Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Learn from the Present Crises: There is No Need for a Systemic Breakdown

The upcoming events of the Schiller Institute will make clear that there is no need for humanity to suffer from the accelerating breakdown crisis of civilization. On July 24, we will present an in depth dialogue, "There Is No Climate Emergency;" on July 31, a conference on the opportunity to use the withdrawal of U.S.-NATO troops from Afghanistan to move out of the era of endless wars, into cooperation based on mutual benefit; and on August 14, what are the lessons of Lyndon LaRouche's forecast of the end of the Bretton Woods system, on August 15, 1971, and of the advances he made in physical economy to overcome the succession of increasingly bad policy decisions made after Nixon's move. In introducing this arc of events, Helga Zepp-LaRouche spoke of the disastrous flooding in western Germany, which resulted from a lack of preparedness and a failure to invest in infrastructure — not so different from the lack of preparedness when it came to dealing with the COVID pandemic. Instead of compounding the effects of these crises by making more bad policy decisions, let us learn from the development of the science of physical economy by Lyndon LaRouche, so we can move from these deadly events into a new era of peaceful collaboration and development.

Great Opportunity to Learn from 50 Years of Strategic Insanity

In reviewing the multiple strategic crises confronting humanity today, Schiller Institute leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche kept coming back to words such as "lunacy", "insanity" and "dangerous immaturity" to characterize the policies pursued by leaders of the U.S., the U.K. and the EU. In their zeal to confront and provoke Russia and China, impose austerity while bailing out bankrupt corporate cartels, cut funding for health care, and impose an anti-human Green New Deal, the corruption behind their genocidal intent has become ever-more obvious. Have we learned the lessons of the dangers implicit in allowing their imperial will to dominate international policy making? One example of the potential for change is coming from the neighbors of Afghanistan, who met under the auspices of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and engaged in serious discussion of how to bring stability to the people of that damaged nation. Instead of using the withdrawal from Afghanistan to "pivot to Asia", to contain China and Russia, Wang Yi made a proposal for cooperative economic development.

AFGHANISTAN AT A CROSSROADS Graveyard for Empires or Start of a New Era?

