Humanity at the Brink: The US Must Join the Greater Eurasia Project — Part One (with transcript)


Lyndon and Helga LaRouche address a Seattle-area conference, July 23, 2016. Since the “Brexit” vote, the breakdown of the transatlantic system has accelerated, with the bankruptcy of Deutsche Bank as the greatest signal of this impending doom. Europe, the United States, and other nations of the transatlantic now have only one option: to join the new paradigm of “win-win” cooperation, expressed by the interconnected projects of the New Silk Road (One Belt, One Road) and the Eurasian Economic Union. If the United States and Europe do not choose to work with the leading nations of Eurasia, Russia and China, then the world faces extinction through thermonuclear war.

Morning Panel:
Musical Offering from Russian and American performers
Greetings and Introduction
Strategic Discussion with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche


DAVE CHRISTIE: My name is Dave Christie and I am a member of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, and the Northwest representative of the Schiller Institute. Welcome, and I would also like to thank the other sponsors of this event: The North America China Council and the Russian American Youth Association (RAYA); and especially Sergey Gladysh of the Russian American Youth Association, as well as the Regional President Misha Savvateev and also Tim Yanovsky, the Secretary who will be speaking on RAYA’s behalf in the later part of this panel; and also Diana Wu, of the North America China Council and other members of the North America China Council that we’ll introduce later in the afternoon panel.

That being said as a beginning introduction, we’re obviously gathered in a time very intense crisis globally, the danger of a war with Russia and China, but also a moment of opportunity to bring the nations of the world together, in a spirit of harmony and economic development and cooperation. And that really is what we’ll be discussing through the course of the day here.

Now, this morning, we have the opportunity to speak with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, who have led a fight for 40-plus years, — in Lyn’s case even more years than that. I’ll say a few words of introduction before they begin, but we’d like to start off with a musical offering…

We could probably have an entire day-long presentation about the life of Lyndon and Helga LaRouche and their mission, but I will try to keep my introductory remarks about them short. But to be honest, we would not be having a discussion about the One Belt, One Road, the New Silk Road, the potential of nations around the world to come together right now, were it not for their work.

And just as a brief sense of things: Lyndon LaRouche forecast the collapse of the Bretton Woods System in the early 1970s, when they brought in the rampant speculative looting operation, that marks the current global economy, and called for the creation of an International Development Bank, which really is the model that we now see for the BRICS New Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank; this is an echo of what Lyn called for over 40 years ago.

And furthermore, what Mr. LaRouche did, is he knew that we had to break the Cold War dynamic, and created the Strategic Defense Initiative, as a way to bring the Soviet scientists with the U.S. scientists together to develop a technology that would make nuclear war obsolete: That was known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. And that was adopted by Ronald Reagan. It was one of the key factors of the attempted assassination on Ronald Reagan’s life, which was trying to eliminate the influence of LaRouche and the grouping that he worked with. And it was also the adoption of that, led eventually to Mr. LaRouche’s imprisonment in 1989. And that was at a time when the world was poised to move on what he had laid out after the fall of the Berlin Wall, of bringing the nations of Europe together, and effectively having Russia act as a bridge to Asia, which is the kernel of what is now known as the Silk Road, the One Belt, One Road program.

That was not realized at that time; there was a series of assassinations and so forth, and while Mr. LaRouche was in prison, his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, organized a series of conferences internationally which was on the Silk Road concept. And it’s these conferences over that period that have laid the foundation for what is, again, today, the One Belt, One Road concept.

I just wanted to give people a sense of that; you may not be so familiar with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche’s life, but I think perhaps the best sense will be given by them. So, Lyn and Helga are you ready to go?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Let me make a couple of introductory remarks, and then following that, both Lyn and I will be more than happy to answer all questions and respond to your comments which you may have.

People in Europe — and we’re talking to you from Europe — have right now a very eerie feeling of being engulfed in so many crises, that it’s very difficult to keep a perspective. There is an unbelievable explosion of terrorism; you have the pending collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial system; in the aftermath of the Brexit, Great Britain leaving the euro, the EU may disintegrate; you have an increasing awareness of the danger of a confrontation with Russia over the NATO expansion; you have the crisis in the Pacific around the South China Sea. But then you also have an unbelievable sense of a cultural crisis. So people really have a hard time to figure out, where should the future be.

We personally are still under the impression of what happened last night in Munich, where a young man of 18 years old, went into a shopping mall and killed nine people, and killed himself; many more were wounded and that was just a few days after this unbelievable massacre in Nice, where a crazy young person took a truck and just drove down the alley at the 14th of July national holiday celebration; killing 84, wounding more than 300 people.

And for France, this was the fifth large terrorist attack within one and a half years, starting with Charlie Hebdo in January of last year, and then these unbelievable massacres. So, if you look at terrorism, I think that is one reason why we need to have a different approach to global politics. You had, in 30 nations in four continents, literally almost 100 terrorist attacks in several countries; one attack after the other, like in Iraq or Turkey recently. I would really single out terrorism as one of the absolute enemies of all of mankind; which is why we need to shift gears.

Then you have, as I mentioned, almost 100% certain coming crash of the trans-Atlantic financial system. Only eight years after 2008, when with Lehman Brothers you almost had a meltdown of the entire trans-Atlantic system, now because the governments didn’t do anything to correct the casino economy which led to this crisis, all the parameters are much worse than 2008. Indebtedness of the banking system is much worse; the government and other debt have increased by 40%. You have a new Italy crisis; Italy sits on EU360 billion non-performing debt, which is not a banking crisis, but is the result of insane austerity policies implemented by the so-called “Troika” — the IMF, the EU Commission, and the European Central Bank. Then you have Deutsche Bank, which according to even the International Monetary Fund, represents the greatest risk to the international financial system. Naturally, in the consequence of the Brexit, the British banking system — the City of London — is very shaky; and you have a collapse in the commercial real estate sector. Right now you have a “blame game” as to which crisis is worse. Is it the Italian crisis? Is it Deutsche Bank? They have a derivatives exposure of EU55 trillion — that’s about $60 trillion; of which basically half is really unsellable and belonging to Level 3. Deutsche Bank has a derivatives exposure which is about 12 times that of the GDP of the German economy on an annual basis.

So, this thing could blow; and right now what the European and other central banks are doing with their so-called “unorthodox monetary measures” — meaning quantitative easing, money printing, meaning negative interest rate which makes all savings a permanent loss. And naturally now, the completely crazy discussion about “helicopter money”; which is the completely crazy idea that you just throw money out of helicopters as much as needed to prevent a collapse of the entire system. Right now, our best information is that all the printing presses of the central banks are printing physical money to be prepared for the case of a pending collapse. If this is not changed, then the life savings and the savings of all the people who have earned their money with honest work, they will lose everything. As one banker in the recent period told us, “If this is not changed, the future of Europe is chaos and revolution.”

