but it’s
through cultivating what is good, that man can be redeemed, and
that we can cure this sickness which has infected our culture at
its very root.
So let us allow those masks to fall away, and let us allow
the truth to sit in judgment, recognizing that that the fault
lies within ourselves, within our very cultural values and
beliefs which has led us down the road of tragedy. As the nation
has mourned alongside the victims and the family members of those
horrible events in Parkland, Florida, but has also been inspired
by the courage of those family members and those survivals who
have said, “Enough is enough:  Let’s bring an end to the
so-called status quo.  This must be allowed {never] to happen
again!  Let us commit ourselves to action now, before we reach
the point of no return, to cure this culture, and to cure this
world, of the sickness which threatens our very survival.  And to
resolve, that out of evil {must} come greater good.”
For those who were victims in Florida, for those who are
victims every day, of the diseases of depression and despair,
addiction, overdose, opioids and heroin, and for all of us who
now live under this thermonuclear Sword of Damocles which
threatens to exterminate mankind in the blink of an eye, let all
of us resolve: That we will no longer accept this culture of
death, which prevails not only in our media, and in our
entertainment, but underlies the very economic and strategic
fabric of society.  If there was {ever} a moment in which it is
clear that the necessity of a New Paradigm for civilization is
literally life or death, that moment is now.
So, let me conclude by returning to that essay by the poet
Friedrich Schiller that I cited at the outset of this show, and
read to you the closing section of this essay, which he titles
“The Theater Considered as a Moral Institution.”  What Friedrich
Schiller had to say, was:
“When grief gnaws at our heart, when melancholy poisons our
solitary hours; when we are revolted by the world and its
affairs; when a thousand troubles weigh upon our souls, and our
sensibilities are about to be snuffed out underneath our
professional burdens — then the theater takes us in, and within
its imaginary world we dream the real one away; we are given back
to ourselves; our sensibilities are reawakened; salutary emotions
agitate our slumbering nature, and set our hearts pulsating with
greater vigor.
“And then, when man at last, in all districts and regions
and classes, with all his chains of fad and fashion cast away,
and every bond of destiny rent asunder — when man becomes his
brother’s brother with a single all-embracing sympathy, resolved
once again into a single species, forgetting himself and the
world, and reapproaching his own heavenly origin, each takes joy
in others’ delights, which then, magnified in beauty and
strength, are reflected back to him from a hundred eyes, and now
his bosom has room for a single sentiment, and this is: to be
truly human.”
So let us resolve to make mankind truly human, to be our
brothers’ brother, and to usher in a culture of creativity to
replace this culture of death.
Thank you very much.  And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.

Er det virkelig OK med narkoepidemien, der i USA har ført til et fald i den generelle levetid; guvernør Bevin påpegede det faktum, at nogle af disse sataniske budskaber også er i teksterne i popmusikken, i filmene, i videospillene – bør vi tillade alt dette, og få vore samfund totalt ødelagt? Der er en virkning af alt dette på de kognitive evner! Hvis man ønsker Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love som den eneste løsning til at undgå systemets kollaps, jamen, især den fjerde lov kræver et forceret program for fusionskraft, for international rumforskning og rumrejser. Man kan ikke have folk med ødelagte hjerner, fordi de er afhængige af disse ting, og så få dem til at blive kreativ, produktiv arbejdskraft.

Så det er én og samme diskussion, vi har brug for – vi har brug for et Nyt Paradigme, og vi må have et uddannelsessystem, der understreger skønheden i klassisk kultur, der understreger karakterens skønhed som et udviklingsmål. Det var Wilhelm von Humboldts idé, som trods alt havde indflydelse på meget af undervisningssystemet i Europa og USA i det 19. århundrede, og det holdt sig endda til langt ind i det 20. århundrede, og han havde den idé, at formålet med uddannelse må være karakterens skønhed. Hvem taler om dette nu om stunder? Hvis man tager nogle af disse børn, der er afhængige af disse voldsvideospil, eller endnu værre, der kigger på forfærdeligt materiale på Internettet, hvor der bruges tortur og sådanne ting, og som virkelig bliver ødelagt. Deres hjerner bliver fuldstændig ødelagt!

Eftersom guvernør Bevin har krævet en national debat om dette, og præsident Trump heldigvis også ønsker at tage dette spørgsmål op, mener jeg, vi må have en sådan debat, for det er efter min mening en integreret del af USA’s tilslutning til det Nye Paradigme og den Nye Silkevej, for vi kan ikke have, at dette fortsætter.

Schiller Instituttet har i mange år bevist, at, med klassisk musik, med klassisk poesi, med Schiller, med Shakespeare, kan man transformere folk og få en æstetisk opdragelse, og det er præcis, hvad vi har brug for lige nu.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 24. feb., 2018 – Den 24, feb. udgav Demokraterne i Kongressen deres respons til den ødelæggende afsløring, som FBI, Justitsministeriet og deres kriminelle partnere har været udsat for som et resultat af Nunes-memoet og relaterede rapporter – og som i særdeleshed inkluderer EIR’s dossier, som totalt afslører Storbritanniens Mueller-operation. Det 10 sider lange Demokratiske memo var intet andet end et skamløst forsvar for FBI, Justitsministeriet og den særlige anklager Robert Mueller, baseret på skamløse løgne og sofisteri, der ville have gjort Trasymachos og Kallikles stolte.

Men husk, hvem og hvad det er, som Mueller et al. faktisk forsvarer gennem deres kampagne for at vælte USA’s valgte præsident: Det britiske Imperiums gamle, døende paradigme. Dette paradigme er baseret på alle-mod-alle krigsførelse; brutal økonomisk udplyndring af underkastede befolkninger (inklusive den amerikanske befolkning); og, frem for alt, et bestialsk menneskebillede, der er blevet omhyggeligt næret og spredt over hele planeten.

Dette – og ikke en eller anden profileret debat omkring våbenloven – er det spørgsmål, som den nylige massakre på skoleelever i Florida stiller, og de dusinvis og atter dusinvis af lignende hændelser, der har fundet sted i hele landet i løbet af de seneste år. Som guvernør for Kentucky Matt Bevin understregede i et nyligt videointerview, der cirkuleres bredt på internettet, så er problemet, at hele nutidens amerikanske kultur har hærget vores ungdom. »Vi har en kultur, der er desensibiliseret over for døden, over for værdien af liv, og vi fejrer død gennem vore musikalske tekster, vi fejrer døden gennem videospil, der bogstavelig talt belønner dig med ekstra points for at gå tilbage og gøre det af med folk.«

Selv om Bevin ikke påpegede dem, der er ansvarlige for krisen, og heller ikke foreslog en positiv løsning til den, så opfordrede han til en presserende nødvendig, national debat. I dag understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at Bevins bemærkninger er et meget vigtigt bidrag til denne debat, der også må omfatte de nødvendige, økonomiske politikker, som Lyndon LaRouche unikt har specificeret. Hun satte det kulturelle forfald og lammelsen med hensyn til nødvendige, økonomiske politikker, som gennemsyrer USA og Europa, op imod Kinas optimistiske fremstød for udvikling – som det reflekteres i deres annoncering i går af investeringer på over $1,5 billion i »en masse store projekter« inklusive infrastruktur og ny, hightech industrisektorer.

Hvis vi vitterligt skal gøre 2018 til året, hvor geopolitik endelig lægges i graven, sådan, som Zepp-LaRouche har opfordret til, så må dette også være året, hvor Det britiske Imperiums bankerotte finanssystem begraves, sammen med dets bestialske menneskebegreb. Som fr. Zepp-LaRouche understregede mod slutningen af sit webcast den 22. feb.:[1]

»Vi må blot gå tilbage til det højeste, kulturelle niveau i hver nation. I USA ville det selvfølgelig sige Benjamin Franklin, de grundlæggende fædre, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy – disse perioder, hvor USA havde en positiv vision af sin rolle. Jeg mener, John Quincy Adams havde f.eks. en tilgang til udenrigspolitik, der ligner meget det, Kina gør i dag. Benjamin Franklin var en absolut entusiastisk elev af Konfutse, og han brugte Konfutses filosofi til at udvikle sit eget moralsystem! Det er denne form for diskussioner, der virkelig ville hjælpe …

I Tyskland er vi velsignet med en meget rig kultur: Vi har haft mange, mange tænkere, fra Nikolaus von Kues, Kepler og til Leibniz. Vi har haft mange klassiske komponister, fra Bach til Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann og mange andre. Vi har haft fantastiske digtere, som Schiller, Lessing, Heine, Möricke og endnu mange flere. I Italien havde vi den Gyldne Renæssance, i Spanien havde vi den Andalusiske Renæssance. Vi havde Kalifatet i Bagdad – i en bestemt periode under Abbaside-dynastiet var Bagdad verdens mest udviklede by! Så var der de forskellige århundreder, hvor Kina var den førende nation med hensyn til videnskab og kultur. Så det, vi må gøre, er, at vi må aktivere det bedste potentiale i hver enkelt nation. For dette er ved at gå tabt …

Vi må skille os af med en masse af den nuværende, populistiske kultur. Vi må komme af med denne idé om, at ’penge skaber penge’, vi må holde op med at spilde vores tid på spekulation, på videospil, eller – folk er virkelig ved at miste deres kreative potentiale! Men man kan genvinde det ved at studere klassisk musik, klassisk poesi, ved at læse filosofferne, Platon, Cusanus, Leibniz, originalværkerne … jeg mener, det ville være meget let at skabe en ny renæssance for tankegang. Og jeg mener, at den nye, økonomiske verdensorden, den Nye Silkevej, Bælte & Vej Initiativet, sluttelig kun vil kunne lykkes, hvis den ledsages af en renæssance for klassisk kultur …

Dette er et presserende spørgsmål, hvis vi ikke ønsker at se flere rædselsforestillinger som skoleskyderierne, som jeg mener – selvfølgelig er diskussionen om våbenloven vigtig – men det er i realiteten vigtigere at give mennesker en indre styrke, fornemmelsen af indre skønhed, så de ikke går i denne retning. Der er mange forstyrrede mennesker, der absolut kunne blive reddet, hvis der var en seriøs indsats for en æstetisk uddannelse eller opdragelse, en opdragelse af deres karakters moralske skønhed, hvilket er grunden til, at man har brug for klassisk kultur og ikke en moderne version af poesi og drama. For kun, hvis man har det højeste ideal om mennesket, mennesket som en skøn sjæl, som en skøn karakter, kan uddannelsessystemet vaccinere folk imod sådanne rædselsforestillinger. Og jeg ville virkelig ønske, at folk ville slutte sig til os i denne bestræbelse.«

Foto: Barack Obama modtager Dronning Elizabeth II og Prins Philip, hertug af Edinburgh, før en middag til ære for dronningen i Winfield House i London, 25. maj, 2011. (Official White House Photo)                      

[1] Læs hele webcastet her (dansk): http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23890

Vært Matthew Ogden: Godaften; det er 1. dec., og dette er vores strategiske fredags-webcast fra larouchepac.com.

