Article Search

In her weekly dialogue, Helga Zepp-LaRouche blasted the U.K.-U.S. deal to incorporate Australia into a new strategic alliance, based on the sale of nuclear submarines to Australia. She said they claim that this "partnership" is not aimed at any country, but the Chinese know differently, and responded sharply -- as did the French, as the new deal scuttled an agreement they had to sell submarines to Australia.She provided an update on the humanitarian catastrophe developing in Afghanistan, contrasting the U.S.-NATO approach, of walking away from a catastrophe caused by their war, to that of Afghanistan's neighbors, which are mobilizing development aid. The problem in the West, she reiterated, is the kind of British geopolitics which underlie this new deal, which she described as a "No Good Deal." What is needed instead is a fundamental change in western attitudes and thinking.

In her weekly dialogue, Helga Zepp-LaRouche developed how open dialogue, rather than profiled reaction, is key to taking on the crises confronting humanity. The three major themes she addressed are: growing opposition to the Great Reset/Green New Deal; how the mistakes made in western countries in dealing with the pandemic — including denial — have led to a deepening crisis, as the "third wave" is now hitting western Europe; and how the anti-China propaganda of the unilateralist War Hawks is putting the west into a dangerous flight forward, based on false propaganda coming from the Military Industrial Complex. She urged viewers to participate in the upcoming two-day online Schiller Institute conference, which will open with a panel on reversing the decline of classical culture in the West, which has contributed to the gullibility of many to the lies coming from the war hawks and neolibs.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche, on Dec. 28, in a discussion with Schiller Institute members from the United States, Canada, Gambia, Ireland, Denmark, Italy, and Germany about the insanity of Secretary of State Pompeo amidst the danger of extreme international tensions amidst the pandemic, and the threat of a famine of biblical proportions, said that it was of urgent importance for President Donald Trump to call Russia and China immediately to convene the P5 summit called for by Russian President Putin in January of this year.She said: “I think that President Trump, no matter what happens on January 6, whether or not he will be in the White House on January 20, he could do one thing. He could immediately call up Russia and China and say that because of the crisis, because of the pandemic, because of the famine, because of the danger to world peace, that he wants to respond to the offer of Putin to have the summit of the permanent five members on the UN Security Council, which President Putin has been advocating since January. Trump should say that he wants to have that summit right away. And that would be the very best thing he could do to counter all of this propaganda. “The more people call the White House to suggest that, and who express [the need for the summit] in any other way, the better. I have no idea why Trump has not kicked out Pompeo. He is the same as Bolton on many of these issues. President Trump did have the courage to kick out Bolton. That was one of the best things he ever did. “But I think to outflank [these dangers], in this incredibly complex situation, is for President Trump to now follow up on Putin’s offer for this summit, and meet with Putin, and Xi Jinping. This meeting can happen. French President Macron has already said he supports having such a summit, [U.K. Prime Minister] Boris Johnson has said he is in favor of it. But the truly important people are Presidents Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping, who will be the difference in such a meeting. Johnson and Macron could not ruin such a combination. That is the one thing that Trump must be encouraged to do. I’m 100% sure that Russia and China would absolutely go for it immediately.”

Dramatic developments are taking place over the past days which make clear that the world is sitting at a crossroads. Two clearly distinct ideas about the nature of man are contending for the future of human civilization. One, which could well lead to the destruction of civilization itself in a nuclear holocaust, sides with the Aristotelian outlook of the British Empire, that some people are born to rule and others to serve, that human beings are as defined by Thomas Hobbes, as “all against all,” with nations following the same logic, locked into geopolitical laws of zero-sum “survival of the fittest.” The other view believes that: “Development holds the key to the people’s well-being, [and] no country should be left behind. All nations are equally entitled to development opportunities and rights to development.” While it would be understandable that one may think this statement came from Franklin D. Roosevelt as he planned his postwar vision for the role of a United Nations, it is in fact the words of Xi Jinping, speaking on July 6 to delegates of 500 parties and institutions from around the world, representing 160 countries, fully three-fourths of the human race, joining in support of the principle of “Peace Through Development,” as intended by China’s Belt and Road Initiative.Today, the Schiller Institute’s founder and president Helga Zepp-LaRouche released a statement titled: “Afghanistan at a Crossroads: Graveyard for Empires or Start of a New Era?” She posits that the policies taken by the world’s nations today on the future of Afghanistan not only affects every citizen of every country, in the sense that the danger of terrorism and drug proliferation affect us all, but also because it could well determine the fate of mankind itself. The only solution to the Afghanistan quagmire, she writes, is for the great nations of the world, and all the nations of the region, to join forces in a “Great Project” to develop Afghanistan as the hub for the New Silk Road, both East-West development corridors connecting East Asia, Central Asia, West Asia, Eastern Europe and Western Europe, and North-South development corridors linking Russia, China, Iran, India and Pakistan. Is it possible? Or is it, as seen by the geopoliticians of the British Empire, contrary to their warped sense of “human nature,” which will always seek out an advantage against “the other”? Will Americans follow this British prescription for imperial “divide and rule,” or will they recall the spirit of the U.S. Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Was this intended only for those who follow so-called “Western values,” and who follow the so-called “rules-based order,” or is it indeed intended for all mankind?