After the hasty withdrawal of U.S. and NATO troops from Afghanistan—U.S. troops, except for a few security forces, were flown out in the dark of night without informing Afghan allies—this country has become, for the moment but likely not for long, the theater of world history. The news keeps pouring in: On the ground, the Taliban forces are making rapid territorial gains in the north and northeast of the country, which has already caused considerable tension and concern in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, and they have captured the western border town Islam Qala, which handles significant trade flows with Iran. At the same time, intense diplomatic activity is ongoing among all those countries whose security interests are affected by the events in Afghanistan: Iran, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, to name only the most important.Can an intra-Afghan solution be found? Can a civil war between the Afghan government and the Taliban be prevented? Can terrorist groups, such as ISIS, which is beginning to regain a hold in the north, and Al-Qaeda, be disbanded? Or will the war between Afghan factions continue, and with it the expansion of opium growing and export, and the global threat of Islamic terrorism? Will Afghanistan once again sink into violence and chaos, and become a threat not only to Russia and China, but even to the United States and Europe? If these questions are to be answered in a positive sense, it is crucial that the United States and Europe first answer the question, with brutal honesty, of how the war in Afghanistan became such a catastrophic failure, a war waged for a total of 20 years by the United States, the strongest military power in the world, together with military forces from 50 other nations. More than 3,000 soldiers of NATO and allied forces, including 59 German soldiers, and a total of 180,000 people, including 43,000 civilians, lost their lives. This was at a financial cost for the U.S. of more than $2 trillion, and of €47 billion for Germany. Twenty years of horror in which, as is customary in war, all sides were involved in atrocities with destructive effects on their own lives, including the many soldiers who came home with post-traumatic stress disorders and have not been able to cope with life since. The Afghan civilian population, after ten years of war with the Soviets in the 1980s followed by a small break, then had to suffer another 20 years of war with an almost unimaginable series of torments. It was clear from the start that this war could not be won. Implementation of NATO’s mutual defense clause under Article 5 after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime were behind those attacks, which would thus justify the war in Afghanistan. But as U.S. Senator Bob Graham, the Chairman of the Congressional “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001,” repeatedly pointed out in 2014, the then-last two U.S. presidents, Bush and Obama, suppressed the truth about who had commissioned 9/11. And it was only because of that suppression that the threat to the world from ISIS then became possible. Graham said at a 2014 interview in Florida: “There continue to be some untold stories, some unanswered questions about 9/11. Maybe the most fundamental question is: Was 9/11 carried out by 19 individuals, operating in isolation, who, over a period of 20 months, were able to take the rough outlines of a plan that had been developed by Osama bin Laden, and convert it into a detailed working plan; to then practice that plan; and finally, to execute an extremely complex set of assignments? Let’s think about those 19 people. Very few of them could speak English. Very few of them had even been in the United States before. The two chairs of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, have said that they think it is highly improbable that those 19 people could have done what they did, without some external support during the period that they were living in the United States. I strongly concur…. Where did they get their support?” This question has still not been answered in satisfactory manner. The passing of the JASTA Act (Justice Against State Sponsors of Terrorism) in the U.S., the disclosure of the 28 previously classified pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry report into 9/11 that were kept secret for so long, and the lawsuit that the families of the 9/11 victims filed against the Saudi government delivered sufficient evidence of the actual financial support for the attacks. But the investigation of all these leads was delayed with bureaucratic means. The only reason the inconsistencies around 9/11 are mentioned here, is to point to the fact that the entire definition of the enemy in this war was, in fact, wrong from the start. In a white paper on Afghanistan published by the BüSo (Civil Rights Movement Solidarity in Germany) in 2010, we pointed out that a war in which the goal has not been correctly defined, can hardly be won, and we demanded, at the time, the immediate withdrawal of the German Army. Once the Washington Post published the 2,000-page “Afghanistan Papers” in 2019 under the title “At War with the Truth,” at the latest, this war should have ended. They revealed that this war had been an absolute disaster from the start, and that all the statements made by the U.S. military about the alleged progress made were deliberate lies. The investigative journalist Craig Whitlock, who published the results of his three years of research, including the use of documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and statements from 400 insiders demonstrated the absolute incompetence with which this war was waged. Then, there were the stunning statements of Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, the Afghanistan czar under the Bush and Obama administrations, who in an internal hearing before the “Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction” in 2014 had said: “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan—we didn’t know what we were doing. … What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking…. If the American people knew the magnitude of this dysfunction … who would say that it was all in vain?” After these documents were published, nothing happened. The war continued. President Trump attempted to bring the troops home, but his attempt was essentially undermined by the U.S. military. It’s only now, that the priority has shifted to the Indo-Pacific and to the containment of China and the encirclement of Russia that this absolutely pointless war was ended, at least as far as the participation of foreign forces is concerned. September 11th brought the world not only the Afghanistan War but also the Patriot Act a few weeks later, and with it the pretext for the surveillance state that Edward Snowden shed light on. It revoked a significant part of the civil rights that were among the most outstanding