Vi har meget stof at gennemgå i aften, for vi bliver i øjeblikket vidne til indvielsen af en helt ny æra på denne planet. Det, vi bliver vidne til, især i løbet af den seneste uge, siden afslutningen af den ekstraordinært historiske Schiller Institut-konference, der fandt sted nær Frankfurt, Tyskland, i sidste weekend, er den kendsgerning, at den Nye Silkevejsdynamik – denne dynamik med store projekter og »win-win«-samarbejde, der er blevet initieret af Kina – denne Nye Silkevejsdynamik er nu den dominerende og virkelig uimodståelige dynamik på denne planet. Dette er noget, der fuldstændig er i færd med at omforme alle nationers politik på denne planet. Og tyngdecentret er skiftet væk fra det gamle paradigme, som vi har set i det transatlantiske system, og til dette Nye Paradigme, der nu har fået overtaget pga. de initiativer, som frem for alt Kina har taget.

Jeg vil gerne lægge ud med at afspille et kort uddrag af Helga Zepp-LaRouches ekstraordinære hovedtale, som hun holdt på denne konference, der var sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet nær Frankfurt, Tyskland, i sidste weekend. Konferencens titel var »At opfylde menneskehedens drøm«, og titlen på Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale var »Den Nye Silkevej; Den nye model for internationale relationer«. Her er et kort uddrag af Helgas tale:

(Se hele Helgas video og tale i dansk oversættelse her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=22734)

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet)

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  So, let me start with an idea
of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.  He said that we are actually
living in the best of all possible worlds.  This is a very
fundamental ontological conception.  It’s the idea that we are
living in a developing universe; that what makes the universe the
best of all possible ones is its tremendous potential for
development.  It is in such a way created, that every great evil
challenges an even greater good to come into being.  I think when
we are talking about the New Silk Road and the tremendous changes
which have occurred in the world, especially in the last four
years, it is actually exactly that principle working.  Because it
was the absolute manifest lack of development of the old world
order which caused the impulse of China and the spirit of the New
Silk Road having caught on that now many nations of the world are
absolutely determined to have a development giving a better life
to all of their people.
Now, I think that the New Silk Road is a typical example of
an idea whose time had come; and once an idea is in that way
becoming a material reality, it becomes a physical force in the
universe.
Now the Chinese Ambassador to Washington, Cui Tiankai,
recently made the point, that there were 16 times in world history,
when a rising country would surpass the dominant country up to
that point.  In twelve cases it led to a war, and in four cases
the rising country just peacefully took over.  He said that China
wants neither, but we want to have a completely different system
of a “win-win” relationship of equality and respect for each
other.
Obviously, the most important question strategically, if you
think about it, is that we can avoid the so-called Thucydides
trap.  That was the rivalry between Athens and Sparta in the 5th
Century BC, which led to the Peloponnesian War and the demise of
ancient Greece.  If this were to occur today between the United
States and China in the age of thermonuclear weapons, I think
nobody in their right mind could wish that; and therefore, we
should all be extremely happy that Trump and Xi Jinping have
developed this very important relationship.  I stuck my neck out
in the United States in February of this year by saying, if
President Trump manages to get a good relationship between the
United States and China, and between the United States and Russia, he
will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of the
United States.  Naturally, everybody was completely freaked out
because that is not the picture people are supposed to have about
Trump.  But I think if you look at what is happening, you will
see that Trump is on a very good way to accomplish exactly that.
So, he came back from this Asia trip with $253 billion worth
of deals with China.  I watched the press conference of the
Governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice, where he said that now,
because of China, there is hope in West Virginia.  West Virginia
is a totally depressed state; they have unemployment and a drug
epidemic.  But he said now we can have value-added production, we
will have a bright future.  So, the spirit of the New Silk Road
has even caught on in West Virginia.  Obviously the United States
has an enormous demand for infrastructure, especially now after
the destruction of all these hurricanes; which just to restore
what has been destroyed requires $200 billion, not even talking
about disaster prevention.  So, this is all on a good way that
China will invest in the infrastructure in the United States, and
vice versa; US firms will cooperate in projects of the Belt and
Road Initiative.
So, just think about it, because almost everything I’m
saying goes against everything you hear in the Western media.
But think:  From whom comes the motion for peace and development?
Is it coming from those who attack Putin, Xi, and Trump?  And
those who side with Obama?  It’s obviously time for people to
rethink how the Western viewpoint is on all of these matters.  Or
change the glasses which they have to look at the world.

OGDEN:  So, as you heard from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, that was
just a short excerpt from her speech, but she said we have to
change the glasses through which we look at the world.  That’s
what she did really with the entirety of her keynote address;
which was an hour long.  It is available on the
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.org website right now; but she
really did change the glasses, through which people should see the
world; both by reviewing what the strategic breakthroughs have
been in terms of the New Silk Road dynamic which has been
sweeping the planet and supplanting this outmoded and failed
geopolitical world order which has brought the world really to
the edge of what she said; this Thucydides trap and the danger of
thermonuclear war.  But she also did some very extraordinary; she
took the audience back through the history of the relationship
between the Confucianism of China and the Leibnizian philosophy
of Europe.  This was the best of European culture, and really the
consolidation of the Renaissance culture of Europe.  What
Gottfried Leibniz was able to do in his time, recognizing the
failures of European culture due to the kinds of rivalries
between these warring empires and what had really turned into a
corruption and a rot at the core of the European system at that
time; he said the future can be secured if we recognize the best
of European culture — the Christianity and the heritage of the
Greek philosophy which built European culture; but put this
together with the aspects of Chinese Confucianism which are in
fact harmonious with the best of the ideas of European
philosophy.  He pointed out, that the idea of an understanding of

the pre-established harmony between man’s creative mind and the
created universe is something, which indeed is recognized in
Leibnizian European philosophy; but is also at the core of
Confucian philosophy.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche said that in a very real way, Xi Jinping
has reflected a profound understanding of this kind of harmonious
relationship between man and the created world, and also between
the nations of this planet, and has given it a substance;
actualized this idea through the form of the New Silk Road.  She
also reviewed the history of her husband’s — Lyndon LaRouche’s
— role in creating the basis of the ideas that are now taking
their form in this New Paradigm of development coming out of
China and the Belt and Road Initiative.  She traced it all the
way back to a paper that Lyndon LaRouche had written in the 1970s
about the development of Africa, and the fact that his ideas —
which were at the core of that vision — are now what are
actually taking place in Africa and other nations that are being
touched by the Belt and Road Initiative.  Again, this is an
extraordinary keynote address, and we would encourage you to
watch the speech in its entirety.
But after Helga LaRouche’s keynote, the conference — which
was a two-day conference — unfolded; and it was a series of
extraordinary panel after extraordinary panel.  The first panel
was titled “The Earth’s Next Fifty Years”; obviously taking that
from the title of a wonderful book that was published by Lyndon
LaRouche over a decade ago.  But this panel began with a keynote
by Professor He Wenping, who’s the Director of African Studies at
the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.  The speech
was “President Xi’s Perspective for the Year 2050 and the
Perspective of African Development”.  That was followed by the
former Transport Minister of Egypt, who gave a speech called
“Integration of Egypt’s Transportation Plans 2030 with the New
Silk Road Project”.  Then, there was a statement from George
Lombardi, who is the former social media consultant to President
Donald Trump; and his speech was titled “The Trump
Administration: Impending Economic Policies and Media Discord”.
Then that panel concluded with a speech by Marco Zanni, who is a
member of the European Parliament from Italy.  His speech was
titled “A Future for Europe after the Euro”.
Panel I was followed by Panel II, which was the second panel
of the first day, which was titled “The Need for Europe To
Cooperate with China in the Industrialization of Africa and the
Middle East; Transaqua as the Rosetta Stone of the Continent’s
Transformation”.  This began with an extensive speech by Hussein
Askary, who is the Southwest Asia coordinator for the Schiller
Institute.  This was on “Extending the Silk Road into Southwest
Asia and Africa; A Vision of an Economic Renaissance”.  The bulk
of this is also actually included in a new Special Report that is
just been published by the Schiller Institute, that was jointly
written by Hussein Askary and Jason Ross.  He was followed by the
Foreign Director of the Bonifaca S.p.A., Italy, company, which is
actually involved with China in building this Transaqua project.
It’s called the Italy-China Alliance for Transaqua.  Then, the
General Consul to Frankfurt from Ethiopia spoke — Mehreteab
Mulugeta Haile.  The title of his speech was “The Need for Europe
to Cooperate with China in the Industrialization of Africa”.
Then that panel concluded with a speech by the Executive Manager
of Pyramids International called “Egypt’s 2030 Mega Projects:
Investment Opportunities for Intermodal and Multimodal
Connectivity”.
The third panel took place on the second day of the
conference, and that panel was titled “Europe As the Continent of
Poets, Thinkers, and Inventors: An Optimistic Vision for the
Future of Europe”.  It was keynoted by Jacques Cheminade, who’s
the former Presidential candidate in France.  His speech was
titled “What Europe Should Contribute to the New World Paradigm”.
Then, Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, who’s the chairwoman of the
Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, gave a speech — “China’s
Initiative from the Doom of Self-Destruction, to Prosperity and
Progress; A View from Ukraine”.  Then, a speech from a
representative from Serbia; an author and journalist named Dr.
Jasminka Simic.  Her speech was titled “One Belt, One Road — An
Opportunity for Development in the Western Balkans”.  Then that
panel concluded with a speech from Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Professor Mariana Tian — “Bulgaria’s Contribution to the Belt
and Road Initiative”.
There were also two other speeches; the chair of the
Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association, and the founding
Director of the China Africa Advisory.
Then, the concluding panel of the entire conference, Panel
IV; “The System We Live in Is Not Earthbound — Future
Technologies and Scientific Breakthroughs”.  This was keynoted by
Jason Ross, scientific advisor to the Schiller Institute.  His
speech was titled “The Scientific Method of LaRouche”.  He was
followed by Prof. Dr. Helmut Alt, from the University of Applied
Sciences in Aachen; who gave a speech — “Energy Transition; From
Bad to Worse”.  Then that concluded with Dr. Wentao Guo, from
Switzerland — “Current Situation of High Temperature Gas-Cooled
Reactors in China”.
Then there was an extensive Q&A period after that, in which
there was very important input from the audience.  The attendees
at this event — which you could see just from the speaker’s list
alone — represented countries from Western Eurasia, from Central
Europe, from Africa, from the United States, from Western Europe,
from Scandinavia, from really literally all over the world.  This
was an extraordinary conference.
There was a resolution that was adopted at the concluding of
the conference that I’d like to put on the screen here [Fig. 1].
The resolution is taking a note from what China has committed
itself to — eliminating poverty by the year 2020 in China.  So,
this is the resolution adopted by the Schiller Institute
conference in Bad Soden, Germany:

“At this conference, with the title ‘Fulfilling the Dream of
Mankind,’ we discussed the incredible transformation of the world
catalyzed by the Chinese initiative of the New Silk Road. The
Belt and Road Initiative, which is creating optimism in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, more and more states in Europe, and after
the state visit of President Trump in China, in several states
within the United States.
“The Belt and Road Initiative has the concrete perspective
on how poverty and underdevelopment can be overcome through
investment in infrastructure, industry and agriculture, based on
scientific and technological progress. The Chinese government
which uplifted 700 million out of poverty in the last 30 years,
has now proclaimed the goal to lift the remaining 42 million
people living in poverty out of their condition, and create a
decent living standard for the entire Chinese population by the
year 2020.
“Within the European Union, there are living approximately
120 million people below the poverty line, according to our own
criteria characterizing the costs of life. Given the fact that
Europe is still an economic powerhouse, there is no plausible
reason why Europe cannot uplift these 120 million people out of
poverty by the year 2020, as well. The best way to accomplish
this is for the EU, all European nations, to accept the offer by
China to cooperate with China in the Belt and Road Initiative on
a ‘win-win’ basis.
“We, the participants of the Schiller Institute conference,
call on all elected officials to join this appeal to the European
governments. Should we in Europe not be proud enough to say, if
the Chinese can do this, we can do it, too?”