Now, these are just two crises, but the military confrontation with Russia as represented by the NATO expansion to the Russian borders — as it was again decided at the recent NATO summit in Warsaw — really represents the danger, together with certain other policies really going in the direction of a potential first-use of nuclear weapons; means that we are not only sitting on a Cold War, but a Cold War which could become a hot war at any moment. Maybe as dangerous, is the crisis in the South China Sea; where if you look at the historical records, and China just produced a white book on the history of the South China Sea which I recommend to everybody to read. It’s a very, very detailed study on how these different islands and reefs and shoals in the South China Sea belong to China going way back to the Han Dynasty; that is about 2,000 years ago. Nevertheless, since the United States insists on a unipolar world and Obama said it in an interview with the Washington Post three months ago; where blatantly, he said, “The United States sets the rule, be it TPP or the South China Sea for that matter, and not China.” But the problem is, if you don’t change course, if you don’t move away from geopolitical confrontation, the doom of civilization is guaranteed.

Now, I could list a whole bunch of other problems, but I want only to mention one other thing; and that is that the trans-Atlantic sector right now finds itself in an absolute cultural decay, in a cultural degeneracy. Where each time you think the bottom has been reached, they come up with a new level of degeneracy. One of the recent ones is the insane Pokémon playing of adult people going around in the real world, but playing Pokémon on their smart phone. Many people have been killed already because they don’t pay attention to the traffic, or some other danger in their real environment.

Now, I only want to touch on these different aspects of the crisis to make one fundamental point. We have reached a period in human civilization that, if we continue with these present policies — strict monetarism, neo-liberal casino economy, confrontation for geopolitical interests, and a totally depraved cultural life — the danger is that we could quickly come into a war of extinction. Many military experts have warned that the chance of even an arbitrary, accidental World War III is greater right now than during the height of the Cold War; which as you know, was the Cuban Missile Crisis. And one of the Russian commentators put it quite correctly a couple of days ago, referring to these many incidents in the Baltic Sea or in the Black Sea, where American warships and Russian fighter jets almost had incidents. This Russian commentator said, I do not want to be dependent on the ability of a pilot and his flight potentialities if we have a war or not; because if this pilot makes a mistake, you could have World War III.

That is the condition of civilization, and that is why we have been campaigning since quite a while, but in the recent period very, very passionately for a New Paradigm. To change geopolitics and move mankind to a new era of civilization where the not the geopolitical interest of one nation or a group of nations is the basis of action; but that we define the future of mankind as that which is common to all of us. That we look at the present from a distance, from 100 years in the future looking back, or even 1,000 years in the future looking back to the present; and then defining where mankind should be and how do we get out of this. How can we make the jump, the new level of thinking which will allow us to avoid all of these dangers?

Fortunately, the alternative is absolutely visible already. We in the Schiller Institute, who have been fighting for what we used to call the Eurasian Land-Bridge since more than 25 years, were extremely happy when President Xi Jinping in September 2013 in Kazakhstan put the New Silk Road on the agenda. If you look at the tremendous progress the New Silk Road has made in those almost three years, it is absolutely breathtaking. Not only has China offered many other countries to participate in the Chinese economic model which has caused the admiration of anybody who has looked at it closely. China is now the leading nation in terms of fast train systems; China is now exporting those kinds of fast trains to many parts of Asia. Almost 70 countries are already participating in the New Silk Road and the Maritime Silk Road, and also the new banking institutions like the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the New Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund. It is expected if no major catastrophe happens by the end of the year, probably 100 nations will participate in this new economic alliance.

The New Silk Road is being built in the tradition of the ancient Silk Road which goes back almost more than 2,000 years to the Han Dynasty. And at that time, the ancient Silk Road was not only an exchange of products — of silk, or porcelain making, of paper-making, of book printing; but especially an exchange of technologies of the knowledge how to make silk, how to make porcelain, and also of culture and philosophical ideas. It brought forward all the countries which participated in it. That’s exactly the same of the New Silk Road today, because what people in the West tend to not understand is that China is really serious when it says the New Silk Road is based on a “win-win” strategy. The West always says, yeah, but this is only China’s interest; but it’s OK, China should pursue its interest. But all the countries which have entered in these negotiations and agreements with China have confirmed that it brings them very much advantages, too. Like Eastern Europe, for example; Eastern Europe is now working together with China on the building of fast trains in the Balkans, in Eastern and Central Europe. Something which the EU chose not to do; so the East European countries are very happy to do this with China.

The New Silk Road is an absolutely “win-win” conception because it goes back to the question of how to develop the real economy, and not have the casino economy which only makes the speculators and the banks rich. But the New Silk Road is based on the idea of increasing the productivity of the labor power and the industrial capacities of each country participating in it. That is something which has been lost in the trans-Atlantic sector since maybe in the United States since the assassination of Kennedy; maybe in Europe it was a little bit more uneven, but in general, the present policies of the EU are also not exactly in that tradition — as you can see by the horrible condition of Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, but also many other countries in Europe.

Therefore, what we have proposed is we have to have a complete New Paradigm. The Schiller Institute and EIR, we have worked on what we have been working on for almost 26 years; how the New Silk Road must become the World Land-Bridge. I.e., a development perspective for the development of the whole world. This perspective to extend the New Silk Road to every part of the world and have all the great nations — the United States, Russia, China, India; but also Iran, Egypt, European nations, all work together for the development of those parts of the world which are not yet developed is the absolute key. Look at the Middle East or Southwest Asia; a region which has been completely destroyed by wars which were based on lies — as just now came out with the Chilcot Commission. It clearly stated that Tony Blair launched wars of aggression knowingly that these were based on lies. What is the result of it? Iraq; Afghanistan; Libya; Syria; Yemen; and many areas around there that have been thrown into a complete disarray. Chaos, refugees, terrorism; all of this is the result of these illegitimate and aggressive wars.

We think that this needs to be investigated in every country, and that those responsible have to be put in front of Nuremberg trials; because this has launched a crisis of civilization which is unbelievable. Or, look at the condition of Africa. 50 years or more of IMF conditionalities have destroyed the possibility for people to live. Therefore, you have refugees coming by the millions from Southwest Asia, from Africa. People take a 50% chance of drowning in the Mediterranean, including their babies, because they have no ability to live where they are coming from. The refugee crisis, therefore, is not a European problem; it is a problem of civilization. Can we, in time, when everything is going haywire, everything is collapsing; you have a feeling the whole world is engulfed in problems of one crisis after the other.