In her weekly dialogue, Helga Zepp-LaRouche details the array of fake stories and fabricated narratives unleashed by imperial geopolitical war hawks in preparation for upcoming summits of the G7, NATO and between Presidents Putin and Biden. Among those she dissected are the Wuhan lab leak story, published May 23 in the Wall Street Journal by Michael Gordon, who wrote the original lies about Iraq's WMDs for the NY Times in 2002, and Chatham House/Brit intelligence re-writing of the history of the post-Cold War relations with Russia. She also spoke of the revival of the accurate charges against the NSA and Danish intelligence for spying on European leaders, first exposed in 2013, but never stopped; and of the scandal around the Green New Deal, with Mark Carney pushing a brutal form of new colonialism, to prevent development of Third World economies, allegedly to halt global warming! The final outrage she discussed is that of German Green leader Habeck, calling for the delivery by Germany of weapons to Ukraine. The antidote to this escalating insanity is for viewers of her weekly dialogue to study these issues, and join with the Schiller Institute to build a global anti-Malthusian movement. This is the task over the next weeks, leading to the June 26–27 Schiller Institute conference, where these outrages will be fully exposed, and the policy alternatives to them presented. Transcript The LaRouche Organization Weekly Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche Wednesday, June 2, 2021 HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and President of the Schiller Institute. Today is Wednesday June 2, 2021. We’re in the midst of a very dense period of political, social and economic developments. Why don’t we start with the story that’s been hyped a lot in the Western media, the so-called Wuhan lab leak story which is coming from, not surprisingly, the same sources that were responsible for so many other false stories and fabrications. Helga, what do you make of this story? HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is very important to keep a historic memory. A lot of our supporters and contacts have said in the recent period that the whole strategic picture is so confusing, and it’s very difficult to differentiate what is true, what is wrong, and they’re mainly at a loss. And that has a reason: The reason is, that there is such an enormous amount of psychological warfare coming from the war party, that a normal person, a normal citizen who is not really trying to find the truth almost is lost, and that has a method. Now, the story you just referred to is the story that the COVID-19 originated in a virological lab in Wuhan and that was maybe not intentional, but in any case, the Chinese covered it up and therefore are responsible for the COVID crisis and economic damage which resulted out of it. So this is an unbelievable story: It appeared on May 23 in the Wall Street Journal and it was written by one Michael Gordon, who reiterated that story; then two days later it was picked up by the U.S. Secretary for Health Becerra, and then one day later, President Biden said that he ordered a 90-day investigation by the U.S. Intelligence Community, that they should investigate this and find out if this was coming from this Wuhan lab. Now, first of all this story was not mentioned for the first time by the Wall Street Journal but already last June, the former head of MI6 Sir Richard Dearlove had come out with the same accusation, saying that if it turns out that China is responsible for this virus, they have to pay reparations. And now the story is all over, every tabloid, every newspaper is peddling this story, and therefore, it is extremely important to look at who are these journalists who wrote this story. Well, it is exactly the same people—Michael Gordon and Judith Miller—who in [September 8] 2002, in the Wall Street Journal wrote the story about the so-called “weapons of mass destruction” of Saddam Hussein, the so-called aluminum pipes which Saddam Hussein supposedly imported to build centrifuges to build a nuclear bomb. Well, if people remember that led to the Iraq War: As a result hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were killed and several thousand U.S. soldiers were killed—and it turned out there were no weapons of mass destruction, that the whole thing was a hoax. Now, the question arises, should not irresponsible journalists, who are obviously not journalists at all, but who are writers or instruments of that faction of the geopolitical war party, who want to have a confrontation with China, with Russia, if they would have the same, in quotes, “success” as they did with the weapons of mass destruction story in respect to Saddam Hussein, it could lead to a war between the United States and China; and there are many people who have warned in the recent period that if such a war would occur, the likelihood that it would go nuclear is very high. So the question to be asked, is, if these people, such individuals, can they get away with murder? Because the consequences of such scribblers, such liars, such manipulators is that the price is being paid by hundreds of thousands of people in the case of Iraq, and I really think there should be an investigation and possibly a criminal investigation of what is the real background behind these people writing such stories? We had recently another story, I think it was in Newsweek that there are 60,000 individuals belonging an army which has no oversight in the Congress nor anywhere else, and they’re concerned with cyberwar, many of them sitting at desks, manipulating the internet, planting false stories, doing all kinds of things, and that is obviously part of a hybrid war, but there is no declaration of war! So I really think that this is so scandalous that I would urge that there must be an immediate international investigation in the United Nations, in parliaments. In any case, this story must not go through, because if it would lead to a war between the United States and China, as the war against Iraq and the murder of Saddam Hussein occurred, the consequences could be the annihilation of civilization. And I think these people, like Michael Gordon and Judith Miller must be investigated for what they did in the case of Iraq, who told them, what were the circumstances, and, what makes Gordon try to repeat the same story now? I think this is a huge scandal! SCHLANGER: Just one correction on Gordon, the 2002 story was actually in the New York Times; he was at the Times for 30-something years before he shows up at the Wall Street Journal. The other interesting point you made is the role of Sir Richard Dearlove, who came forward with the so-called Wuhan leak story well over a year ago. He was one of the people, when he was Chief of MI6, who pushed the fake weapons of mass destruction story, so it’s absolutely the same people involved. Now, speaking of the same people, we have a recurring story which goes back to 2013, of NSA spying at the time it was reported that the NSA was wiretapping Angela Merkel’s cell phone. This just emerged again, but there are new twists to it, Helga, including the role of Denmark working with the U.S. National Security Agency. What’s the full story that you have on this? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: That is another scandal, because it reveals something about the political reality in which we live, the so-called “rules-based order.” Every time I heard that term, “rules-based order,” if it wouldn’t be so sad, you could start laughing. But you better think that one of the rules is, even if you’re caught, it doesn’t mean anything. Because this story about the NSA spying on European politicians came out for the first time in 2013; many people may remember that Chancellor Merkel said, “Oh, spying among friends, that doesn’t go at all!” Well, then, essentially nothing happened. The same scandal broke again in 2015 in Denmark, where it was revealed that the Danish secret service was collaborating with the NSA on such spy operations—nothing came out of it. And it broke out last year again—nothing happened! So apparently, there are one or more whistleblowers in the Danish secret service who got very upset for very similar reasons—I assume; I haven’t talked to them, but that’s what it looks like—like Edward Snowden, who basically these are people who are working as secret service agents and then they realize that the whole operation is being done for something quite different than the defense of the country. So that whistleblower, or these whistleblowers, again came out, but this time, he worked with a whole international network of journalists in Sweden, Norway, Germany, some other countries, and he provided them with the documents proving that such a collaboration exists. Now, this is incredible: The fact that the Danish secret service, and probably some top politicians, because these things very seldom happen without the prime minister or whoever knows about it, obviously, rather than telling the European allies—after all, these are people we are supposed to be with in a union, so rather than telling them, they didn’t! They did not inform Merkel, Steinmeier, Steinbrück at the time; so obviously, for them to be accepted in the “club” of the Five Eyes, or Seven Eyes or whatever Eyes you may count, was more important than to protect the interests of their own citizens, the Danish people, and naturally also the allies within the European Union. So rather be a slave of a master, than be thrown out of the club: That shows a completely despicable attitude. And the Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic, I think he put it in the right terms because he said, this is an incredible scandal. It means there are no rules, no international law, no morality, and that is unfortunately what is being revealed by this affair. So again, I think there must be an outcry, because—the same day, and this is the other funny story—the same day this new Danish scandal broke, the German 1st Channel, ARD, had a big documentary about the Chinese surveillance state, the use of artificial intelligence and digitalization and payment in transport and all aspects of life, which is indeed true: China is much more advanced in these areas than what I have seen anywhere in the West. But the difference is, the Chinese population trusts their government; 95% are in agreement with what the government does, according to a study by Harvard; and that is why the whole thing looks very different. But with the NSA spying this has been revealed and we discussed it many times by such people as former NSA technical director Bill Binney and Ray McGovern, and other people from VIPS, the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, who became whistleblowers for the very same reason as Edward Snowden. And what they reported is that what the NSA does is they collect simply everything—every phone call, every email, every electronic motion anywhere is being recorded and tapped and stored. They have gigantic storage capacities, I think it’s in Utah and elsewhere. And so they have all these data from all over the world, and whenever they want to find something later, they filter it, and they can find it for eternity. Now, that means there is absolutely no respect for privacy, no respect for all the treaties, supposedly protecting the population in terms of their personal information, that is all a complete lie. Again, when I hear “rules-based order,” then one better thinks about the NSA, because that’s part of the rules. The more you find out how this whole public debate is being orchestrated, it really is reaching a point where people should really wake up, because we’re looking at the danger of a global dictatorship. And then, if you take some of the Green stuff in addition to that, I mean, we are in looking towards a complete hell, if people don’t wake up and say “Enough is enough!” SCHLANGER: And one of the stories that’s also emerging that’s important in this, is the Chatham House now rewriting history. And Chatham House is also setting up a spy operation to monitor the carbon footprint of other countries, so once again, it comes back to the British. But this rewriting of history is really significant, especially given the importance of the upcoming NATO summit and the confrontation of the West and Russia that’s being promoted by this. What did the Chatham House report say? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: They want to dismantle the many myths about NATO and Russia, by saying there was never any discussion about not moving NATO the borders of Russia in the context of the German reunification. This was never an issue, because the Soviet Union still existed and therefore nobody thought about it, and that’s just a plain lie! Because if you go to the U.S. National Security Archives, they have published a lot of written documentation about this period, and there were clearly written and verbal promises made to Gorbachev by Secretary of State James Baker; then also U.S. Ambassador Jack Matlock, and also West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, I think Horst Teltschik, there are several witnesses from this time who have absolutely contradicted this story. And it’s one of these stories which have only one purpose: To knit a narrative suitable for a future confrontation. But this needs to be picked up and I call on historians and honest journalists, in case there are still some, to really pick up this story and set the record straight. SCHLANGER: We have coming up the NATO summit and the G7 summit, and there are meetings going on where they’re talking about the importance of being prepared to confront Russia and China. But Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov has had some very interesting and sharp comments on this. Could you comment on the two things coming together? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Foreign Minister Lavrov met with Portugal’s Foreign Minister Augusto Santos Silva—Portugal is the present President of the EU Council—and a delegation of the European Union, and he said the situation between the EU and Russia is absolutely alarming, there is a complete loss of trust. And he said it can be reversed, but it means that completely different principles have to be introduced. And the big test will be the upcoming two summits, the NATO summit, which is supposed to establish also for NATO a rules-based order, whatever that is supposed to mean; and at the upcoming G7 meeting, to which among others President Biden travel, that is supposed to present—let’s see what it will be exactly—an alternative to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. Now, there is no money yet available, and it’s also not clear where it supposed to come from, but it’s also not clear where this “alternative Belt and Road Initiative” is supposed to be built, because the Europeans want to have it in Africa, the United States wants to have it in Latin America, and Japan wants to have it in Asia. So what they will probably do is to issue some guidelines and both summits can be expected to have a lot of rhetoric against the dictatorships and authoritarian regimes of Russia and China, and some others. But I cannot see how, from these two bodies, anything can come which addresses the real problems which are many in the world. SCHLANGER: And one of those problems is the problem of hyperinflation, which we’ve been warning about for quite a while, related to the quantitative easing and the flood of liquidity, that’s not there for saving the real economy, but for bailing out the deeply indebted banks and corporations. The hyperinflation is also hitting in Europe, and I wonder if you have some thoughts on that? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. As you say, we have been the only ones saying that this “QE” money-pumping, zero interest rates, negative interest rate, that you can do that for a very long time, but eventually it will explode into a hyperinflation: As it did in 1923, when the Germany’s Reichsbank printed money to pay both the war debt and the reparations to France, Britain and so forth. For a long time, you didn’t see anything, but then, starting in the summer of 1923, the inflation started to skyrocket, and then it went into a hyperbolic ratio, and by November, people were bringing money by the wheelbarrow to the baker because the price of bread changed by the day, and then it was ended. Now, this is not one country, like it was in Weimar Germany: This is now practically the whole world, and it’s very interesting that [China’s] Global Times had an editorial in which they warned that this excessive money creation by the Federal Reserve is now spilling over, threatening to affect the whole world with the hyperinflationary effects, and that countries should guard themselves against these effects. Now, the inflation issue and hyperinflationary issue is now out everywhere, even tabloids like Bildzeitung in Germany are warning that the savings of the pensioners will be eaten up by this inflation; the official inflation target by the ECB is 2%; in Germany, it’s already officially 2.4%, but that is obviously not the real story. Because if you go for example, in everything having to do with oil and oil-related production, then you get inflation rates of 40, or 50%. And for example, biofuels, like maize has over 100% inflation, and this is clear getting out of control. And then with that goes a crisis of a shortage in materials. So the entire construction sector in Germany, for example, and probably other European countries as well, has incredible shortages: There is a lack of wood, of other materials. Trucks cannot be repaired, because there are no spare parts. So I think it really shows that the economic situation is much more fragile, and there is normally a delay factor, between when commodity prices go up and then consumer prices. But we are now reaching the point where this is clearly becoming very visible. And it should be a reason for utmost concern. This is why, at the next Schiller Institute conference, which will be on June 26-27, and you should register and reserve the date, the issue of hyperinflation and the necessary instruments against it, namely to implement a global Glass-Steagall banking separation law, and the other three of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws, that will be a major subject of that conference. And if you really are concerned how to save your money, you should listen to that conference, and not to the gold bugs, because they will try to make money out of this situation. But we will discuss at this conference the only realistic way how the livelihood and life’s work of literally billions of people can be protected. Because if there is a hyperinflation coming on internationally it will affect every economy, even those that have relative capital restrictions will be hit, because it will have a tremendous impact on the world market. So, attend this online conference, and definitely join our forces. SCHLANGER: And you can register for that at the https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/20210626-27-conference, and there’s an ad right there on Schiller Institute homepage so you can register. While we’re talking about this we have the other green scandal, which is the attempt to create a new financial bubble, a green financial bubble and at the center of that is the former governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney, who is now selling these carbon certificates to poor countries. This is completely crazy, because the policy is openly now, no development in the Global South. This is the ultimate imperial policy, isn’t it? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s pretty outrageous and naked effort to reintroduce colonialism, because what Mark Carney is proposing, for Africa in particular, is that they should sign agreements to not develop their resources, to even reforest their arable land, and then basically get some money from the certificate trading whereby they sell their certificates to firms in the West, that have production and CO₂ emissions. It’s an incredible story: It’s basically is —if you look at these different aspects, an agreement for the Global South to not develop. The present Chief of MI6, Richard Moore, says MI6 will internationally police that these agreements are being fulfilled. And then you have the G7 wanting to come up with an “alternative Belt and Road Initiative” which means no large-scale infrastructure, for sure not the kind of industrial parks that China has been building. It’s an outrageous effort to reintroduce the old colonialist system with modern means, and under conditions of a pandemic and world famine, it means massive depopulation. Since the developing countries are very vulnerable, and they’re not so strong to resist these things, I think it does require an open discussion, because this is too much. SCHLANGER: And, as with almost everything we’ve discussed so far today has some outrageous element to it, we need to pick up the outrage in the political situation in Germany, where you have the Green Party pushing depopulation of the Green financial bubble, that we just discussed, and also a war policy. And this is Baerbock, and Habeck who was contesting for chancellor candidate and lost. But they’re obviously in an alliance for these crazy policies. ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Baerbock spoke recently at the Atlantic Council, and the Atlantic Council ran a headline afterwards, “Annalena Baerbock in Synch with Joe Biden.” And that is unfortunately, absolutely the case, and the Atlantic Council as such is a think tank which represents the military-industrial complex, completely. If you look at the list of people on the board, and advisory board, it’s a good representation of the military-industrial complex, and therefore, it’s not surprising that Habeck went to Ukraine, met with President Zelensky and supported the sale of lethal weapons to Ukraine, in complete violation of even the Green program, which says no weapons should be sold to areas of war, which Ukraine clearly is. And naturally, Zelensky is now saying, “I demand that Germany should sell weapons to Ukraine,” which really is an outrage. If you think about what happened 75-80 years ago, Germany should not be enticed into selling weapons into war zone! This is so outrageous that only if people are complete oblivious to history that you could even make such an outrageous proposal. But even some of the Green members now can see that this is really a complete outrage. One can only hope that in time the character of this new leadership of the Greens—I was never a friend of the Greens, but compared to these people, Petra Kelly was a sweetheart! SCHLANGER: [laughter] As you just pointed out, it’s not just that they’re selling weapons or offering to sell weapons to Ukraine, but knowing that those weapons will go to Nazi units inside Ukraine’s defense and security forces, makes the point even more extreme. Helga, is there anything else you want to cover? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: No. I think what we discussed is a lot of food for thought. And I know people now want to go on vacation and have a break from COVID, but unfortunately the subjects we touched upon are not going to go to the beach. They’re going to stay with the world and that’s why we need thinking people, people who want to take responsibility as state citizens because that what there is biggest lack of right now, but that is why we will have such a very important conference on June 26-27, and this is a forum where an alliance of anti-Malthusian people from all parts of the world will come together, and you should be one of them. SCHLANGER: And again, you can go to https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/20210626-27-conference to register, June 26 and June 27. Helga, thanks for joining us today, and we’ll see you next week. ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.

The Schiller Institute conference on May 8 offered a proof of principle that people can be mobilized by an appeal to the higher humanity which resides in all humans. Helga Zepp LaRouche reviewed the many dangers facing mankind: of war -- including a real possibility of nuclear war; famine, created by sanctions and deliberate refusal to fund development; of an out-of-control pandemic, as in India, and many other nations lacking a modern health care system; and of the devastating effects of growing inflation, which destroy people's life-work and the ability of families to survive. But she pointed to the dialogue which occurred during the two panels, which demonstrates a willingness to grapple with profound questions, and to the role of the Schiller Institute in creating a forum for building support for solutions. She also highly recommended a video of Minister Louis Farrakhan performing the Beethoven Violin Concerto, as an example of how an act of creativity can inspire the quality of agape needed to break free of the Darwinian world imposed by those oligarchs who she characterized as possessed of "dead souls." TranscriptThe LaRouche Organization Webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche Thursday, May 13, 2021 HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and President of the Schiller Institute. The Schiller Institute just had an extraordinary conference last Saturday, May 8, which you can look at by going to the Schiller Institute website. What I find most interesting, Helga, is that virtually every topic, every subject we discussed, every crisis that we talked about has continued to be in the front of the news, the front of the strategic situation. They’re continuing to deepen. And the recognition is growing that a new approach is needed to solve them, which, of course, was the topic of the conference, “The Moral Collapse of the Trans-Atlantic World Cries Out for a New Paradigm.” What’s your sense of the importance of how this conference unfolded and what we were able to accomplish? HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: On the strategic level, I think there was a very important useful discussion about the immediacy of the danger of a nuclear war: I mean, a nuclear war can happen either by design, and unfortunately, there were a lot of strategic studies and proposals by different think tanks, discussion in the Atlantic Council, the RAND Corp., various other such places, but it can also occur because the overall level of tension between the United States, the British, the EU, and Russia and China on the other side is becoming so high, that any one of many hotspots could, by accident or some temper by some subordinate person, get out of control and lead to a whole chain of escalation. And we should not forget that we have right now the largest maneuver going on since the end of the Cold War, along the whole border of Russia, involving many countries in Eastern Europe, and this is very dangerous. Because if