As you can see here, newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com, that
is the location of the proceedings of this conference which will
be published as they’re prepared; but also, that resolution that
I just read to you, is available on that website
—newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com — and it’s collecting
signatures.  It’s something that you can add your name to and you
can circulate that.  Obviously, it applies not only to Europe,
but applies to the United States as well; this goal of
eliminating poverty by building infrastructure and high
technology projects to increase the living standards and the
productivity of our populations; as China is doing through the
Belt and Road Initiative.  This is what can be accomplished in
the United States.  We’ll review a little bit of that.
I do want to note that Helga Zepp-LaRouche made a special
notice of the statement by West Virginia Governor Jim Justice
after he secured $87 billion in joint investment into the state
of West Virginia; which is greater than the entire GDP of that
state.  This accomplishment is really the spirit of the New Silk
Road, which is now sweeping through the world and has even taken
hold in our very own state of West Virginia here in the United
States.
Now, let’s look at the extraordinary rate of developments
that have occurred since this conference happened in Frankfurt,
Germany last weekend.  This is part of putting on those new
glasses that Helga LaRouche talked about in order to see the
world as it really is; not to see the world through the kind of
spin and propaganda that you’re inundated with on a daily basis
by the media.  If you were following the media, you would think,
that the only issue on the table, are the series of sex scandals
that are coming out from celebrities and news anchors and so
forth and so on.  And you would miss the fact that we are
literally living in the absolute epicenter right now in history
of a total paradigm shift in the history of mankind.
So, let’s look at this extraordinary rate of developments.
This conference, obviously, in Europe — the Schiller Institute
conference — took place right on the heels of President Trump’s
extraordinarily successful trip to Asia; where he had his state
visit-plus visit with President Xi Jinping in China.  And the
$250 billion worth of deals that were signed there for joint
investments, the fact that President Xi Jinping put directly on
the table the idea of the United States and US businesses
collaborating with the Belt and Road Initiative, and the fact
that President Xi Jinping and President Trump solidified a very
close personal relationship and really ushered in a new era of
US-China collaboration.  After that, just during the course of
the last five days, you’ve seen what was just mentioned there in
the resolution from the Frankfurt conference; that nations of
Europe are now beginning to reach out and reciprocate the hand of
friendship that’s coming from China to participate in the Belt
and Road Initiative.
This is taking place most significantly in the more
impoverished countries of Eastern and Central Europe.  We have
the just-concluded 16+1 talks, which occurred in Budapest,
Hungary.  This is the meeting of the so-called CEEC, or the
Central and Eastern European Countries — those are the 16; and
then the +1 is China.  So, this is the 16+1, the Central and
Eastern European Countries plus China.  What was discussed at
this conference was the further coordination between these
countries of Eastern Europe and the Chinese, especially on the
idea of the Belt and Road Initiative; the New Eurasian
Land-Bridge as it was termed by Helga and Lyndon LaRouche back in
the 1980s.  The core feature of that proposal back in the end of
the 1980s, which gave birth to this idea of the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, was the idea of taking these Eastern European
countries — what had been formerly part of the Soviet Union or
the Soviet space — and taking what was an under-developed area
of Europe and developing it through bridging Western Europe with
Russia and then beyond through these kinds of transportation
corridors and high technology development grids.  That’s exactly
what China was discussing with these countries in Eastern Europe
during the 16+1 conference.  These are mainly countries such as
Hungary, Serbia, Poland, which really this is their conception of
themselves; they serve as Europe’s front door onto the New Silk
Road.  As the New Silk Road comes westward across Eurasia, the
front door to Europe are these Eastern European countries.  They
have gone from being on the margins of Europe with
under-development and poverty and prolonged unemployment and
these other crises, they’ve gone from being on the margins to
being at the very center of this new dynamic which is sweeping
from the East.
This is referred to in Hungary as their “eastward opening”;
that Hungary’s future is to orient towards this new era of
development which is coming from Eurasia, rather than orienting
towards the collapsing system of Western Europe and the failed
EU.  Zhang Ming, who’s China’s ambassador to the European Union,
published an article that was published immediately prior to the
16+1 meeting on November 27th, in which he emphasized the central
role of the Belt and Road Initiative in China’s policy towards
Europe.  He said, “As China and Europe work together to synergize
the Belt and Road Initiative, the 16 CEEC countries will play a
more prominent role as a hub which connects Asia and Europe.
Faster development in CEEC countries contributes to a more
balanced development across Europe and European integration.”
So, in other words, the faster development of these impoverished
countries in Central and Eastern Europe will be a “win-win” for
everybody involved.  He used these words, that these countries
will serve a “prominent role as a hub which connects Asia and
Europe.”
Then as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stated a few
weeks ago — and he was the host of this meeting in Budapest,
Hungary obviously — but this was a statement that he made back
in October.  This is absolutely to the point of what we’re
discussing on this webcast today; this idea that the Belt and
Road Initiative is now the irresistible and dominant dynamic on
this planet.  This is a quote from Prime Minister Orban:  “The
world’s center of gravity is shifting from West to East.  While
there is still some denial of this in the Western world, that
denial does not seem to be reasonable.  We see the world
economy’s center of gravity shifting from the Atlantic region to
the Pacific region.  This is not my opinion, this is a fact.”
Now incidentally, that quote, that statement by Prime
Minister Orban, is exactly the point that Lyndon LaRouche made in
this book; this very prescient book that he published over a
decade ago called {Earth’s Next Fifty Years; The Coming Eurasian
World}.  In that book, Mr. LaRouche said the dominant dynamic of
the world is going to be the rising countries of Asia; these are
where the most concentrations of population are, this is the
fastest rates of growth.  And this is where the world’s center of
gravity is shifting economically; the coming Eurasian world, or
the Pacific-centered world.  So, this is a direct echo of exactly
what Lyndon LaRouche said way back when before any of this
economic miracle took place.  But Mr. LaRouche was very prescient
on that fact.
Now, while a number of leading European press outlets have
been doing exactly what Viktor Orban said — denying this fact;
trying to deny this inevitable fact that the center of gravity
has shifted from West to East.  You had, for example, the
{Financial Times} ran an extensive article headlined “Brussels
Rattled As China Reaches Out to Eastern Europe”; obviously just
hysterical that these Eastern European countries are now oriented
towards the Belt and Road Initiative.  Despite that fact, there
are some leading circles in Europe who are, indeed, recognizing
that Europe’s future lies in joining this New Paradigm.
Obviously, that could be seen from this extensive speaker’s list
at the Schiller Institute conference in Frankfurt; but there was
another very significant conference that occurred just a few days
later this week in Paris.  This was the first annual Paris Forum
on the Belt and Road Initiative; so it’s going to take place very
year.  This is the first annual event.  It was co-organized by
the Chinese embassy and the French Institute for International
and Strategic Affairs — IRIS is their acronym.  This is the
third largest think tank in Paris.  The founding director is
Pascal Boniface, who is very positive in terms of his attitude
towards this idea of France and Europe as a whole joining with
the Belt and Road Initiative.  There were some 400 people in
participation at this very important event.  There were think
tanks, there were civil servants, people from the French
government, there were heads of different French companies —
CEOs — retired military, there were cultural figures, and there
were media who attended.  Among them, the forum was addressed by
the Chinese Ambassador to France, Zhai Jun.  He put directly on
the table, France, Europe should join this new emerging paradigm,
this Belt and Road Initiative.  This goes directly along with the
attendance by Raffarin, the former Prime Minister of France to
the Belt and Road Forum that occurred this past Spring in
Beijing.  There have been other prominent figures inside France
who have done exactly what these people have done at this very
significant event, and said “Look, this is the future of the
world economy.  The center of gravity has shifted, and we better
get on board.”  This was also the subject, by the way, of Jacques
Cheminade’s speech at the Schiller Institute conference; and this
is something that he’s been in extensive conversation with, with
numerous leading figures inside France as part of his
Presidential campaign.  He even met with the former President of
France, Francois Hollande, while he was President at the Elysée
Palace and discussed exactly this idea.
So, as you can see, the movers and shakers behind this, the
ideas which are driving history, are really the leaders and the
collaborators of the LaRouche Movement worldwide.
Let me shift focus now.  We’re continuing to catalog the
extraordinary rate of developments that have occurred just over
the last five days since this extraordinary conference in
Frankfurt.  Let’s shift focus now to Latin America.  We had the
11th China-Latin America-Caribbean Business Summit, which
happened in Uruguay; actually it’s still happening.  It started
yesterday, and it’s going through this Sunday, so it’s a four-day
conference.  This was to discuss the idea of how Western
Hemisphere countries, especially countries in South and Central
America, can participate in China’s One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  Whereas this is the 11th annual conference between
the Central and South American countries and China, this was by
far the largest of these conferences to have taken place.  There
were over 2500 people in attendance, which included high-level
businessmen, government officials, and policymakers from all over
Latin America.  One of the plenary sessions which took place at
this conference was titled, “A New Vision of Collaboration Among
China, Latin America, and the Caribbean in the Framework of the
One Belt, One Road Strategy”.  So, that’s explicit; this is the
idea of Latin American joining the New Silk Road.
Just because we’re discussing Latin America, there was a
wonderful sentiment which was voiced by Chilean President
Michelle Bachelet.  This was a speech that she gave on November
23rd at the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the founding
of the Confucius Institute in Chile.  She said, “The world is
orienting more than ever towards China and the Pacific Basin.
Therefore, we know very well that our relationship with China and
the Asia-Pacific in particular, is crucial for us to fulfill our
destiny.”  She said, “Chile’s relationship with China goes well
beyond trade ties.  It is one of our primary political partners
on the path to opening integration and cooperation for progress.”
Then Michelle Bachelet said after she retires as the President of
Chile, she intends to study the Chinese language in depth.  So,
that’s a commitment that perhaps all heads of state should make,
as we recognize that the center of gravity of the world’s
strategic and economic reality is shifting towards China.  We did
see that from President Trump’s granddaughter, Arabella Kushner
— that’s Ivanka’s daughter — where she recorded the song in
Mandarin Chinese.  A video of her singing a song in Mandarin
Chinese, and sent that as a goodwill offering to President Xi
Jinping in China.
And one more item I should just note.  This is a
yet-unconfirmed report, but it’s very credible, that Japan — now
we’ve shifted from Europe to Central and South America, and now
we’re in the Asia Pacific.  Japan is actively considering joint
projects with Chinese companies on building the One Belt, One
Road.  This is hugely significant, judging by the historic
conflicts between Japan and China, which have been played on by
these Western geopoliticians for decades; to try to keep these
two extraordinarily significant countries from collaborating.  If
Japan and China collaborate on the Belt and Road Initiative, this
is a dynamic which is absolutely unstoppable.  There was an
article in a Japanese paper titled “Government To Help Japan,
China Firms in Belt and Road”.  It reports that the Abe
government is considering supporting companies to carry out joint
projects with Chinese companies along the Belt and Road.  I think
underscoring this fact, as I stated in the beginning of today’s
broadcast, that the Belt and Road is an absolutely unstoppable
and irresistible dynamic; which has now become dominant and is
something which cannot be ignored.  Underscoring that fact that,
indeed, this New Silk Road is the dominant irresistible dynamic
on this planet, here’s a statement from the {Global Times} which
is absolutely to the point.  It says “Generally speaking, Japan’s
economy has been always greatly dependent on overseas markets.
So, for the sustainable development of its economy, Japan needs
access to the business opportunities offered by the vast
infrastructure projects along the Belt and Road route.”
So, this is the sentiment that’s being expressed by
everybody.  We go from the hosts of this first annual conference
on the Belt and Road Initiative in Paris.  Look at what Viktor
Orban said at the 16+1 conference in Budapest, Hungary.  Look at
what Michelle Bachelet said in Chile at the Confucius Institute.
Look at the statements that were made at this Central and South
American-China Business Forum.  Look at what’s now being said in
Japan.  Look at the statements that were made at the Schiller
Institute conference in Frankfurt.  And look at what was done by
President Trump during his trip to China, and the summit that he
had with President Xi Jinping.  Everything is being shaped by
this initiative, by the New Silk Road; by this initiative which
is coming out of China for “win-win” mutually beneficial
cooperation on great project development for the entire planet.
This is the dominant of the future.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, you need to put on the new set
of glasses to be able to see reality as it really is; not through
the skewed mirrors and the propaganda which is coming out of the
Western media.  I think that perhaps the best statement, and the
most candid statement of all — of all of these statements about
the reality of this future dynamic — and why the United States
and Europe and South America and Asia need to jump on board with
the New Silk Road, need to join with this new dynamic and catch
this spirit of the New Silk Road; probably the best and most
candid of those statements came out of Governor Jim Justice from
West Virginia during his press conference that he gave there at
the state capital, announcing this extraordinary $87 billion deal
between China and the state of West Virginia.  Here’s what
Governor Jim Justice had to say:

GOVERNOR JIM JUSTICE

:  And I would say to all of you
all that may be doubters that this could become a reality, “Don’t
get on the wrong side of it.”  Because, really and truly, it’s a
comin’.  It’s a comin’.”

OGDEN:  “It’s a comin’.”  I would say to all the doubters,
“this could become a reality, ‘Don’t get on the wrong side of
it.’  Because it’s a comin’,” he said.  “It’s a comin’.”   So,
that was actually from the conclusion of a really wonderful and
important video that was just put on the LaRouche PAC website
this week, all about West Virginia.  West Virginia, which as
Helga LaRouche said, is known across the country right now as the
epicenter of poverty, unemployment, drug epidemic overdoses, and
just general backward economic conditions.  West Virginia could
now become the cutting edge and the economic driver of the entire
Appalachian region here in the United States because of this
“win-win” investment that came from China.  So, I would encourage
you to watch that video in full on the LaRouche PAC website.
But let me just say, this is an extraordinary rate of
development of events that have occurred over the past five days.
I think that anybody who is looking at the reality soberly and
with clarity will see that, indeed, the efforts of the LaRouche
Movement over the past several years to put this question on the
table; to put this idea of a New Paradigm of economic cooperation
and “win-win” development, this New Silk Road — this Eurasian
Land-Bridge, this World Land-Bridge idea.  Put that on the table
and to shape all of the discussions that are occurring at the
highest levels of policymaking worldwide around that idea.  I
think that truly is becoming the dominant dynamic, and it’s a
testament to the fact that a small handful of people with very
powerful ideas, can indeed be very successful in shaping the
course of world history.
Now, I would say that what Helga LaRouche began, those
remarks that I played at the beginning of the show; this idea of
the greatest, the best of all possible worlds — what Gottfried
Leibniz had to say.  This is an understanding of how the universe
corresponds to the creative will of mankind.  That there is a
principle of good that is behind the creation, the creation of
the universe; and that principle of good corresponds with the
creative nature of mankind.  And when mankind acts on that
creative quality, and acts for the benefit of the greatest number
of possible people, the greatest possible General Welfare; acts
on the basis of this principle of good, that the universe
corresponds and, indeed, responds.  Because of this harmony, this
pre-established harmony which Leibniz discussed.  That was at the
core of his understanding of the best of all possible worlds.
So, with that axiomatic understanding of the philosophical
nature of what this effort is all about — to bring about a New
Paradigm of human relations on this planet — let’s conclude with
the concluding quote from Helga Zepp-LaRouche during her keynote
at that Schiller Institute conference in Germany.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche said the following:  “If we revive the Classical
culture of all nations, and enter a beautiful dialogue among
them, mankind will experience a new renaissance and unleash an
enormous creativity of the human species like never before.
“So, it is very good to live at this moment in history and
contribute to make the world a better place.  And it can be done,
because the New Paradigm corresponds to the lawfulness of the
physical universe in science, Classical art, and these
principles.  What will be asserted is the identity of the human
species as {the} creative species in the universe.”
So, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it is very good to live at
this moment, and to contribute to this New Paradigm which is now
emerging on this planet, and to contribute to the good of
mankind.
So, thank you very much for joining us here today.  We
strongly encourage you to not only watch Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
keynote address in its entirety, but to stay tuned to that
Schiller Institute channel as all of these panels, all of these
videos, all of these presentations are produced and put up on the
website for you to watch in their entirety.  So, thank you for
joining in, and let’s continue to spread the spirit of the New
Silk Road.  Thank you and good night.

Jeg ønsker at skrive skøn musik – musik, som gør verden bedre. – Alma Deutscher.

… Vores politiske bevægelse (Schiller Instituttet og LaRouche-bevægelsen) er dedikeret til ideen om, at alle børn kan blive genier, hvis deres kreative potentiale udvikles. Dette er Alma et bevis på.

Vi er overbevist om, at menneskehedens vigtigste udfordring består i at udvikle en strategi for udløsning af kreativiteten hos alle mænd, kvinder og børn, og at en afgørende metode til at opnå dette er gennem at genopleve fortidens kreative opdagelser. Også dette er Alma et bevis på.

Og vi er fast besluttet på at skabe en ny, global renæssance, for hvilken renæssance nye musikkompositioner, baseret på principperne for den mest storslåede, klassiske musik, vil være med til at vise vejen. Og igen, Almas unge, musikalske sind og sjæl beviser allerede, at dette er muligt. 

See also the english version of the article here.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Tom Gillesberg: … Hvis Schiller var her i dag, hvad mener du så, han ville bidrage med, og hvad kan vi bruge Schiller til i dag?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at Schiller ville være meget glad, for grunden til, at Schiller Instituttet hedder Schiller Instituttet …  jeg har altid ment, at Friedrich Schillers menneskebillede var det mest ædle: Ideen om, at alle mennesker kan blive skønne sjæle.

Leder,  Schiller Instituttet og LaRouche PAC, 11. nov., 2017 – Følgende er et svar, Helga Zepp-LaRouche gav på et spørgsmål, stillet af formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg, under diskussionen, der fulgte efter Helgas briefing til Schiller Instituttets Venners valgarrangement i København, 10. nov.

Hendes svar udgør hendes lykønskningsbudskab til festlighederne 11. nov. i anledning af Schillers fødselsdag.

Tom Gillesberg: Da vi begyndte mødet, Helga, kommenterede jeg det faktum, at det i dag er Friedrich Schillers fødselsdag [10. nov. 1759 – 9. maj 1805]. Så jeg mener, det er meget passende at tænke over dette. Og jeg vil gerne spørge dig, Helga: Hvis Schiller var her i dag, hvad mener du så, han ville bidrage med, og hvad kan vi bruge Schiller til i dag?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at Schiller ville være meget glad, for grunden til, at Schiller Instituttet hedder Schiller Instituttet – jeg kunne have en indsats for at etablere en bedre relation mellem relationer; jeg kunne have fundet en anden tænker: Leibniz, Cusanus, der er mange, der har gjort utrolige ting. Men jeg har altid ment, at Friedrich Schillers menneskebillede var det mest ædle: Ideen om, at alle mennesker kan blive skønne sjæle.

Som jeg for nylig skitserede i en tale, jeg holdt i New York, så er ligheden mellem konfutsiansk æstetisk opdragelse og Friedrich Schillers æstetiske opdragelse, forbløffende stor. Konfutse, der trods alt levede for 2.500 år siden, og Friedrich Schiller, der levede for over 200 år siden, kom imidlertid begge på den samme idé. Nemlig, at ethvert menneske har potentialet til ubegrænset selv-fuldkommengørelse; til at blive et geni. Og Schillers definition af geni var en skøn sjæl. Hermed mente Schiller, at man finder frihed i nødvendighed, og man gør sin pligt med passion. Ikke som én, der følger Kant, og som siger, »jeg må gøre min pligt« og ser rasende ud, og man er moralsk, men man hader det. Men derimod, at man glæder sig over at gøre det gode.

Jeg finder, at Xi Jinping er i besiddelse af denne egenskab. Jeg har studeret ham, studeret hans taler, hans bog med taler, The Governance of China, som I bør læse, som er udgivet dér; men man kan også finde alle hans taler på Google. Jeg kom til den konklusion, at han er en filosof; at han er et konfutsiansk renæssancemenneske. Og jeg mener, at Schiller ville have været utrolig glad over, at et sådant menneske er statsoverhoved, og at han har strømlinet hele det kinesiske samfund i overensstemmelse med disse ideer.