Can we, in time, shift gears and say, we have to have a new level of cooperation? That is the New Silk Road. The United States needs a New Silk Road. China has built until 2015, the end of the year, 20,000 km of fast trains; the United States has built none. China is planning to have 50,000 km of fast trains by the year 2020; connecting every major city in China. We propose that that should be built for the United States as well. Would it not make sense to rebuild the infrastructure of the United States and also to connect the large cities of the U.S. with fast train systems? Go back to the kind of reconstruction of the Roosevelt period; what Roosevelt did after 1933. The New Deal, the Glass-Steagall banking separation, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as a financing means. In Germany, the reconstruction after the Second World War was done on exactly that basis; it was the called the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which was modelled on the Reconstruction Finance Corporation of Roosevelt.

Now we propose that we must have a reform of the casino economy in the United States and Europe, and then go back to the Roosevelt policy of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, Glass-Steagall banking separation. Do the same thing in Europe, and then Europe and the United States could join with the new development bank, the AIIB, in the building of these large projects to bring peace and posterity back to the regions which are now collapsing. I think it’s eminently possible. And since I believe that on the one side, we are on the verge of possible extinction of civilization, because if it comes to a war it will not be a limited war; it will be a global war. And if one nuclear weapon is being used, all of them will be used; that’s the nature of nuclear war and nuclear weapons.

But I believe also that the human being is capable, when confronted with a great evil, to produce something even more powerful and more beautiful; and that the force of good can be, and must be, stronger than the force of evil. That is why the Schiller Institute, since its very beginning, has always said we need to have a new world economic order based on more just principles; but it must be combined with a Classical renaissance of Classical culture.

We have to bring forward the great traditions of the best of what every nation has produced. In Germany, that happens to be the music from Bach, Mozart if you count him as a German, and Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann. In China, it is clearly the tradition of Confucius; in India, it’s the period of the Gupta period; in Russia, it’s the period of Pushkin, Vernadsky. And in each nation, we have to bring forward these best traditions and make them known to all other cultures. Because people have no real understanding of the beauty of other nations and the other cultures. For example, we had recently in Berlin, a conference on these subjects; we had a beautiful concert where we had a Russian children’s chorus — very small children. When we were talking all day long about the danger of nuclear war, and then in the evening you had a beautiful concert, where very small Russian children were singing very beautifully. There was not one person who did not have tears in their eyes, because they understood that it is our obligation to create a future for these children. Then we had a very powerful, beautiful Chinese chorus; and people in the audience were amazed how beautiful these Chinese voices were sounding, because they had no idea that this was possible because they had never encountered it. And then we had, naturally, music from Bach and finally the Schiller Chorus performed the Coronation Mass from Mozart.

When we had in April, a similar concert in New York, we had representations of Italian, German, Chinese, Indian cultures. The most striking example was a beautiful presentation by Professor Ben Wang, who gave us a presentation about Chinese literati painting; that is something that is uniquely specific to Chinese culture. It shows the unity of poetry, painting, and calligraphy in one piece of art. People could understand the metaphor being expressed by these three art forms expressed in one, which you do not find anywhere in European culture. But people were absolutely struck that the knowing of the other culture represented for them a window into something which belongs to universal history. They were so happy to discover that beauty which they had no inkling existed.

So, I think this is the way to go. I think if we all put our efforts together and represent very clearly the economic perspective of how to get out of this crisis, how to avoid a financial crash of the financial system of the trans-Atlantic sector; but then combine the economic perspective of enlarging the New Silk Road to become a World Land-Bridge to develop Southwest Asia, to develop Africa and other parts of the world. And give the people who are now becoming terrorists because they have no future in the present system, to give them a real perspective for their own lives and their own futures. That we then can, indeed, get the world moved out of this present very, very dangerous moment. So, I think if we work together to this end, everything will be possible.

LYNDON LAROUCHE: There are obstacles to this kind of program. The case of Einstein, who was probably one of the greatest minds that had ever appeared in the American frame or otherwise. The point is, what is the characteristic which defines humanity as superior to, as distinct from, all other known forms of life in particular? And all forms of life in general? What is the source? What is the force that we must consider? Well, again, go directly to Einstein. Einstein understood that mankind was not a fixed species; that mankind was a species which created new conditions in the Universe. Not something as a practical change, but something absolutely new in the Universe; that was Einstein, and it still is Einstein. To this day, Einstein’s role is still in that nature. What we find is, that the important thing is, is how do we discover the nature of the true form of human existence? And that means a human form of existence, beyond anything that any other form of life — such as animal life — could continue. There is animal life which does try to accomplish that; but it does not do it. And therefore, what we have to do, is take the kinds of discoveries which we do as practical discoveries, practical progress, and we have to turn that kind of progress into something we understand as more universal.

In other words, people do understand things about the change in human life; that is common, it’s known. People can become educated, developed to a higher level; to a higher level of achievement. But there’s something else. There’s only one species which we know of which has these common characteristics; and that is the human mind, the human mind itself. In order to do that, we have to feed back our knowledge of the human mind, and apply what we know about the knowledge of the human mind to the practice of the human mind. I think the rest can be left to Helga.

CHRISTIE: OK, so Lyn and Helga will be available for any questions that people have. OK, I think that’s good to go. So, anybody is welcome to ask a question; just come up the mike here.

Q: Hi, my name is C__. I’m wondering if you’ve heard anything about a German commercial, a biker with a millionaire. There was a question about the guy’s cash and negative interest rates. He’s actually being charged for having his money in the bank; and the millionaire asks, what about taking out cash? He says, no, that equals freedom.

Have you heard about that? It was published last year.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I’m not familiar with that commercial.

Q: [follow-up] I’ll see if I can’t hunt it down and send you the link some way. They’re looking to do away with cash; and then Larry Summers and the European leaders — those are the three people who basically run Europe — have said they’re basically going to do away with cash, so we’re shifting away from checks and smart phones to all digital money. Then we won’t have any freedom to be able to conduct commerce among ourselves and they’ll have complete control.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well yeah, I know that there has been such a debate; but I don’t think that this will go anywhere because in Germany there is a big resistance against that idea. I think the bigger danger right now is what I said before. That is, we have been told by people from the banking community, that the central banks are printing money — physical money, not electronic money but physical money notes — like crazy right now. That is because they know perfectly well that this system could come down end of next week.