achievements of the American Revolution, and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and it undermined the nature of the United States as a republic. At the same time, the five principles of peaceful coexistence, which are the essence of international law and of the UN Charter, were replaced by an increasing emphasis on the “rule-based order,” which reflects the interests and the defense of the privileges of the trans-Atlantic establishment. Tony Blair had already set the tone for such a rejection of the principles of the Peace of Westphalia and international law two years earlier in his infamous speech in Chicago, which provided the theoretical justification for the “endless wars”—i.e., the interventionist wars carried out under the pretext of the “responsibility to protect” (R2P), a new kind of crusades, in which “Western values,” “democracy” and “human rights” are supposed to be transferred—with swords or with drones and bombs—to cultures and nations that come from completely different civilizational traditions. Therefore, the disastrous failure of the Afghanistan war—after the failure of the previous ones, the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the Libya war, the Syria war, the Yemen war—must urgently become the turning point for a complete shift in direction from the past 20 years. Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic at the very latest, an outbreak that was absolutely foreseeable and that Lyndon LaRouche had forecast in principle as early as 1973, a fundamental debate should have been launched on the flawed axioms of the Western liberal model. The privatization of all aspects of healthcare systems has certainly brought lucrative profits to investors, but the economic damage inflicted, and the number of deaths and long-term health problems have brutally exposed the weak points of these systems. The strategic turbulence caused by the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, offers an excellent opportunity for a reassessment of the situation, for a correction of political direction and a new solution-oriented policy. The long tradition of geopolitical manipulation of this region, in which Afghanistan represents in a certain sense the interface, from the 19th Century “Great Game” of the British Empire to the “arc of crisis” of Bernard Lewis and Zbigniew Brzezinski, must be buried once and for all, never to be revived. Instead, all the neighbors in the region—Russia, China, India, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and Turkey—must be integrated into an economic development strategy that represents a common interest among these countries, one that is defined by a higher order, and is more attractive than the continuation of the respective supposed national interests. This higher level represents the development of a trans-national infrastructure, large-scale industrialization and modern agriculture for the whole of Southwest Asia, as it was presented in 1997 by EIR and the Schiller Institute in special reports and then in the study “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.” There is also a comprehensive Russian study from 2014, which Russia intended to present at a summit as a member of the G8, before it was excluded from that group. In February of this year, the foreign ministers of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan agreed on the construction of a railway line from Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, via Mazar-e-Sharif and Kabul, Afghanistan, to Peshawar in Pakistan. An application for funding from the World Bank was submitted in April. At the same time, the construction of a highway, the Khyber Pass Economic Corridor, between Peshawar, Kabul and Dushanbe was agreed to by Pakistan and Afghanistan. It will serve as a continuation of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a showcase project of the Chinese BRI. These transportation lines must be developed into effective development corridors and an east-west connection between China, Central Asia, Russia, and Europe as well as a north-south infrastructure network from Russia, Kazakhstan and China to Gwadar, Pakistan on the Arabian Sea, all need to be implemented. All these projects pose considerable engineering challenges—just consider the totally rugged landscape of large parts of Afghanistan—but the shared vision of overcoming poverty and underdevelopment combined with the expertise and cooperation of the best engineers in China, Russia, the U.S.A., and Europe really can “move mountains” in a figurative sense. The combination of the World Bank, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) New Development Bank, New Silk Road Fund, and national lenders could provide the necessary lines of credit. Such a development perspective, including for agriculture, would also provide an alternative to the massive drug production plaguing this region. At this point, over 80% of global opium production comes from Afghanistan, and about 10% of the local population is currently addicted, while Russia not so long ago defined its biggest national security problem as drug exports from Afghanistan, which as of 2014 was killing 40,000 people per year in Russia. The realization of an alternative to drug cultivation is in the fundamental interest of the entire world. The Covid-19 pandemic and the risk of further pandemics have dramatically underscored the need to build modern health systems in every single country on Earth, if we are to prevent the most neglected countries from becoming breeding grounds for new mutations, and which would defeat all the efforts made so far. The construction of modern hospitals, the training of doctors and nursing staff, and the necessary infrastructural prerequisites are therefore just as much in the interests of all political groups in Afghanistan and of all countries in the region, as of the so-called developed countries. For all these reasons, the future development of Afghanistan represents a fork in the road for all mankind. At the same time, it is a perfect demonstration of the opportunity that lies in the application of the Cusan principle of the Coincidentia Oppositorum, the coincidence of opposites. Remaining on the level of the contradictions in the supposed interests of all the nations concerned— India-Pakistan, China-U.S.A., Iran-Saudi Arabia, Turkey-Russia—there are no solutions. If, on the other hand, one considers the common interests of all—overcoming terrorism and the drug plague, lasting victory over the dangers of pandemics, ending the refugee crises—then the solution is obvious. The most important aspect, however, is the question of the path we as humanity choose—whether we want to plunge further into a dark age, and potentially even risk our existence as a species, or whether we want to shape a truly human century together. In Afghanistan, it holds true more than anywhere else in the world: The new name for peace is development!