Jeg er meget optimistisk med hensyn til dette. Jeg mener, den vestlige propaganda er selvfølgelig flippet ud som bare pokker. De siger, »Åh! Xi Jinping er en ny Mao Zedong, endda en ny Stalin. Han koncentrerer al denne magt i sine egne hænder.«

Men undersøger man dette, ser man, at det ikke er tilfældet. Vist er det et meget centraliseret system, men det er et meritokrati; det er helliget folkets almene velfærd, og ikke kun det kinesiske folks, men udtrykkeligt også alle de deltagene landes [i Bælte & Vej]. Så jeg mener, Schiller ville genkende denne idé med at have en vision om en bedre verden, for, når man læser hans Æstetiske Breve, siger han: Man må give sine samtidige mennesker det, de har brug for, og ikke det, de begærer.[1] Man må være en tjener for sit århundrede, men ikke dets slave. Og andre, lignende begreber. Jeg mener, man må have en vision for, hvor man ønsker, menneskeheden skal være i fremtiden.

Det er ideen om, at den menneskelige art har muligheden for at blive forædlet, og dette var en udbredt idé hos Konfutse, og det var ligeledes absolut Friedrich Schillers idé.

Jeg mener, at dette er to meget gode udgangspunkter for at starte en debat om, hvad der er galt med den nuværende liberalistiske kultur, hvor »alt er tilladt«. [i modsætning til] ideen om, at kunst må være skøn. For kun, hvis kunst er skøn, kan den bevæge hjertet og forædle mennesket. Jeg mener, vi har et presserende behov for dette, for, ser man på vore samtidige mennesker, så har de et presserende behov for en æstetisk opdragelse. Og jeg mener, at det er, hvad Schiller Instituttet forsøger at gøre, og man kan ikke nægte, at det, vi hørte i begyndelsen, denne arie, der blev sunget [af Lena Malkki], er skønnere end det, man kan høre af Madonna. Hun er faktisk det modsatte af det, hendes navn siger; men det vil jeg overlade til jeres bedømmelse.

[1] Se også: »Vi behøver Schillers Æstetiske Breve i dag«, af Feride Istogu Gillesberg.

Leder af Hjørring Musikskole, Christian Larsen.

Michelle Rasmussen, Schiller Instituttet; kandidat KV 2017 i København.

Michelle Rasmussen, der opstiller til kommunal- og regionsrådsvalg i København for Schiller Instituttets Venner, interviewede Christian Larsen den 3. nov. 2017.

Se alle kandidater i København, Brøndby, Aarhus og Randers: http://sive.dk/

København, 21. august, 2017 (Schiller Instituttet) – DR.dk Nordjylland rapporterer, at i Hjørring kommune, der har 65.000 indbyggere, »skal alle børn lære at spille et instrument. I børnehaven skal de lære at spille violin. Derefter skal de, frem til og med 5. klasse, have undervisning i forskellige instrumenter, korundervisning, og så skal de spille i orkester«.

I det kommende skoleår vil 1085 børn deltage i projektet, og på sigt er det hensigten, at alle børn skal deltage. Hjørring Musiske Skole har bl.a. indkøbt flere hundrede violiner og andre orkesterinstrumenter.

Christian Larsen, leder af Hjørrings Musiske Skole, sagde: »Vi gør det, fordi det er sjovt, og fordi børn netop i den alder har et meget stor potentiale til at udvikle hjernen, og når du spiller musik udvikler du dig kognitivt, motorisk og også følelsesmæssigt.«

I en baggrundssamtale med Schiller Instituttet tilføjede Christian Larsen også, socialt. Ideen startede i 2010 med et ønske fra græsrødder om at gentage en dansk version af Venezuelas El Sistema orkester-massebevægelse. Principperne for den danske version var, at det skulle være gratis, åbent for alle børn, med flere timers øvelse om ugen, fokusere på musisk udtryk snarer end teknik, understrege fællesskabet snarere end individet og omfatte »peer-to-peer« undervisning, hvor børn underviser børn ved siden af de voksnes undervisning. Projektet i Hjørring startede i 2011 med et enkelt orkester.

Omkostninger for det aktuelle projekt deles mellem skolesystemet og musikskolen. Samarbejdet er baseret på gensidig værdiskabelse og var ikke afhængigt af »nye penge« i systemet, men krævede blot en ændring i tankegang. De håber, det vil blive en model, som andre byer vil vedtage.

Siden rapporten på dansk fjernsyn, har der været stor, positiv feedback, og der er også flere former for græsrodsprojekter for musik i flere andre danske byer.

Christian Larsen understregede, at musikprojektet udvikler børns evne til at tænke kreativt, uden på forhånd at vide, hvad man skal gøre – at tænke uden på forhånd at få svaret at vide.

En mor, der blev interviewet i DR-artiklen, var også glad for, at hendes barn deltog i klassisk musik, som ikke mange i hendes egen generation i har været udsat for.

http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/nordjylland/i-hjoerring-kommune-skal-alle-boern-laere-spille-musik-fra-de-er-fire

Kære Vælger,

Mener du, at ideer er vigtige? Så er BüSo det rigtige parti for dig! For BüSo adskiller sig frem for alt fra andre partier derved, at vi forandrer verdenshistorien ved hjælp af ideer og ikke, gennem ’de små skridts politik’, pragmatisk forsøger at opretholde en verdensorden, der muliggør en udvidelse af privilegier for en lille elite og til gengæld berøver flertallet af menneskeheden et fremtidsperspektiv. Det program, som vi i 1991 foreslog som respons på Sovjetunionens opløsning, nemlig den økonomiske integration af Eurasien gennem den Eurasiske Landbro – en Ny Silkevej – som kernen i en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden, er nu i færd med at blive virkeliggjort af Kina og yderligere 110 nationer, altså flertallet af menneskeheden. Det, vi dengang udviklede som et udkast til en fredsorden for det 21. århundrede, og som vi i de 26. år, der er gået siden da, har præsenteret på hundreder af konferencer og seminarer i hele verden, er nu, i de seneste fire år, siden den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping i september 2013 satte den Nye Silkevej på dagsordenen, med en fantastisk dynamik vokset til at blive en helt ny model for verdensøkonomien.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

For at kunne håndtere den form for krise, vi konfronteres med, må vi søge i os selv og i os selv finde en værdi, der er så dyrebar, at, hvis vi brugte vort liv på at forsvare denne værdi, ville vi herved have vundet vort liv, fordi vi ville have vundet formålet med vor dødelige eksistens.

»Hvis vi vedtog den holdning, som USA havde under Kennedys rumprogram; faktisk Eisenhower/Kennedy-rumprogrammet, fra ca. 1958, det såkaldte ’Sputnik’-program, og frem til 1965, kombineret med en politik for investerings-skattekredit for passende investering, sammen med et program for videnskabs-berigelse i vore skoler og lignende ting, som vi gjorde dengang; intet andet end dette, så kan jeg forsikre jer for, at, med en viden om, hvad der er vigtigt at arbejde på inden for videnskab, inden for teknologi; med en viden om de projekter, der er den bedste måde at udtrykke disse teknologiske forbedringer på, så garanterer jeg jer, at, hvis mennesker på denne planet havde den politiske vilje til at gøre dette, ville vi øge den potentielle befolkningstæthed på denne planet, og forbedre levestandarden med så meget som 40 gange så meget som i dag, hen over de næste tre generationer med faktor 10. Vi kunne ved slutningen af dette århundrede … i løbet af to generationer, opretholde et potentielt befolkningstal i størrelsesordenen 100 milliarder mennesker – med større lethed, meget bedre ernæret, langt tryggere, mere frie, meget mindre overfyldt end i dag, fordi vi brugte jorden på en mere intelligent måde.

Der findes to slags ’naturlig lov’, eller to aspekter af naturlig lov. Den første er universets love, og den mand, eller lad os sige, hvis et kongresmedlem skulle finde på at ophæve tyngdeloven, for nu at bruge et billede, ville det så ophæve tyngdeloven? Det ville det ikke. Så hver gang personer, fordi de har stor, politisk magt, siger, at de trodser det, der i realiteten er en lov i det fysiske univers, en lov i naturen, naturlig lov, og de, på grund af deres magt, får andre til at støtte denne modstand, hvad sker der så med nationer, der trodser naturen? De bliver knust, ødelagt. Deres bekæmpelse af naturlig lov bliver redskabet for deres ødelæggelse. Hvis man støtter politikere, der bedriver en sådan trods af naturlig lov, hvad bringer man så over én selv, og ens nation? Man bliver en medskyldig, man håndhæver denne ødelæggelse, man fremkalder ødelæggelsen af ens nation, ens familie, alting.

For at kunne håndtere den form for krise, vi konfronteres med, må vi søge i os selv og i os selv finde en værdi, der er så dyrebar, at, hvis vi brugte vort liv på at forsvare denne værdi, ville vi herved have vundet vort liv, fordi vi ville have vundet formålet med vor dødelige eksistens. Det er, hvad en soldat burde have i kampen, mod, ikke patriotisme, men dét; ikke patriotisme som et abstrakt flag; ikke patriotisme som et racistisk begreb; ikke patriotisme i nogen af disse andre, symbolske betydninger; men patriotisme i den betydning, som vi burde have i USA, men som vi stort set er fremmedgjorte overfor. At vide, hvad Ben[jamin] Franklin repræsenterede; et system af repræsentativt selvstyre under naturlig lov, og under loven, der styres af naturlig lov. At forestille sig rædslen ved engang at have kendt et sådant selvstyre; at forestille sig at leve under slaveri, der ikke alene er en materiel undertrykkelse, men ødelæggelse af selve ens børns sjæl. Og på os ligger såedes, og jeg vil respondere til denne udfordring, det moralske ansvar for hundreder af milliarder af sjæle, der, hvis tingene var passende, burde blive født i fremtiden.

Det ansvar påhviler os, at se tilbage til de martyrer, der gav os regeringsinstitutioner, i hvilke sandhed, og således frihed, fik samfundsmæssig status. Der findes ikke frihed uden sandhed, og der findes ikke sandhed uden frihed. Rettigheden hos en person, der ledes af de rette principper, til at komme frem til en mening, der bygger på fornuft – ikke en tilfældig mening, men baseret på en omhyggelig anvendelse af fornuft; og denne persons rettighed til at stå frem og sige, ’Dette er, hvad jeg mener, med mindre jeg bliver overbevist om det modsatte gennem fornuft’. Det er frihed. Om så hele samfundet er uenig med én, hvad så? Så længe, man ledes af fornuft, og så længe, man underkaster sig korrektion af ens opfattelse gennem fornuft, det er retten til at fremføre en mening i modstrid med flertallet i samfundet omkring én; det er frihed. Et demokratisk samfund, som ’Projekt Demokrati’ i Kongressen definerer det i dag, er den mest forfærdelige vederstyggelighed, man kan forestille sig, og imod hvilket de, der grundlagde USA, advarede. ’Demokrati’ er det værste af alle onder, den værste af alle tyranner, fordi der ikke findes en værre tyran end i den irrationelle flok, en lynch-flok; demokrati, som de definerer det, er et demokrati, der består af en lynch-flok – pas på med ikke at have den forkerte hudfarve, eller den forkerte mening – og under hvilket personen ikke har nogen rettighed, undtagen retten til at være enig med det, der fremstår som flertallet af den herskende mening. Og, hvis flokken skifter mening, så river man sit tøj af og tager det tøj på, den tager på, og så fremdeles. Et samfund af modeluner og vanvid, uden noget moralsk formål, nogen moralsk karakter og evne til fornuft. Forsvaret af personen, der ønsker at udøve fornuft, der ønsker at blive styret af naturlig lov og fornuft, er samfundets helligste pligt – forsvaret og omsorgen for sådanne personer. Og et samfund, der ikke opfylder denne mission, er ikke levedygtigt. En regeringsform, der ikke tjener dette formål, er ikke levedygtig, fordi den ikke beskytter den mest dyrebare del af det menneskelige samfund – udviklingen af fornuftsevnen i den enkelte person; det, der gør os til virkelige mennesker; det, der gør vores individuelle liv helligt.