Next week you have the result of the stress test which the ECB conducted with several banking systems, for example, the Italian banks. Right now it goes a little bit far into details, so I don’t know whether it’s adequate to go into it here now, but the European Union has adopted a law which is called “bail-in,” which you also have in the Dodd-Frank bill, which is the idea that in the case of an insolvency of a bank or some other financial institution, that you can apply the so-called “Cyprus model,” that is, that you take a “haircut” of those people’s savings, people who have savings or bank stocks, or bank bonds, and you just write down the losses and make the people who are the savers pay. In the case of Cyprus, I think this led to something like a 60% “haircut.” In the Italian case, it already was applied in four regional banks, in which many people lost their life-savings. Many people committed suicide, because they had just lost everything. It caused a complete revolt.

Therefore, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi is trying to negotiate a deal with the EU, whereby they would make an exception and let the Italian banks be bailed out again, which is also being opposed by many people because it has also been based on taxpayers’ money. So, probably they will try to come out with some compromise between bail-out and bail-in.

But that is just a short-term postponement of the crisis. Right now the biggest danger is an uncontrolled collapse of the financial system. If that would occur, or if this “helicopter money” idea is being pursued, people are going to lose everything they have. Naturally, this will have absolutely uncalculatable social consequences. Already France is a social powder-keg. Southern Europe is a social powder-keg.

The only way how we will get out of it, is the immediate implementation of the Glass-Steagall law, which, fortunately, is in the platforms of both the Democratic and Republican Parties. But it’s a far cry from having it in the platform, from it being implemented by the Congress and the Senate. But I think that we are really on an absolute desperate moment where only the approach of Mr. LaRouche, famous for principles, can be a solution, namely, Glass-Steagall, close down the speculative part of the economy—just write it off. If need be, close down these “investment” banks, because they have no purpose anyway.

But then you need a credit system in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, to give credit for public projects. The extension of the Silk Road to the United States would be the perfect way to go. But then you need to go back to the principles of productivity in the labor force, a space program which would bring forward that creativity in the best possible way. And, implement what Mr. LaRouche just said with the focus on Einstein, namely, that we have to go back to recognize that the only source of social wealth is the creativity of labor power, and therefore any government which would be concerned about the public good, would try to get the creativity of their own people increased, and not do what is presently happening in the United States and Europe, where people are consciously dumbed down and becoming more unproductive and stupid by the day.

We need to really reverse course and pick up on what Lyn just said. People have the potential to be genius. That is what we have to bring forth.

Q: I agree, I just want to say, regardless what groups we encounter, or differences of opinion—left, right, or middle, whatever—we should all join together. This is a crisis.

CHRISTIE: So, as people see, there’s a chair right there. If you have a question, come sit there and wait your turn.

Q: Hello Helga and Lyn! My name is R__. I’m from Vancouver. I just want to start by thanking you for your hard work, your passion, your dedication to the human species. Being from Vancouver—we have a contingent of about, I don’t know, 15 or 16 people here from Canada. And I have a question for both of you in the context of actually what both of you said. I suppose I can provide a little pretext for it. It’s hard being an activist in Canada. Canadians often see themselves being in the world as kind of innocuous peace-keepers and apolitical. Of course, as LaRouche activists, we know very well that this is not true of the intelligentsia, the intellectual heirs, and the government.

In the context of the geostrategic situation, Helga, that you’ve outlined, as well as the context of Lyndon’s comments—I’m going to quote you, Lyndon. I hope you don’t mind, but for this context of my question about Canada-U.S. relations, about Canadian-European relations, about the World Land-Bridge, how that affects North America as a whole, how to activate people. I’m quoting you here, from one of your papers. You said, “We come to know a principle, as distinct from merely learning to mouth a politically correct verbal formulation of a mere doctrine, by reenacting the mental act of discovery. A student is able to re-live the thought process of original discovery, with the sovereign domain of the individual mind of the discoverer, as much as thousands of years past.”

That quote really struck me. I want to be able to inspire other people, especially my fellow Canadians, to become world citizens and really take up this charge. I would like your comments in general, in terms of Canada, North America, the World Land-Bridge, and leave it as broad as possible.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Lyn, do you want to?

LAROUCHE: Well, I don’t see this as a real policy. The other character is, that we have to deal with, are adequate. If you want to get into the idea of the development of the powers of the human mind, as such, you have reached the pinnacle of everything. The fact that you may have avoided assuming that development, is a representative of a destructive force.

The thing to do is to understand, that we have to go beyond what mankind has done in terms of classes of strategies of people, and so forth, and to realize, as Einstein did, that mankind had to realize that the Universe is under process of creation itself, and within that body of creation potential, what Einstein did, in defining what is the nature of the discovery of the human mind, that thing, it works! That works. It sometimes doesn’t work because it’s not “worked,” but otherwise when properly worked, that does work.

Unfortunately, the occasion of such methods, as I’ve just indicated—these are rare. It’s necessary to go to what is the meaning of the human mind, in creating the development of the human intellect. That’s what the issue is. There is a form of the human intellect which, by and of itself, by its nature, is a creative force. What we do when we do the best discovery work that we do in life for mankind, is we’re trying to approximate something close to a perfect idea of the development of the human mind, as the human mind, as such.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I just would like to add, that the Schiller Institute is called Schiller Institute because I believe that Friedrich Schiller has also contributed something extremely important to this education of the human personality. And that is the aesthetical education to the level of Reason. I think anybody who looks around in the United States or in Europe right now, will notice that especially the young people have really become so brutalized, that it is hair-raising. When they are 14 or 13, they know it all. They know pornography, they know perversion. They use unbelievable language when they’re talking to each other, reflecting a fallback into barbarism.

I think it has never been like that in history, because with the technology, smart phones, other social media, and so forth, people can communicate nowadays around the globe very quickly, but if it doesn’t go along with the education of the character, with the education of the emotions fitting to the level of Reason, then people will use all of these things, and being used, for the absolute worst purpose.

I know you have on the program today a lot more examples. We put such an unbelievable emphasis on Classical culture and Classical music in particular, because it is that which makes it easy, across all languages, to participate in an understanding of this higher level of Reason—what Lyn is talking about.

Six days before the massacre in Munich occurred, there was a live transmission from Munich of the Ninth Symphony of Beethoven, performed on the largest marketplace in the middle of Munich, at the Audion Place. They had a live concert of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, live on TV, for everybody to watch. I was struck because the moderator, being under the impression of the terrorist attack in Nice—where this crazy man had struck down almost 100 people with his truck, driving into the crowd—so, the moderator said, “Well, we need this beauty of music, the beauty of Beethoven, to remind ourselves that there is this higher level of Reason and higher level of Beauty.”