you look at the scenarios which are exercised in these maneuvers, it’s the movement of a large amount of troops to the Russian border; it has a submaneuver, denying Russia access to the sea through the Black Sea or the Baltic Sea. All of these maneuvers assume that Russia is the enemy, that we are rehearsing World War III. And if you put yourselves in the shoes of Russia, it really looks as if these people are determined to continue the color revolution. The situation around Ukraine is extremely dangerous. The demand of Ukraine to join NATO which is one of the red lines Putin has been talking about in his recent speech. So I think the overall situation is so explosive that I think if people don’t change course, you know, people were talking about “sleepwalking into World War I,” but this time it involves nuclear weapons, and there are some crazy people, including in some of these think tanks who say, “we have to prepare for a possible nuclear war,” for example, I think the RAND Corp. had a study, “War with China: Thinking the Unthinkable”, in 2016, and we talked already about it, but I think it needs to be emphasized, again. The head of the U.S. Strategic Command, Adm. Charles Richard, who keeps briefing the Congress and Senate about these matters, also said that he instructed the Pentagon to change the category of likelihood of nuclear war, from not likely to very likely. This was all discussed at the conference, and that is why, because we also have a pandemic out of control, a financial crash looming, a world hunger, that we reiterated our demand in supporting Putin in his call to conduct an urgent summit of the P-5 permanent members of the UN Security Council, because you have a platform where the most important countries talk to each other and find out solutions based on cooperation and not some confrontation. So there are little hopeful signs. There was a discussion between Lavrov and Blinken—they will meet at the end of the month on May 20 around an Arctic Summit in Iceland, and hopefully they will prepare a summit between Biden and Putin. But I think this P-5 formula is very important, because it should involve China, Russia and the United States, at a minimum; and if one could win India in some other constellation, it would also be good. So I think that summit is on agenda. And naturally, the other thing we also discussed also remains: that unilateral sanctions, which are illegal from the standpoint of international law in any case, only those sanctions which are agreed upon by the UN Security Council are legitimate, and there are presently sanctions against about 30 countries, including Syria, Yemen, Iran, Venezuela; some of these countries are suffering death as a result of many people, like in the case of Syria, where according to Cardinal Zenari, 90% and more of the Syrian population are below the extreme poverty line. And therefore, the continuation of the sanctions for sure will cause death, and therefore we call on all people who watch this program that you should help our campaign to raise the public consciousness that these sanctions should be stopped. The U.S. Congress must reverse Caesar sanctions, and we have to have a completely different approach to the situation. SCHLANGER: And Helga, is it your assessment that the use of sanctions is essentially regime change by another name? That is, the argument that sanctions are necessary because countries are not coinciding with the so-called “rules-based order,” but how can they argue that these sanctions are not as deadly, in some cases more deadly, than war? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, they’re more deadly because there are no rules in it. If People are being denied medicine and food and other important necessities—it hits the poorest part of the population, the old people, the children, the sick, and the idea behind it, is that eventually the pressure will become so great that people will rise up and get rid of the regime. But, really, it is a form of brutal war, and it should be outlawed. I think people have to get a real sense of outrage, that these things should not be—I mean, the idea that it’s better than to have a military intervention—what an argument is that? I mean, you’re targetting the weak, the children, the elderly! I think it should really stop. SCHLANGER: Then there was the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting which discussed the question of Russia and China, that these were the longest sessions. And there’s war talk going on around China at the United Nations Security Council: Where is this heading? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This is also, you have right now an absolute low of relations between the EU and China, the U.S. and China, the U.S. and Russia, also the EU and Russia. This is terrible. So as a result of a complete campaign of lies about what is happening in Xinjiang—we had discussed this many times, but let me just briefly repeat it: The problem with Xinjiang was, starting with Brzezinski in 1975, when he developed the idea of using the “Islamic card” against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, so Western intelligence organizations trained the mujahideen in a radical form of Islam for the fight against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. When the Soviet Union was basically defeated, and eventually the defeat in Afghanistan was a contributing factor for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, these mujahideen did not stay in Afghanistan, but they spread all over the region: To Chechnya, to Pakistan, to Xinjiang, to the whole region. And they were, indeed, terrorists, and we know, subsequently, that many times it was revealed that the United States continued to work with al Qaeda, with ISIS; this is what General Flynn had made a point about, and it was revealed many times. The idea was basically to keep a destabilizing aspect on Xinjiang for China. So, China, after a series of terrorist activities more than 10 years ago, did the only reasonable thing, to defeat terrorism: They started to educate the people by giving them training possibilities, they brought in infrastructure and industrial development in one of the previously poorest areas of China, and they started to integrate people! There is no truth to the fact that they tried to reduce the population of Uighurs, because the Uighurs had much larger and higher birth rates than the Han Chinese who were also living in Xinjiang. There was an effort to blame China—I mean, is it better to bomb the terrorists as the Western countries have done many times? In any case, this story was fabricated, and no matter how many diplomats from other countries would go there, including two members of Schiller Institute, who travelled to Xinjiang on different occasions, all come back and report that this is absolutely a lie; nevertheless, just in order to keep the Cold War against China going, there was a UN Security Council meeting called for by the U.S., Britain, and I think Germany, and it has no effect other than completely ruining the relations between those countries and China. And it’s a complete outrage! The use of lies has become, unfortunately, such a normal thing in international politics today that it’s extremely worrisome. SCHLANGER: On the question of Xinjiang in China, it’s clear that the Chinese are responding diplomatically, and becoming a little more aggressive in their response. But how do you get this message across that this represents a lie? I mean, people have to understand that they’re being lied to, to prepare them for war. ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think there are a lot of documentaries being prepared by quite different people, and I think that people, rather than repeat something which clearly is a prejudice, they should study the history of the region, and also look at the result. And then, also, you can always go to Xinjiang, travel there: There has been an open invitation by China for foreigners to come and see. So I have told people, especially Americans: Already more than 12 years ago, I made a presentation, in which I said, why Americans should go there, and I made a presentation about the countries on the old Silk Road, and Xinjiang is obviously one part. So plan your next vacation to go to Xinjiang. SCHLANGER: And if you can’t afford to go to Xinjiang, watch Lyndon LaRouche’s documentary “Storm over Asia,” where it exposes exactly what you are talking about with Brzezinski and the British geopolitical plan. Now, the second panel of the conference, I want to come back to that, was on the coincidence of opposites and how to address the global crises, the COVID pandemic, the growing food shortages; and we see, of course, in India, a desperate situation. Shouldn’t this make clear to people why we need a modern world health system in every nation? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: What we discussed in the second panel, and I’m happy to report that the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, which is a long name, but it’s also a complicated process which we have to bring into unity: This is a notion coming from Nicholas of Cusa from 15th century. I’m very happy to report that we have made big progress, we have now concrete pilot projects under way: Medical and food supply, small but as a symbolic nature—more than a symbolic nature—but we want to send to Mozambique, this will be a shipment and we will try to expand it; also hopefully in the future to other countries. But it’s clear this is a private effort and cannot replace the action of governments. But we want to demonstrate through such a concrete action, how to bring medicine and food to a country in dire need, that everybody can do something; and the idea that “there is nothing we can do about it,” that that is a wrong concept. And therefore, I invite people to join with this Committee. Now, you mentioned India: I think all the many people who have been doubting that the pandemic is real, who think it’s just a trick, please, look at India! I have very close friends in India, and I’m in regular phone contact with them, and what they are reporting is an absolute Hell! You have right now, officially, 250,000 people who have died, but everybody knows this is probably five or ten times higher, for the simple reason that in this figure of 250,000 are only the people who have died in hospital. The people who don’t make it to a hospital, who die at home, who die in a faraway place in the countryside, they’re not counted. So what we’re looking at in India right now, is 1.5-2.5 million people who have died already! And the problem is that a new variant has developed which is very aggressive. Health experts say this is of global concern, simply because the transmission rate is much, much higher than with other strains, and obviously for a country which has, for many parts, no developed hygienic systems, right now there is there is a rate of 75% of the country has 10-20% testing positive. Now, this is out of control and the experts basically say the only way you can hope to get this under control is to lock down 75% of the country for six to eight weeks! Now, can you imagine what that would do in a country where you have a very large informal economy, which means people have no wages, they live from hand to mouth every day, and if you have a lockdown, naturally that collapses. I think this is a huge political crisis and it is already spreading to the neighboring countries, to Nepal, to Bangladesh, Thailand. The Indian strain has been founded in six Latin American countries already. This is why what we discussed again at this conference, and please watch this second panel, is, we have to fight to really get a changed attitude. It is not enough now to say, we have to produce vaccines; first of all, the vaccine production is very slow, and fortunately, the Biden administration said they want to lift the patents, but the production of these vaccines is very complicated, and you cannot in the middle of the desert you cannot just build a vaccine factory: You need the skills, you need the industrial environment to do that. In any case, even if you could vaccinate everybody very quickly, which right now we cannot, the problem is much deeper: You need a change in the attitude towards the underdevelopment of the developing countries. And what we have been saying from the beginning of this pandemic is, we need to have a modern health system in every single country: In every country, you would need to do what they did in Wuhan, to build hospitals of 1,000 beds each in a week; equip them with modern medical machinery, have highly skilled doctors and nurses, and then obviously, you need clean water, electricity, infrastructure. To use the building of such modern health systems in every country as the beginning to industrialize the world. That is at odds with the people who want to impose the Great Reset and the Green Deal, because there was already in 2019, an absolutely scandalous but very revealing article in the British medical journal The Lancet, in which some professors from Harvard basically said, one of the biggest contributors of climate pollution is modern hospitals, surgery, anesthesia, ICU, these account for 4.5% of all CO₂ emissions. And therefore, they say, blatantly openly, we cannot have the 5 billion people in the world who presently don’t have access to this kind of modern healthcare, also have the same standard as in the Western countries, because otherwise the planet