A World Without Geopolitics Beckons: After the Afghan Debacle, Have We Learned Our Lesson Yet?

In reviewing strategic developments of the last week, Schiller Institute Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche highlighted the prospects for peace and collaboration possible when geopolitical confrontation is rejected. The Merkel-Macron-Xi dialogue, for example, opens the door for a change in European Union policy, as the EU bureaucrats face growing tensions over their commitment to the unilateralism implied in imposing a “Super State.” The end of the Afghan war does not mean more conflict, but the emergence of an alternative based on a desire by its neighbors to overcome underdevelopment, as a competent strategy to combat terrorism. In her report on the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party, she challenged viewers to not fall back on the axioms drummed into their heads by corrupt media and imperial oligarchs, but to look instead at the real history of China. She described the Conference of World Political Parties addressed by President Xi, which included representatives from more than 150 parties, as an “expression of friendship”, which demonstrates that overcoming underdevelopment is a mission which can be embraced by all nations. It also makes a mockery of the view pushed by geopoliticians that China “is isolated”.

Clarion Call from Schiller Institute Conference: Defeat the War Machine, Build a Political Order in the Interest of All

In reviewing the just-concluded conference of the Schiller Institute, its founder Helga Zepp-LaRouche pointed to the ongoing provocations of London-based imperial interests as a dynamic for war. With the explicit intent of NATO’s Global 2030 policy to encircle Russia and China, to ensure that the Great Reset and Green New Deal can be successfully consolidated, we brought together leaders from all parts of the world to build an effective anti-Malthusian resistance to defeat this imperial design. She emphasized the special importance of a change in the method of thinking, by adopting the concept introduced by Nicholas of Cusa of the “Coincidence of Opposites” — which was demonstrated in each of the four conference panels — as necessary to win this fight. As the crises facing humanity escalate, she pointed to the fact that many more people are looking at Lyndon LaRouche’s ideas, as a hopeful sign that the New Paradigm can be brought into existence.

Following Geneva, Putin Makes Generous Offer

Register for the June 26-27 Schiller Institute conference. Reviewing events since the Biden-Putin summit in Geneva, Schiller Institute founder Helga Zepp LaRouche pointed to the history lesson Putin gave, which was published in Die Zeit, as a further example of his commitment to make sure that the lessons of World War II are learned. That the war hawk faction in the U.S. is proceeding with more sanctions against Russia and attacks on China -- including the hilarious threat to "isolate China!" -- shows that these lessons are still badly needed. This weekend's online Schiller Institute conference comes at just the right moment, to give citizens an opportunity to intervene in shaping history. With new waves of COVID threatening, electricity flickering in Milan and bridges collapsing in Germany, what kind of idiocy is it to spend more money on wars, instead of building new platforms of infrastructure?

Will Human History End Now in a Tragedy, or Triumph in a New Paradigm? Learn from Nicholas of Cusa

Helga Zepp-LaRouche addresses an audience of young people from around the world on the method of thinking discovered by Nicholas of Cusa. “[Nicholas of Cusa] developed a method of thinking, of thinking something completely new… It was the idea that human reason has the capability to define a solution on a completely different and higher level, than those on which all the conflicts and contradictions arose. It addresses the capacity to think a One, which is of a higher magnitude and power, than the Many. And once you train your mind to think that way [according to the coincidence of opposites], you have the inerrant key to creativity, and one can apply this way of thinking to virtually all realms of thought.” —Helga Zepp-LaRouche Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and chairman of the Schiller Institute, and one of the world’s leading Cusa experts, insists that to get out of the onrushing New Dark Age, mankind must learn from the father of the 15th Century Golden Renaissance, Nicholas of Cusa. We must start with the underlying crisis: that in the method of thinking.

Increasing Density of False Narratives from War Party Proliferate Preceding Upcoming Summits

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.

Putin-Biden Summit: Potential Step in the Right Direction

Despite the relationship between the U.S. and Russia hitting a new low, as Anglo-American oligarchs are intent on carrying out a regime change in both Moscow and Beijing, Helga Zepp LaRouche believes that having a summit, in which Putin and Biden speak directly, offers an opportunity to pull back from a rush toward war. This summit comes as there is emerging a new combativeness against the Great Reset and Green New Deal, which together are being pushed to save a bankrupt system. Two examples she cited was a scientific forum in Italy, in which leading climate scientists debunked the models being used by believers in man-made climate change, and the rejection by the Swiss government, in the sovereign tradition of Wilhelm Tell, of demands placed on it by the European Union. But the danger of war remains, especially with the prospect that the Green Party in Germany will be in the next government after the September election, and that its lead candidate, Annalena Baerbock might emerge as Chancellor, with the full support of the Trans-Atlantic war hawks for her candidacy. Zepp-LaRouche highlighted, as part of this war danger, Green Party leader Habeck calling for arming Ukraine, despite the presence of open Nazis in the defense/security sector, and the escalation against the Lukashenko government in Belarus.

A “Different Approach” from Russia and China Threatens the Globalist Oligarch’s Great Reset and Green New Deal

Helga Zepp LaRouche opened this week’s dialogue with a discussion of how several recent events featuring the leaders of Russia and China exhibit a “different approach”, which is what the global oligarchs really fear about their collaboration. As they speak of collaboration in technological advances, and sharing those breakthroughs with people of all nations, Mark Carney, a spokesman for the Davos Malthusian crowd, is insisting that Africa set aside its land and ts resources — and its hopes for development — to sell carbon “set asides”, designed to fuel a new green bubble. Another promoter of Green lunacy, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, has launched a new assault on classical art and science, with his call for a “New Bauhaus World Initiative”, replacing virtually all construction materials with wood and bamboo. Zepp LaRouche emphasized that the decision to launch this in Weimar, which is associated with the Weimar classical period of Friedrich Schiller, reveals the evil intent behind such nonsense.