Under this impression, I listened to this performance, maybe even more conscious than I have done in the past. When you listen to the Ninth Symphony you realize that in the Fourth Movement, the music all of a sudden becomes very dissonant, very strange. It’s a very strange part of the Movement. And then the solo voice comes—this baritone—who sings “Oh no! Not these sounds. Let us listen to more beautiful ones.” And then the chorus comes and sings, “Freude, schöner Götterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium” (“Joy, you spark of the gods, Daughter of Elysium”), and so forth. You know the text.

The music becomes so powerful and uplifting, that people are evoked, and this divine spark is being called forth and awakened in them. As Schiller said many times, it’s the power of great art, that it evokes a power in the people which even remains after the performance is over, so that it works on and lives on in them, and they become better human beings as a result.

I think that that is why we have this dialogue of classical cultures, and why we must absolutely strengthen them. The most certain key to the inner works of the soul and how we can get people liberated from all the ugliness around them.

Q: First of all, thanks for your explanation in more like cultural philosophical point of view. I’m not from America, so my English can be misunderstood, but I’ll still explain my point. I have a couple of questions.

First, how do you think Brexit will influence the world geopolitically, and Russia specifically?

The second question: The lady talked before about the currencies. I’d like to ask about the currencies also, about Ripple. You probably heard about that. It’s a financial payment with the currency for smart contracts.

So what do you think about these two questions?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I’m sorry can you repeat the second question.

Q: It’s Ripple. It’s a currency, it’s an altcoin; because the lady before talked about currencies, so I think probably we could talk about that right now, too.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Maybe, Dave, you can reformulate the question, because I’m not sure I got it.

CHRISTIE: Is this like the internet currency? Crypto-currencies. What’s the other one? Bitcoin.

Q: Yeah, Ripple. It’s like a bitcoin, but it’s a lot different.

CHRISTIE: It’s basically like a free-market thing on the internet: You’re not going to have national currencies any longer, you’re just going to have the going market value for these bitcoins. So that’s good: The Brexit and the geopolitics is the one question, and then this question.

Q: Those are the two questions, yeah.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the Brexit thing is not really a surprise. Anybody who was thinking about what is going on should have known that the vote in great Britain would be exactly like that, going out of the EU. Because this was not a vote against Europe, it was a vote against the perception of the people that the establishment of Europe has been utterly degenerate, inconsiderate of the common good, and unjust especially to the ever larger number of people becoming poorer with this system. The rich become more rich, the middle class vanishes, and the poor people can’t make a living any more.

Naturally also other factors, like the refugees. But people who think a little bit, they know perfectly that the refugees are not coming because they want to be refugees, but because they’re fleeing conditions in their countries, which are destroyed by war, by terrorism, by poverty. So you get back to what I said earlier, the Chilcot Report, the role of Blair in bringing these wars.

So the Brexit in a certain sense was presenting the bill to the City of London, to Brussels, to the policies which people perceived as utterly unjust.

Now, I think it is a fair prognosis, and I’m not taking a big risk in making such a prognosis, that given the fact that the EU presently, shows no sign of changing these policies, they stick to their monetarist policies, they stick to their monetarist polices, they stick to their unjust policies of confrontation against Russia.

I think the disintegration process of the EU will continue. People are saying that, yesterday, for example, there was in Die Welt, a conservative daily in Germany, that Italy is a “failed state.” Now, that puts Italy in the same category as Somalia or Iraq for that matter, and I can assure you the Italians will not be very happy with being put in this category by a German newspaper, so this will have a tremendous backlash.

Also the people who demand a referendum on the EU is becoming stronger. The next Austrian President may be somebody from the ÖVP [Austrian People’s Party] who has already announced that he wants to have a referendum on Austria’s participation in the euro and in the EU; so Italy, Austria, if things go in a certain direction in France, in Belgium, in Holland, all of these countries do not want to have this system any more! And it’s generally admitted that the EU is a failed system and the euro is a failed experiment, implemented on Germany for geopolitical reasons at the time of German unification.

I think the only chance we will get out of this, is, we have to have a “Europe from the Urals” — or actually “from the Pacific to the Atlantic,” exactly as de Gaulle at the time had said. We need, not a supranational EU bureaucracy, but we need to go back to sovereign nation-states, and then a Europe being an alliance of sovereign nation-states could ally with the Eurasian Economic Union which was basically developed by President Putin. And President Putin and President Xi Jinping announced several times, they want to integrate the New Silk Road/ One Belt, One Road project with the Eurasian Economic Union, and Europe should cooperate with that. And that should all become an alliance of perfectly sovereign nation-states, which work together for the higher purpose of mankind, from the Atlantic to the China Sea.

I think if that is being put on the agenda, and then the United States should be invited to participate in such a new alliance, that is the only way to go.

Q: [follow-up] My second question, real quick…

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Ah, the second question. I think that doesn’t mean much. Because everything which belongs to the area of monetarism, neoliberal considerations of money is really of very little meaning. Because this system is coming down, and what we need is a return to the economy of a real, physical economy, and the currency, or rather the credit just be just the tool with which you make the real economy function. So I don’t think these internet currencies mean much, because it’s just a continuation of the illusion that money is a thing in itself.

Q: Hi Lyn and Helga. I have a very brief question. I think it was about a week or two, where LaRouche, you launched the initiative to save Deutsche Bank, and it seems like there’s always footdragging every time you launch an new initiative; hopefully that’s not the case, but I wanted you to say a few things about this new initiative, because it may not be…

LAROUCHE: No, this is very clear. What’s clear is that an international force, moved in to France in order to bring about a sabotage which brought about the collapse of the whole economy of France and Germany. And so, this operation, which was engendered largely from France, from corrupt areas in France, carried murdered against people in Germany. And so, the problem is, is the British system, is the system which created the rotten system I just referred to, and the British ruined France, and caused the murder of the great leader of this process.

So the problem is of that nature. It was the evil represented by the British system, which was backed, and steered, by the French system of that time, and that’s what caused the problem.

And you will find in most of history that the failures of cultures, have that characteristic. Any bad effect, in any culture, tends to be a product of some evil force inside that culture.

We see that in terms of what’s happening in the terrorism which was running the past couple of days. This was something created; an evil force, a force of absolute evil, a destructive force of evil, and brutal, very brutal. But finally the population there, and the leaders of the population there, did bring the territory under control; and hopefully they will be able to make the construction needed, work.