Og det er, hvad der står på spil.«

Offentliggjort den 5. jul. 2017

Ovenstående er et klip fra LaRouches hovedtale på en 1988-konference »Mad for Fred«, som en fejring af den forestående Schiller Institut-konference denne fredag (7. juli, 2017), der ligeledes har titlen, »Mad for Fred: Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«. Hr. LaRouche talte for flere end 400 landbrugsledere om potentialet for at anvende det Amerikanske Systems økonomiske metoder for at opretholde 100 milliarder mennesker om tre generationer, og den nødvendige, kulturelle opgradering for at udvikle vore borgeres kreativitet for at opnå dette mål.

Se hele hovedtalen her: https://youtu.be/UjYMNMSPZ3s         

Vores politiske bevægelse [LaRouche-bevægelsen og Schiller Instituttet] er dedikeret til ideen om, at alle børn kan blive genier, hvis deres kreative potentiale udvikles. Dette er Alma et bevis på.

Vi er overbevist om, at menneskehedens vigtigste udfordring består i at udvikle en strategi for udløsning af kreativiteten hos alle mænd, kvinder og børn, og at en afgørende metode til at opnå dette er gennem at genopleve fortidens kreative opdagelser. Også dette er Alma et bevis på.

Og vi er fast besluttet på at skabe en ny, global renæssance, for hvilken renæssance nye musikkompositioner, baseret på principperne for den mest storslåede, klassiske musik, vil være med til at vise vejen. Og igen, Almas unge, musikalske intellekt og sjæl beviser allerede, at dette er muligt.

Den efterfølgende artikel er på engelsk. (Se også den danske version her.)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Syngende spørgsmål og svar med Alexander Gent Gillesberg (7 år) og Michelle

Singing question and answer with Alexander Gent Gillesberg (7 years old) and Michelle

Marts 2017, March 2017::

Den 3. marts 2017, March 3, 2017

Den 3. marts 2017, 2. sang, March 3, 2017, second song

Der kommer flere om nogle dage.

More are coming in a few days.

Indslag om Alma Deutscher på “60 Minutes” CBS tv-program den 5. november 2017.

20. mrs., 2017 – I Damaskus-operaen afholdt Syriens Nationale Symfoniorkester i går en koncert med klassisk musik med titlen, »Generationer«, som dirigent Missak Baghboudarian beskrev som en indsats for at bringe ældre, erfarne musikere sammen med yngre, med det formål at ære veteranernes ekspertise og bidrag og »forberede den unge generation til at repræsentere deres land i fremtiden«.

Syriens arabiske nyhedstjeneste (SANA) rapporterede, at, blandt de yngre kunstnere var 25-årige klarinettist Jerjes al-Abdullah, der har boet uden for Syrien i seks år. Han sagde til SANA, at han var vendt tilbage til Syrien »fuld af tårer og dyb bekymring over den krig, der finder sted i landet«. Koncerten, sagde han, var for at »hjælpe publikum med at overvinde krigens grusomhed og opmuntre musikere til at besøge og deltage i koncerter i Syrien, et land for venskab og fred«. Han spillede Carl Maria von Webers koncert no. 2 for klarinet og orkester.

Den internationale pianist, prof. Ghazwan al-Zarkali, der sammen med orkestret spillede et stykke af den russiske komponist Dmitrij Sjostakovitj, forklarede, at koncerten »formidler et budskab om, at, på trods af den nuværende krig og de svære vilkår i Syrien, så har ’viljen til at leve’ vundet over døden, og han understregede syrernes evne til at opbygge uddannede og velkvalificerede generationer«. Al-Zarkali har undervist i musik i mange lande og har repræsenteret Syrien i mere end 27 lande i hele verden.

Det syriske orkester blev stiftet i 1993, rapporterede SANA, og har, siden dets oprettelse, »ikke sparet nogen indsats for at sprede musikkulturen i Syrien«, hvor det har forbedret sine musikeres præstationer for at kunne »repræsentere sit hjemland i internationale kredse og fryde tilhørerne med internationale, musikalske mesterværker«.      

Vi mener, at dette er en tid, hvor alle må tænke på, hvordan de kan bidrage til at opbygge disse globale alliancer, til at opbygge denne politik for menneskehedens fælles skæbne, og formålet med denne koncert er således at gøre dette inden for et meget vigtigt område, der undertiden overlades lidt til sidelinjen; og det er det kulturelle område. For, ingen stor opdagelse, ingen stor videnskab, ingen udvikling kan finde sted, hvis der ikke er uddannede mennesker, der i sig har et billede af mennesket, der fortæller dem, at menneskeheden kan blive til noget langt bedre, end den i øjeblikket er. De har gennem kultur uddannet deres intellekt, deres humane følelser, så de har kunnet blive forskere, kunnet erobre rummet, som vi netop nu ser det; kunnet konfrontere de store udfordringer, menneskeheden står overfor.

Deres excellencer, medlemmer af diplomatiet; mine Damer og Herrer: Jeg er Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, og jeg er, sammen med Jelena Nielsen fra Russisk-Dansk Dialog, vært for i aften.

Koncerten er arrangeret af Schiller Instituttet; Russisk-Dansk Dialog; Det Russiske Hus og Det Kinesiske Kulturcenter. Vi vil gerne takke medsponsorerne og Det Russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur for velvilligst at stille deres hus til rådighed for aftenens koncert, samt de mange kunstnere, der frivilligt har stillet deres indsats til rådighed for at gøre denne aften til en rig dialog mellem kulturer.

To praktiske meddelelser: efter det første nummer kommer der ekstra stole, nogle af jer kan sidde på; det andet er, at jeg gerne vil have, at alle slukker for deres mobiltelefoner.

Vi lever i øjeblikket i virkeligt interessante tider; Schiller Instituttets stifter og internationale præsident, hustru til Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, sagde for nylig, at det globale, strategiske billede er meget dynamisk, flydende, lovende og farligt, alt sammen på én gang. På den ene side har vi stadig denne uhæmmede konfrontation, med deployering af tropper mod de russiske grænser og andre konfrontationspolitikker, der stadig finder sted og stadig ikke har forandret sig. Vi har ligeledes et globalt finanssystem, der, hvornår, det skal være, vil bryde sammen i den næste, store krise, der sandsynligvis vil blive langt større end det, vi så i 2008. Men samtidig har vi fået en ny præsident i USA, Donald Trump, der både i sin kampagne og i det, vi hidtil har set, har annonceret, at der vil komme forandring i USA’s politik, og at, med ham som præsident, ønsker USA at genoprette normale bånd til Rusland, til Kina og til andre nationer i verden, baseret på en politik for genopbygning af USA, men at dette ikke står i modsætning til en genopbygning af hele verden.

Samtidig har vi et momentum, der er blevet opbygget i en rum tid, med især den kinesiske drivkraft med Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, og som i øjeblikket er engageret i mindst 70 nationer i hele verden, i en politik, som vi for årtier siden lancerede under navnet ’Fred gennem udvikling’. At, samtidig med, at man har økonomisk udvikling, så har man også grundlaget for samarbejde og varig fred.

Vi befinder os altså i en tid, hvor alt kan ske. En masse mennesker er flippet ud over dette; de ved ikke, hvad dagen i morgen vil bringe. Men vi ser dette som en stor mulighed for forandring, og vi kunne meget vel stå ved et punkt, hvor vi kan få USA til at tilslutte sig indsatsen fra så mange andre nationer, som Kina, som Rusland, som Indien og mange andre nationer med dem, der samarbejder om hele menneskehedens fælles skæbne; og hvis USA tilslutter sig denne indsats – samt naturligvis også Danmark og de europæiske nationer tilligemed – så står vi pludselig i noget, der uden enhver tvivl vil blive den største epoke i menneskehedens historie. For vi vil pludselig blive i stand til at få en verdensomspændende renæssance, der omfatter hele planeten på samme tid – noget, der aldrig tidligere har fundet sted i menneskehedens historie.

Vi mener, at dette er en tid, hvor alle må tænke på, hvordan de kan bidrage til at opbygge disse globale alliancer, til at opbygge denne politik for menneskehedens fælles skæbne, og formålet med denne koncert er således at gøre dette inden for et meget vigtigt område, der undertiden overlades lidt til sidelinjen; og det er det kulturelle område. For, ingen stor opdagelse, ingen stor videnskab, ingen udvikling kan finde sted, hvis der ikke er uddannede mennesker, der i sig har et billede af mennesket, der fortæller dem, at menneskeheden kan blive til noget langt bedre, end den i øjeblikket er. De har gennem kultur uddannet deres intellekt, deres humane følelser, så de har kunnet blive forskere, kunnet erobre rummet, som vi netop nu ser det; kunnet konfrontere de store udfordringer, menneskeheden står overfor.

Vi mener således, at det er yderst passende, at vi har en dialog mellem kulturer; at vi, i stedet for at se andre kulturer, andre nationer og andre folkeslag som en trussel, ser det som en utrolig berigelse. Og at alle nationer fremdrager den bedste kultur, de bedste højdepunkter, de bedste bidrag, som de har at skænke menneskeheden, og gør dette tilgængeligt for verdens øvrige nationer samtidig med, at de modtager de bedste af alle disse kulturers skabelser retur. Og når det sker, så, som mange af jer ved, var dette i vid udstrækning, hvad den Gamle Silkevej drejede sig om; jo, der var handel, men der var også kulturel og videnskabelig interaktion, som i realiteten fik langt større konsekvenser end selve handelen. Det er præcist, hvad der nu må ske med dette store projekt, Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ, som resten af verden nu er ved at tilslutte sig.

Jeg håber således, at I vil nyde aftenens koncert, og jeg håber, at I vil se det som et bidrag til at få denne dialog mellem kulturer i gang, og at det er noget, vi vil komme til at se meget mere af på alle niveauer.

Se videoen her.

Dialogen mellem kulturer, mellem selve sponsorerne, førte til den store succes – Schiller Instituttet, organisationen Russisk-Dansk Dialog, det Russiske Hus i København og det Kinesiske Kulturcenter. Koncerten afholdtes i det Russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur, som repræsenterer den Russiske Føderations myndighed for forbindelse til Fællesskabet af Uafhængige Stater (fra det tidligere Sovjetunionen), russere i udlændighed og det internationale humanistiske samarbejde (Rossotrudnichestvo).