would explode. Now, what they’re openly saying is—I don’t know if you want to call this “apartheid”—but it’s incredible! These people are openly advertising to keep the life expectancy in poor countries, we don’t care, let them die. I mean, this is so unbelievably brutal, it makes clear to you that these people are trying to impose a world dictatorship, an eco-fascism, whereby only the powerful elite decide who can live and who will die. Now, we have, as we’ve discussed many times in this program, we have worked out a plan for a world health system in every country, and we will make a huge effort to put this on the agenda in the upcoming Global Health Summit conference on May 21st in Rome, because we think that that meeting should not conclude without having basically agreed that what we propose is the only way. Because if you only have increased vaccinations and some nice words, this is not enough: We need an absolute, fundamental change. So if you agree with that, please join our efforts and help us in this mobilization. SCHLANGER: Helga, another area, where people are threatened is on the economy, and on the inflation front, because there are already people who as a result of the COVID lockdowns and the job losses, people facing losing their homes, losing their healthcare, losing jobs. And we’re now seeing a growing inflation, even though the government is denying it, they’re saying “well, we need a little inflation,” but it’s not a “little inflation,” it’s taking off. This, again, goes back to the program of Lyndon LaRouche for the Four Laws. But what can you say about the inflation situation? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It’s the accumulated effect of pumping money by the trillions and trillions, basically since 2008, and again in the recent period, all the so-called “stimulus” programs which did not into really go into real economy investments, but kept the speculative bubble going for the most part. Now, various central banks are reporting commodity price inflation which will soon hit the consumer price inflation, and once you reach inflation becoming visible like that, you have to think about what happened in Weimar Germany in 1923, when the Reichsbank also started to print money. And that inflation was also not visible for a very long time, but then, when the French occupied the Rhineland, and production came to a halt, it started to explode, and it ended with a complete expropriation of the life’s work of the people. And that is what is on the horizon. And people say a “transitory hyperinflation,” was the formulation used by the Fed: Now, that’s ridiculous. “Transitory hyperinflation” is like being a “little big pregnant”: It just leads to the result that pregnancy does, and hyperinflation leads to hyperinflation. So what we need right now, more urgently than ever, is Lyndon LaRouche’s, my late husband’s program: a global Glass-Steagall, a national bank, a credit system, and a crash program to increase the productivity of the economy through investment in fusion and space cooperation. So we have a program which would be easy to implement, relatively easier, and in any case easier than the consequences if it is not being done, which is chaos and the danger of war. SCHLANGER: Now, also the previous Schiller conference in March 20-21, had a major emphasis in the first panel on culture and how we need a cultural renaissance as a key element in changing the way people think. There was an event that just took place, with a concert, showing the video of a concert with Minister Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam performing the Beethoven Violin Concerto. And I know that you and many other people were very moved by this. What can you tell us about that? ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I would urge our viewers to absolutely watch this concert! I think it’s the most important cultural intervention from the United States—not for the United States—for the world. Because not only—Mr. Farrakhan is a minister, so he’s not a professional musician—but the excellence with which he formed the violin part in this concerto is absolutely incredible, because he made the violin “sing.” He made it sing in the most beautiful, lovable way you can imagine. And I actually had tears in my eyes at a certain point, because he got the music so much to the heart, that I compared then, also with some other performances, which maybe some Menuhin and Oistrakh and so forth, they may have been technically more perfect, but I think it was absolutely on a world-class level. And what is even as important—I don’t want to say more important, because it comes as a unity—he said he did that—this was a performance from 2002—but he got it out now for his own 88th birthday, and Beethoven’s 250th birthday, but especially to give young people, and especially young black people some way to elevate themselves on the highest level. And the way he described it, he said that when he was young, as a boy, he learned the violin, but in these times there was no way to have a musical career for a black person, so he stopped for many years. But, then he took it up again when he was 60, when he first played Mendelssohn. But then, when he was 68, in one year he learned how to play this extremely difficult piece. And it was a complete surprise. And he said, this is also a method, you study intensively, 8, 10 hours a day, and once you have learned that, you can apply that in any other field. And in a certain sense, it was the absolute counter against this cancel culture, and the idiotic policy of Oxford that they want to cancel Mozart and Beethoven. It was just the most beautiful polemic, apart from the elevation. And naturally, neither the Black Lives Matter people, nor the anti-Black Lives Matter people, will discuss this beautiful Farrakhan performance because it puts them to shame. And they don’t know how to deal with beauty, because they’re dead souls, so many of them have become that. I think the example which Farrakhan gave for the young generation in the whole world, I think this was incredible, and you should really watch it, because you will have the most joyous time for a long time. SCHLANGER: It sounds as though what he did was to take to heart the idea in his discussion of it, of the coincidence of opposites, and how to challenge people who have these false profiles of various people that are used, with identity politics and so on. So Helga, thank you very much for joining us. Again, I think you’ve made the point that people should go to Schiller Institute site and watch the conference from last weekend, both panels, as well as the Farrakhan concert. And we’ll see you again next week. ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Till next week.