But the point is, in general, the usual problem in society, is that some culture or some part of culture, is trying to destroy anything that is good about the same function.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Let me just add this, because people may not be familiar with the significance of Alfred Herrhausen. Alfred Herrhausen was the chairman of Deutsche Bank at the time when the Berlin Wall came down, and he was assassinated at the end of November, actually three weeks after the Berlin Wall had come down. And that particular murder had as much significance for the paradigm shift for the worst in Germany, as the assassination of John F. Kennedy for the United States. Because, if you remember, Kennedy was very, very optimistic. He had the idea of space travel, of unlimited self-perfection of human beings, of overcoming poverty in the developing countries; just an absolute optimistic world outlook and image of man. And when he was killed and his murder was covered up, the people of the United States became pessimistic. So, so much so that recently I have been saying that Americans are almost as pessimistic as the Germans.

But for Germany, this was absolutely crucial, because — maybe the older ones among you remember, the unbelievable circumstances when the Wall came down and people from East Germany came, and dancing on the Berlin Wall, hugging each other, crying; it was an unbelievable moment in history.

And if Herrhausen would have continued to be the advisor of Helmut Kohl, the whole question of unification would have taken a completely different turn. Because he was sort of the last moral banker, in Europe, at least that I know of. And he wanted to forgive the debt of the Third World, because he said this debt is not payable anyway; he wanted to put the European, German-Russian relationship on an even level. He wanted to develop Poland with the means of the Kreditanstalt used in the reconstruction of postwar Germany. So he had many, many sound policies, and all the people who knew him, basically said, he was a great human being, more important even than being a great banker.

When his car was blown up, as a message to Helmut Kohl, “Do not dare to use the moment of German unification to develop an independent, sovereign policy.” And then, as we now know, Margaret Thatcher launched a campaign against Germany; Mitterrand, according to Jacques Attali who was one of his closest advisors, who wrote a biography of Mitterrand, in which he said that Mitterrand threatened Germany with war at that moment, if Germany would not be ready to give up [its sovereign currency] the d-mark and replace it with the European common currency, the euro.

Kohl knew at the time that the European common currency would not work, without political union, and that the euro was against German interests; but he was basically surrounded by France, Britain, the United States who all told him, you better capitulate and give up the d-mark as the price for unification.

So it was really this murder of Alfred Herrhausen, which is why the great historical chance of ’89 did not lead to a new peace order of the 21st century, which would have been possible. Because when we proposed, and especially Lyn, naturally, had proposed the Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna; this is an area the size of Japan, and still has the most productive concentration of especially the Mittelstand, the middle-level industry, very productive, very innovative, very creative. And the idea was to take that and develop so-called “development corridors” to Poland, to Ukraine, to the Balkans, and transform the Comecon countries with Western technology. And when the Soviet Union disintegrated in ’91, we extended that Productive Triangle to become the Eurasian Land-Bridge, to have development corridors combining the industrial and population centers of Europe with those of Asia, through transport and development corridors: And that is what we called, already then, the New Silk Road.

So we campaigned for this, for 25, 26 years, and now the New Silk Road is on the agenda, so it is very good. But all the destruction of Russia from ’91 to ’94, whereby the industrial potential of Russia was destroyed, and collapsed to only one-third, was the result of the same geopolitical policies which had led to the murder of Herrhausen. And if you want to cure this policy, including the war danger, which right now is very, very acute, then we have to go back and change the policies, make a reset.

And given the fact that Deutsche Bank is about to blow, and as a matter of fact, just yesterday, reports were leaked that they’re considering to give up universal banking and have an internal separation of their banking branches between the commercial branch, giving credit to industry, and separating that completely from their investment part, which is quite an admission, because Deutsche Bank was always the universal banking model and they basically admit that this is not working.

Obviously, such reform alone is not sufficient, but it is an interesting reflection of our campaign. So I would like to encourage you to study this period of history. Because the connection between the murder of Kennedy and the murder of Herrhausen, gives you the clue of where it went wrong in the history of both the United States and of Germany. And if you want to remedy it, we have to get the United States back on the track of Roosevelt and Kennedy and we have to get Germany back on the track of Alfred Herrhausen, if we want to get out of this crisis.

So please do not block on this campaign.

CHRISTIE: Lyn and Helga, do you have time for one more question?

LAROUCHE: Yes! Yes, we do. The point, the problem is, we have to understand, what humanity is. And the key answer as I indicated earlier, the key problem is mankind is a part of the space system. Mankind is a development process, a part of the space system.

What happens is this phenomenon occurs as a space system, occurs as a product of mankind’s development! And mankind achieves this ability, by going into the development of the minds of the human beings, to get them to realize and capture, and really capture, the kind of possibilities, the potentiality of the human mind, of the entire human species. That’s the point!

And the fight, the big fight we have to maintain, the fundamental fight is that we have to realize that mankind can be self-developed by aid of human guidance, and that this may discover what the real source of humanity is. And we say that the human being is a species unto itself, and mankind has to take this species and use it to itself, to bring mankind into areas of achievement which mankind otherwise could not accomplish.

Q: Hi Helga, hi Lyn; I’m glad to be part of your organization. I’m glad to be at this meeting today, but one thing that’s really bothered me, is it seems like good leaders haven’t been around for a while. I heard very little dialogue on this. And it seems like the greediest, most evil people, are in power. I don’t know how we could be anywhere but on the ragged edge as a species, without better leadership. I think good leadership would solve a good share of the problems.

Look at what we ended up with. Is everything controlled by money? Is it legislation and elections being bought? Brainwashing people? [crosstalk]

LAROUCHE: [crosstalk]… follow the Satanic principle, that mankind has often been a Satanic force. Most nations and cultures have been wholely or partly, products of these kinds of evil forces. So the problem of getting rid of the evil force tendency within society is what the problem is that we have to deal with. And as long as you want to tolerate this kind of thing that’s operates commonly, you want to take, for example, U.S. politics. If you take the U.S. politics, political action, you are going to produce Hell! And you’re producing Hell now, and you’ll produce more Hell.

So therefore, you’ve got to get away from that kind of thinking. And you’ve got to look for the question of, which I presented earlier and Helga did also, was to go to the principle: What is the principle that frees mankind of that kind of degeneration? And you find that most of the case, in South America in Central America, in north America, in Europe, you have actually a demoralization, in terms of function of the people throughout much of the planet.

But the point is, the other side is, the evidence is clear, as Einstein’s principle demonstrates, that that principle does provide guidance for achievement, of the kind of life that the human species as a whole requires, which it has not done very well on for a long period of time. But you have to look at it from that standpoint.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I want to only add two thoughts: One is that, we published in the past, quite a bit on a phenomenon which is very well known in France, called Synarchy. I think also in the United States, you may also find literature about it. The Synarchists was a movement of bankers in the ’30s, ’20s and ’30s, who essentially based on certain, I would say almost fascist conceptions of man, decided that they would work together to make sure to move people in powerful positions, especially for the moment of crisis, so that these people would then make policies not in the interest of the common good, but in the interest of the bankers. And they would promote these people, and they push their careers and so forth.