Følgende musikalske indslag er ikke vist i videoen: The following parts of the program are not shown in the video:

Gitta-Maria Sjöberg, sopran, Sverige/Danmark. Sweden/Denmark. Hun sang Rusalkas »Sangen til Månen« af Dvořák.

She sang Rusalka’s Song to the Moon by Dvořák accompanied by Christine Raft, pianist from Denmark.

Idil Alpsoy, sopran, Sverige/Danmark, Sweden, Denmark: sang sange fra Sibelius’ Op. 37 og 88.

She sang songs from Sibelius’ Op.37 and 88, accompanied by Christine Raft.

Programmet/Program:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Paris, 4. dec., 2016 (Nouvelle Solidarité) – Alt imens Lyndon LaRouche og hans medarbejdere for årtier siden stort set stod alene, da de fordømte og afslørede ankomsten af en »ny mørk tidsalder«, så er der i dag, konfronteret med det aktuelle sammenbrud af generel viden i Vesten, endelig visse mennesker, der synes villige til at komme til fornuft. Dette synes klart at være tilfældet for tre dusin franske parlamentsmedlemmer på tværs af partier, som den 15. nov. i Nationalforsamlingen introducerede en tekst til et »Forslag til resolution om videnskab og fremskridt i Republikken« (nr. 4214 og 4215).

Resolutionen opfordrer skarpt regeringen til at tage dristige skridt til drastisk at hæve uddannelsen af alle borgere inden for videnskab, især i skoler og i de offentlige medier, og fortalen til resolutionen nævner nogle af fransk histories bedste traditioner, især École Polytechnique, som blev grundlagt af Lazard Carnot og Gaspard Monge, og som blev model for det amerikanske militærakademi i West Point. For eksempel påpeger resolutionen på bemærkelsesværdig vis, at nedgangen af videnskabelige kundskaber er et resultat af den voksende forveksling af »meninger« og så »kundskaber«, der er baseret på videnskabelige hypoteser.

Uddrag af fortalen: »’Republikken har ikke brug for videnskabsfolk!’ var de ord, som Revolutionstribunalets præsident udtalte, da han fordømte kemikeren Lavoisier i 1794 efter konventionens undertrykkelse af Videnskabsakademiet [grundlagt af Colbert og Leibniz] … Hvis denne form for obskurantisme (fjendtlighed over for oplysning) synes umoderne i dag … så må vi [til gengæld] konfrontere et klima, hvor man ikke har tillid til videnskabelige institutioner og forskere, som faktisk udgør en stærk grundpille for vores republik.«

»Med udviklingen af den moderne industrielle tid kom der spring i fremskridt og frihed til at skabe med fremkomsten af store opfindere (Lavoisier, Faraday, Edison, Darwin, Pasteur, Poincaré, Marie Curie, Einstein, Pauling, Planck, Schrödinger, De Gennes, Charpak … og selv Steve Jobs). I dag er betydningen af en videnskabskultur, og den plads, som den indtager, i klar tilbagegang i vores land og vores Republik.

Alt imens de favoriserer adgangen til kultur, så forstærker fremkomsten af digitalisering og brugen af internettet en afregulering af markedet inden for videnskabelig information, som viger pladsen til fordel for spredningen af de farligste overbevisninger i en grad, hvor både offentlige myndigheder såvel som borgere har vanskeligt ved at identificere, hvordan de skal rangere nødvendige elementer med henblik på at træffe gyldige videnskabelige og teknologiske beslutninger.

Kilden til denne bekymrende udvikling er den i stigende grad markante forveksling af resultatet af viden, der opnås gennem en strengt videnskabelig undersøgelse, og så det, der blot er et resultat af overbevisninger og misinformation. Dette er i stigende grad det samme som, at man sætter spørgsmålstegn ved videnskabeligt arbejdes voksende kulturelle værdi og sociale indflydelse.

Gennem opretholdelsen af forvekslingen mellem viden og meninger i den offentlige og digitale sfære, truer den heraf følgende mistillid den videnskabelige forsknings aktiviteter og fundamenter … «

Fortalen konkluderer:

»Videnskabens sprog må atter finde sin rette plads i centrum for de store debatter i vort demokrati, både i valgte institutioner og i ministerierne. På deres tid hævede sådanne statsmænd som Pierre Mendès France, general de Gaulle og François Mitterand videnskabelig forskning og dens anvendelse til rangen af national prioritet. Dette er ikke længere tilfældet i dag, og der stilles spørgsmålstegn ved selve fremskridtets natur. Det må naturligvis bringes under kontrol og gøres tilgængeligt, men Republikken må have tillid til videnskabeligt fremskridt, som var og er hovedfaktoren for økonomisk, medicinsk, socialt og miljømæssigt fremskridt. Mere end nogensinde før, har Republikken brug for forskere.«  

Foto: Den 17. oktober, 2014, blev der i Frankrig afholdt landsdækkende demonstrationer til fordel for en opgradering af videnskabelig forskning på uddannelsesinstitutionerne. Også på Mont Blanc!     

24. november, 2016 – Glædelig Thanksgiving Fra LaRouchePAC. Mens vi fejrer denne, den mest amerikanske helligdag, har vi ønsket at give jer en gave til at klare hjernen og være med til at forme vejen fremad. Som I ved, så anser vi de seneste valgrystelser i hele verden som et signal til fødslen af en potentielt dybtgående, ny, menneskelig æra i menneskehedens historie – som afviser det patentmiddel, som har været evindelige krige, Malthus-økonomi og brutalt folkemord mod både nationale og udenlandske befolkninger, og som har karakteriseret arven efter Obama og Bush. Koblet til det dristige, økonomiske og videnskabelige udviklingsperspektiv, som Kina har foreslået, er der et reelt potentiale for stor og vidunderlig forandring.

Den 18. januar 2014, nøjagtig 50 år efter dagen, hvor Mozarts Rekviem blev opført, blot få måneder efter mordet på præsident John F. Kennedy, i Holy Cross katedralen i Boston, Massachusetts, mindedes medlemmer af LaRouches politiske bevægelse dagen med en opførelse af Mozarts Rekviem i samme katedral. Messen blev indledt med udvalgte citater fra John F. Kennedy, der udfordrede den amerikanske befolkning til at realisere sin sande, menneskelige natur gennem at bygge store, økonomiske udviklingsprojekter og kolonisere rummet.

Vi håber, I finder tid til at lytte til denne opførelse i løbet af helligdagen og dele oplevelsen med jeres venner. Ligesom mordet på Kennedy for vores befolkning markerede en nedstigen til de helvedesagtige vilkår, der har karakteriseret vores umiddelbare fortid, således vil, hvis vi omfavner den mentale tilstand, som både selve Mozarts messe og de intellektuelle udfordringer stillet af vores tidligere præsident, fremkalder, en langt bedre fremtid vise sig inden for vores rækkevidde, lige over horisonten.       

En af de ting, som Friedrich Schiller skriver i sine Breve om Menneskets Æstetiske Opdragelse, er, at man bør indgive i verden kursen mod det gode, og han fremfører, at, selv om vi lever i vort århundrede, så bør vi ikke være skabninger af vort århundrede – at det, vi må give til menneskeheden, er det, menneskeheden har brug for, og ikke det, menneskeheden lovpriser. Jeg mener, at dette i særlig grad er passende for de omstændigheder, vi i dag konfronteres med, hvor der er en mulighed for at forme fremtiden; men det er en mulighed, som vi meget hurtigt må gribe, og den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan gribe fremtiden, er ved at operere på et meget højere plan, end de fleste mennesker gør.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. november, 2016 – I hele nationen, og i hele verden, træder ledende personer nu frem for at fastslå det potentiale, der nu præsenteres for USA og verden, for at gøre en ende på den død og ødelæggelse, der er blevet gennemtvunget under administrationerne Bush og Obama. General Harald Kujat, tidligere stabschef for det tyske Bundeswehr, har påpeget de drastisk forbedrede relationer mellem USA og Rusland, som Trump og Putin har sat i gang som grundlaget – og det eneste grundlag – for at løse de uhyrlige kriser i Ukraine og Syrien. Tidligere amerikanske ambassadør Chas Freeman, der også tidligere har været viceforsvarsminister, sagde i et interview med Ron Paul, at Trump »bør erindre sig, at han grundlæggende set har anført en revolution – han anførte en flok mennesker, som Hillary Clinton kaldte ynkelige, til at komme ud til stemmeurnerne og markere deres afvisning af ’politik som hidtil’ i Washington, og til den rent ud sagt degenererede atmosfære i vores politiske kultur«.  Han roste Trumps stærke insisteren på, at USA må gå sammen med Rusland og fokusere på at knuse ISIS i Syrien snarere end at vælte Assad for regimeskift i Syrien og tilføjede, at det var »rent ud sagt vanvittigt, at USA prætenderer, at vi har absolut fortrinsret i havene ud for Kina på ubestemt tid«

Fremkaldt af valgchokket er en politisk følsomhed ved at overvinde den amerikanske befolknings og de europæiske befolkningers accept af ledere, der sanseløst dræber hundreder af tusinder af mennesker og ødelægger hele nationer samtidig med, at de fordriver millioner fra deres hjem som flygtninge.

Men, hvad er da årsagen til denne tidligere blinde accept af sådan ondskab? Den må fastslås som værende lokaliseret i befolkningernes degenererede intellekt, i ødelæggelsen af de menneskelige, skabende evner hos folk, der i to årtier har været underkastet et kulturelt forfald. Når troen på menneskets videnskabelige evne til at »underlægge sig hele naturen«, både på Jorden og i Universet, fordømmes af ’de grønne’ som en ødelæggelse af Moder Jord, og underholdning reduceres til narkotika, vold og perversioner; når skøn musik erstattes af pulserende støj – da er det muligt at overbevise folkeslagene om at lukke deres øjne for den rædsel, der begås i deres navn.

Nu er disse sind ved at blive vækket, både gennem den økonomiske ødelæggelse af deres liv, og gennem den revolutionerende ændring via valget, der giver et glimt af håb.

Som Lyndon LaRouche har sagt i mere end fyrre år, så er det i et sådant skæbnesvangert øjeblik i historien, at den optimistiske tro på menneskehedens potentiale for fremskridt kan og må genoprettes og sikre en fremtid for alle mænd og kvinder på vores planet, gennem videnskabelige fremskridt, der løfter vort blik mod stjernerne, og gennem skønheden i klassisk kunst og musik, »ved hvilken man kommer til frihed«, som Friedrich Schiller sagde.