And I think that that is what has largely happened. Because in the United States, I’m sorry to say that with all talk about democracy and human rights and whatnot, there is no democracy in the United States. If Wall Street can buy congressmen seats, and the seats of senators, and buy Presidential campaigns, at least some of them, then there is no democracy. And I think the whole success of a certain person who has now become the candidate of the Republican Party, is because people think that he will give it to them.

I don’t want to want to comment on this any more than this; but this phenomenon of Synarchy, and please go to the search engine of our publications and look for what we published about it, because I think it’s a piece of history which is really worth to know.

Otherwise, I would just say, fortunately, there are some other countries who do have good leadership. I think that Lyn has been emphasizing this a lot, and Putin has proven to be a quite exceptional leader, by developing the principle of the flank; which he did repeatedly, the last time very successfully, in Syria. And I think the fact that presently something like 90% of Russian people support Putin, speaks for itself; that the Russian population is very conscious about the value of their leader and therefore they’re backing him the more he’s been attacked by the West.

Now, I find another leader also quite remarkable: I can only suggest, please read the speeches of Xi Jinping, who in my view is a deep, Confucian thinker, and he is pursuing a Confucian policy for China, which is really outstanding and much too little known in the West. So, there is a book called The Governance of China where they published about 70 speeches of Xi Jinping, but there are many, many more. For example, there are three speeches, which I liked — no, four speeches I liked in particular: One was the speech Xi Jinping gave when he went to France; another one he gave when he came to Germany about two years ago; then a speech he gave in India, in New Delhi; and a speech he gave on the occasion of the birthday of Confucius.

Now, if you take out these speeches and read them, you will find there, the footprint of the mind of a leader which is what approaches what Plato called the “philosopher-king” which should be the quality of leadership.

So don’t give up hope, just become a leader yourself for the United States, and organize many, many people around it. We’re not, fortunately, only looking at one country, but we’re really looking at the entire potential of the human species, which is being tested right now: Can we come up with ideas which will bring us out of this present paradigm, and establish a higher paradigm, a New Paradigm, more in cohesion with the actual character of man, the way Lyn is describing it, in the tradition of Einstein, but also Vernadsky, Cusa, Leibniz, and some of the other great minds. Because that is the level we have to accomplish.

CHRISTIE: OK, Helga and Lyn, I think I just asked you if you could do two more questions, but I want to ask you again, can you do two more questions?


ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Lyn says we can. [laughter]

Q: Thank you Lyn, thank you Helga. Your endless energy is just inspiring. I’d like to hear some input in regards to the world’s energy situation. I am in the nuclear industry, in the Richland, Washington area; but I am aware that Germany has taken a turn in the last years since the large tsunami wave in Japan; Germany has turned away from the pursuit of nuclear power; while France, on the other hand seems to be full-speed ahead with nuclear power; as well as Vladimir Putin’s aggressive efforts to build nuclear power plants all over Africa, helping India; and of course, in cooperation with Xi Jinping of China, the global outlook from the Eastern world and nuclear power seems very positive.

Is there a roadblock in the West, via Britain, via America, and other powers that be, to use these phony global warming front to destroy the energy productivity of America? Is it in your view, is nuclear energy on the forefront going to grow, and will Germany wake up to the false illusion that solar power is the solution? Helga, I know that that is your country, and you must have insight on this.

So I’ll take a seat and listen for the answer. Thank you.

LAROUCHE: There’s no real problem here, in the sense there’s no contradiction here. There’s a contradiction in practice, not a contradiction in principle. The development of power, the development of human power lies in space; it lies in the space program. And the development of the space program, to the extent that it is developed, and the way it was done earlier, in an earlier period, at the close of World War II, the whole thing was there. Is is still there. We have it in our unit down in southern California, and also on the other side of the process. We have people who are working on this thing, who are dedicated to it.

And what happens, is that you have forces which will not develop these breaking developments which our people are doing. That’s where the problem lies. And so therefore, I wouldn’t try to say, just for saying, “it appears to me, that this is going on.” Well, what is usually going on, is really something pretty dirty, these days. Especially in modern history, recently.

So, the problem, there is not a problem in terms of the space program as such, there’s no problem. And you find, if you study exactly what the space program had done, originally, from the beginning of its founding, by a German leader, that this thing is the axis, which leads and points directly into where the power of mankind lies.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think Germany is unfortunately still completely brainwashed. Nobody can understand why Germany is doing that to itself. After the Fukushima exit from nuclear energy in Germany, I was asked by many people, in the U.S. Congress, in other places, that “Germany must have some secret! Probably they made a breakthrough in thermonuclear fusion power, otherwise they couldn’t be so stupid to give up nuclear energy!” And I always said, “They are so stupid, I’m afraid.”

So, I think that, a flank will come some other way. I think probably through what Lyn is saying, space. Because the one thing where Germans still get very excited about is space travel. ESA, the European Space Agency is working together with Russia, with China, on quite ambitious programs; and there people get really excited and optimistic. For example, the new commander of the ISS space station is Alexander Gerst, a German astronaut. And when he went around to schools, to classes of children, they get totally excited.

And naturally, also, the Stellarator nuclear fusion facility in Greifswald, where they had recently a major breakthrough in the experiments around the different model than the tokamak model in ITER in southern France. Maybe it takes some flank, because right now, I think the decision of Mrs. Merkel, to use the Fukushima tsunami/earthquake crisis to go in this direction, is really ominous — and she’s a physicist, so-called. But a lot of things she does are not in the interest of the German people, and one of the most-asked questions is, “What the Hell is wrong with this woman?” Is she impregnated?

I can’t answer you, but I think it’s a good question. So I think we have to outflank it, go to fusion, go to space, and then hopefully save Germany back to a full-science nation that way. [applause]

Q: Good evening, this is a question for Helga. You were mentioning the Berlin Wall collapse, and that’s the power of unification of happiness between two nations united together, that was affecting the whole Germany. As I remember, French and British politicians were against German unification, and the Russians actually pursued it, in order to see these two divided parts of the same nation, together.

So when things happened in Crimea, as a part of Ukraine which struggles for 25 years to be together with Russia, which most of the population are populated by Russian people, when that unification happened, and most of the people voted to be together, Russians were expecting some kind of support from Germany, understanding the same kind of support they were giving for allowing Germany to be together. However, Germany reacted and German politicians reacted with sanctions, and very negatively.