Frihed, fra City of Londons og Wall Streets destruktive magt over de vestlige regeringer, er nu inden for rækkevidde i takt med, at parlamentarikere, slagne af forbløffelse, i Europa og USA konfronteres med det eneste alternativ til det bankerotte, vestlige finanssystems ukontrollable kollaps: en Glass/Steagall-reform for at lukke de for-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-spillebuler på Wall Street ned, og med en kreditpolitik i Hamiltons tradition, med princippet om national, dvs. statslig, bankpraksis til genrejsning af økonomien, rumprogrammet, videnskabelig forskning og internationalt samarbejde omkring nationsopbygning i hele verden, hvor den Nye Silkevej bringes til hele menneskeheden. (LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning.) 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYvdB5j1Flk

Helga Zepp-LaRouche diskuterer strategi med aktivister fra LaRouchePAC, der er på vej til Washington, D.C., hvor hun understreger, at Trumps sejr og Clintons nederlag må ses som en del af et internationalt kursskifte. Det er nu op til os at sætte dagsordenen, begyndende med LaRouches Fire Love i traditionen efter Hamilton.

»Først og fremmest vil jeg gerne sige hej til jer. Dette er selvfølgelig en meget vigtig intervention, for valgresultatet i USA, som mange mennesker ikke så komme, er i realiteten en del af en global udvikling. Alle forklaringerne, som de amerikanske medier kommer med, er for det meste røgslør, eller en eller anden forloren forklaring, som f.eks., at det var FBI, der kostede Hillary valget, osv., osv.

Det, der i virkeligheden finder sted rent strategisk, er, at befolkningsmasserne i den transatlantiske sektor – i Europa, og i USA i særdeleshed – nu virkelig har fået nok af et Establishment, der vedvarende har handlet imod deres interesser. Det, de kalder »overløberstaterne« – menneskene i disse stater er ikke repræsenteret af det transatlantiske etablissement. Dette ved de, fordi, for dem, er livs- og arbejdsvilkårene i løbet af det seneste årti, kan man sige, men i realiteten i løbet af de seneste 50 år, kun blevet værre og værre. Folk er nødt til at have flere jobs samtidig for at få økonomien til at hænge sammen. Der har været mange tilfælde, hvor deres sønner, og undertiden endda deres døtre, er blevet udsendt til Irak fem gange i træk og er kommet hjem, totalt nedbrudte. Så folk har oplevet, at livet bare bliver værre for dem, og at de med Washington/New York-etablissementet intet håb har.

Man så det samme fænomen med Brexit-folkeafstemningen i Storbritannien i juni måned; som også her ikke bare handlede om flygtningene, og ikke bare handlede om de mere åbenlyse spørgsmål, selv om disse spiller en vis katalyserende rolle; men, det var den samme, fundamentale følelse af uretfærdighed, og at der simpelt hen ikke længere findes en regering, der tager sig af det almene vel. Og uanset, hvilke forklaringer, de hoster op med, så vil dette ikke forsvinde, før situationen er forbedret, og god regering er genetableret i USA og Europa, og i andre dele af verden.

Det umiddelbart næste punkt, hvor den samme vrede med al sandsynlighed vil vise sig, er ved den forestående folkeafstemning i Italien – hvor man den 4. december vil have en folkeafstemning om en forfatningsændring og, som stemningen i øjeblikket er, som også vil blive en afstemning imod Renzi-regeringen. Renzi lovede først at træde tilbage; nu siger han, at han ikke vil træde tilbage: Under alle omstændigheder, så vil denne udvikling fortsætte, indtil man indsætter en forbedring.

Trumps valgsejr er selvsagt et åbent spørgsmål, for det står endnu ikke klart, hvad hans præsidentskab vil blive for ét; men, som Lyndon LaRouche har understreget næsten hver dag siden valget, så er dette ikke et lokalt, amerikansk anliggende. Dette er et globalt anliggende; det er et internationalt spørgsmål.

En af de væsentligste grunde til, at Trump vandt valget, er, at han, især i den seneste fase, havde understreget, at Hillary Clinton ville betyde Tredje Verdenskrig pga. hendes politik for Syrien, fordi hun … foreslog en frontal konfrontation med Rusland. Det var præcist at ramme hovedet på sømmet, for vi befinder os på en meget, meget farlig kurs for konfrontation med Rusland og Kina.

Under valgkampagnen har Trump gentagne gange sagt, at han ville have en anden holdning over for Rusland. Og siden han blev valgt, har han talt i telefon med både Putin og Xi Jinping og i begge tilfælde sagt, at han vil arbejde for at forbedre relationerne mellem USA og så Rusland og Kina, hhv. Dette er selvsagt ekstremt vigtigt; og det andet, ekstremt vigtige spørgsmål er: Vil han følge op på sit løfte om Glass-Steagall, hvor han især i byen Charlotte atter sagde, at han ville gennemføre Glass-Steagall?

Dette er virkelig hovedspørgsmålet. For kun, hvis man gør en ende på kasinoøkonomien, som er den virkelige årsag til krig, kan situationen i realiteten bringes tilbage på ret køl. Alle de progressive – Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren og selv [Nancy] Pelosi – har allerede sagt, at de vil samarbejde med Trump, hvis han vil satse på dette økonomiske program med infrastruktur/jobskabelse/Glass-Steagall.

Vi bør lade tvivlen komme ham til gode; men, vi bør også være klar over, at hele Wall Street-slænget og de neokonservative i det Republikanske Parti vil gøre alt for ikke at få dette. Derfor må vi have denne intervention for virkelig at opdrage Kongressen og Senatet mht. det, der virkelig står på spil. Hele verden holder nu øje med – holder så at sige vejret – spørgsmålet, om der kommer en ændring til det bedre i amerikansk politik?

Det gør der forhåbentligt. Men det vil kræve alle forholdsreglerne. Glass-Steagall som den absolutte forudsætning, uden hvilken intet andet vil fungere; men det er ikke nok. For, vi taler ikke bare om en bankreform. Vi taler om et totalt nyt paradigme i det økonomiske system. Og dette nye paradigme må defineres af LaRouches Fire Love, som alle må sikre sig, at de forstår, når de skal udføre denne form for lobbyvirksomhed.

For, Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at nøglen er at øge arbejdskraftens produktivitet. Som følge af de seneste årtiers neoliberale, eller monetaristiske, politik, er denne produktivitet i den transatlantiske sektor faldet under punktet for break-even, hvor det går lige op. Dette er grunden til, at vi må have en nationalbank i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton; vi må have en politik for statskredit; vi må have et internationalt kreditsystem, et nyt Bretton Woods-system; og vi må selvsagt have et ’win-win’-samarbejde mellem alle nationer omkring opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej – også internt i USA – så den bliver til en verdenslandbro.

Af ekstraordinær betydning er den fjerde af de Fire Love, der siger, at man ikke kan få en forøgelse af økonomiens produktivitet, med mindre man satser på et forceret program for at opnå fusionskraft; samt et internationalt program for udforskning af rummet. For kun, hvis man foretager denne form for avantgarde-spring i produktiviteten – fusionsteknologi vil bringe os en helt anden, økonomisk platform. Med fusionsfaklen vil vi blive i stand til at få sikkerhed i energiforsyningen til hele planeten; man vil få nye råmaterialer, fordi man vil blive i stand til at bruge ethvert affaldsprodukt, hvor man udskiller diverse isotoper og genskaber nye råmaterialer ved at sammensplejse isotoperne, som det skal gøres.

Så det repræsenterer et gigantisk, teknologisk spring. Det samme gælder for rumfartsteknologi, for det vil få samme virkning som under Apolloprogrammet, hvor hver investering i rumteknologi, i raketter, i andre nye materialer, gav 14 cents tilbage for hver cent, der blev investeret. Og alt fra computerchips til Teflon-køkkengrej, og alle mulige gavnlige resultater, opstod som biprodukter af rumforskning.

Og for at få verdensøkonomien ud af den nuværende tilstand, især i den transatlantiske sektor, må man have denne form for kursomlægning i retning af videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt og en forøgelse af energigennemstrømningstætheden. Og hele denne Grønne ideologi – som i virkeligheden er en ikke-udviklingsideologi – må erstattes; og verden må komme tilbage til den kurs, hvor det fysiske univers’ virkelige, fysiske love er kriteriet for sandheden, og ikke en eller anden ideologi.«

Foto: Besætningen fra ekspedition 49, Shane Kimbrough, NASA-astronaut, sammen med Roscosmos-kosmonauterne Sergej Ryzhikov og Andrej Borisenko, og som alle i øjeblikket befinder sig om bord på den Internationale Rumstation, hvor de har arbejdet sammen i over fire måneder i kredsløb. [foto: NASA]

Gottfried Leibniz’ død markerer den største, enkeltstående begivenhed i konsolideringen af ’venetiansk’ imperiemagt i Storbritannien, en begivenhed, der nødvendiggjorde den Amerikanske Revolution. Fire år tidligere, i 1712, havde Leibniz en position som hovedrådgiver til Ruslands Peter den Store; som nyudnævnt Særlig Rådgiver til Kejser Karl VI; som mangeårig strateg og lærer for tronfølger i førsteposition til Storbritannien, Sophie af Hannover; hovedfilosof og diplomat for hertug Anton Ulrich, i sine bestræbelser for at afslutte den sekteriske strid i det kristne Europa og forene kirkerne; og den anerkendte leder af videnskabens fremmeste grænser – og især en leder med et epistemologisk talent for, hvordan man skal avancere disse grænser yderligere. Han havde etableret et nationalt videnskabsakademi i Berlin, initieret et andet i Wien og var i færd med at lægge fundamentet for endnu et i Skt. Petersborg. Han havde betydelige videnskabelige, diplomatiske og epistemologiske indfaldsveje ind i det franske hof og ind i Kina.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Se video: 

Leibniz’ Loving Wisdom, not Russell’s Evil Logic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boJg8yASSfI

Se også: En introduktion til Gottfried Leibniz (dansk):

del I  http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=12423 og

del II http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14177

Hvis vi kan løfte os op på samme tankeniveau som hos genierne Nikolaus af Cusa, Kepler, Leibniz, Bach, Beethoven, Schiller, Einstein og Krafft Ehricke, vil vi kunne vække den ophøjede sindstilstand og den kreative optimisme, som vi har brug for, for at finde løsninger på de højere planer, som disse store ånder tænkte på. Og hvorfor skulle vi ikke være i stand til at virkeliggøre en renæssance af vores humanistiske tradition?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelbillede: Ud af fire prototyper for Leibniz’ »calculator machine« – en ’regnemaskine’ – er kun én tilbage: Han udviklede sin fjerde, såkaldte »machina arithmetica« i 1690. Efter hans død den 14. november 1716 forsvandt dette eksemplar ud i glemsel og blev først genopdaget i 1894 på Göttingen Universitetskirkens loft, og i dag udgør den én af de mest værdifulde kulturskatte fra det 17. århundrede. Den 14 kilo tunge original opbevares på Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz-biblioteket – Niedersaxens Nationale Bibliotek i Hannover, og den kan ses på første sal ved siden af Leibniz’ private arbejdsbibliotek i et glasgalleri.