So my question is, was it common for all German people to react negatively for unification of Russians with Crimea and Russia? And why, in your opinion, if it was negatively, why it would happen that way?

LAROUCHE: The dominant role of corruption in terms of the unity of whole system, finance and the things that go with it. The corruption is there. And the problems that exist, exist only by virtue of that.

You know, what Einstein has done, by two phases, one while he was still alive, and one where he was carried over as his post-death. Mankind has the ability to control space and everything else: Mankind can do it. And mankind must do it! But the problem you have to say is, what is the thing that’s preventing us from doing that? And that’s where the problem lies.

You have South America, look at the leading nations of South America of the total, what are they? They are disasters! Other parts of the Atlantic coast, is a disaster! We’ve had things, good things inside the United States, we have some good things going inside the United States now; but in general, in general, the problem here is, you know, the population does not know, is not allowed to know, exactly what the options are available to it.

So, I wouldn’t say there’s something wrong with that because the case shows an error. The errors were all over the place! The United States is largely and chiefly, a machine to error! [laughter] And so, if you want to raise the question, that’s the question.

We don’t have to do that.

Q: [follow-up] I just want to ask my assistant to translate my question, because my question was a different one.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I can only add to that, that the problem is that the German population has not been told the truth. The media are completely, in German you would say Gleichgeschaltet [in synch with each other], that is what they were in the Hitler period, when all the media were reporting the same thing. And so, the whole coverage about what happened when Yanukovych at the EU summit in Vilnius, end of 2013, did not sign the EU Association Agreement, people didn’t get it.

People didn’t get what happened with the Maidan, that Victoria Nuland had said that the U.S. State Department had spent $5 billion alone on NGOs in Ukraine, to train them for the color revolution. This was never reported in the German media. It was also not reported that the people on the Maidan were then very quickly supplemented by the Stepan Bandera Nazis, who were groomed by the Western intelligence services in the entire postwar period.

Now, the Western intelligence services know that, because Stepan Bandera networks were maintained by the CIA, by MI6, and even by the BND [German foreign intelligence] in the entire period of the Cold War period. They were, for example, in Munich, Mr. Yaroslav and Mrs. Slava Stretsko, who were the leaders of the anti-Bolshevist Bloc [abn], were maintained by the Western governments, by the BND, by the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, they recruited some other people.

So all of this was known and naturally, I maintained the whole time, that in the capacity of the chief of staff Chancellor, even Steinmeier who otherwise is a decent politician, knows that the Stepan Bandera networks played a key role in development of the Maidan, in the coup of the Feb. 22, 2014, because he was there negotiating an agreement which was ruined by the coup. And because he was the head of the Chancellor’s office of Chancellor Schröder, he was the coordinator of the secret services and therefore he had to know that, but he never said it publicly.

So, all of these things are known, and we published them. But they’re not published by the German media, and therefore the average German is too lazy, too stupid, too uninformed, to know these things. And the fact that the Crimeans voted to be unified with Russia was only the end result of the treasonous expansion of the EU to the East. The late Helmut Schmidt, the former Chancellor of Germany, in one of his last interviews had said, that Ukraine crisis really started with the Maastricht Treaty of the EU in ’92. This was the moment when the EU decided to become an imperial power, extending ever more to the East, in parallel with NATO.

And I know from many discussions with Russians, that since the late ’90s at the latest, people in Russia no longer had a problem in understanding that the EU and NATO expansion to the East were part of the same geopolitical policies. Now, that is not generally discussed, so people didn’t understand the Crimea and then you had all these, what I call these “the poodles of Washington and London,” and they say, “Oh, Russia has been changing the borders of Europe by force.” No, that’s not the case. There was a vote of the people, in reaction to a fascist coup in Kiev.

But unless that truth is being discussed publicly, I don’t think people will get it straight, and that is what unfortunately right now the situation. And I can only say, we should work together to make that history as well known as the Chilcot Report is the first step to correct the lies about the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria; and the publication of the 28 pages starts to tell the truth about what happened on 9/11, the role of Saudi Arabia in financing ISIS and al-Qaeda and Al Nusra; and in the same way we have to get the truth out about the real story of Ukraine, the real story of Syria , and a lot of these lies have to be corrected if world peace is supposed to be maintained.

CHRISTIE: We will have a lunch break in a moment, we will be sent off to lunch, happy with a song. But I have to ask — I’m sorry, Lyn and Helga do you have time for one more question? It’s a question from a longtime ally. You’re free to ask a question as long as it’s not about Donald Trump.

Q: My name is R__T__ and my subject is bail-in. We all know abbreviated subject of bankrupt and how do you avoid bankruptcy, and what I’d like to request is that since you folk have the knowledge and background, to give a little short synopsis on where we stand in terms of bail-in and bail-out? And it’s my understanding that the European nations have been severely depressed and have faced bankruptcy, and so the central banks have stepped forward and now they have this “bail-in” and bail-in means they can go to a private corporation or a savings accounts or whatever we have that’s ourselves. And so there’s now a threat, and apparently this threat has been validated by certain laws that our Congress has approved, which allows the central banks to attach our own savings and our own accounts, and it’s called “bail-in.” And it’s flipped in and out of the media, but it’s never been fully explained. So I’d like you folks to do a very short synopsis of what you think that is. And what is the solution to the overall bankruptcy that everybody faces, both here in the nation and elsewhere?

LAROUCHE: I wouldn’t look at it from the standpoint of particular varieties of nations, or their economies. Don’t do that.

What’s happened is, is that we are given, in the beginning, we’re given a rotten deal to shovel out. And therefore, you are lost from the beginning, unless you do something about it. Now that means you have to come to an understanding, of something which is not generally known. That is, most people in society do not know what they are talking about. That’s the problem. [laughter]

What they do, is they tend to buy into what somebody tells them, or suggests that they do. And that’s where it comes from.

An intelligent society, by the standards which have been established, actually, should say that any nation which is competent, — which is competent, where the people themselves are competent — will not tolerate the kind of things which we object to. It’s that simple.

The problem is, our people are made stupid. They’re stupefied because they submit to conditions and preconditions which destroy their ability for judgment. That’s where the problem lies. This is not that some people are bad, or some organizations are bad or such, that doesn’t explain anything! What you have to do is understand, what are the scientific conditions, — the scientific conditions — which define the achievement of the human individual and the leaders in society? That’s it. You’ve got to develop and create, the kind of creativity which is available to mankind.

And what happens, most cases where you talk about complaint, you’re not looking at the talent of mankind. You’re not looking at what the significance is, of the ideas of mankind. But you’re buying into something which ain’t any good.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Just one short additional comment: As of now, the bail-in is law in the EU and in Dodd-Frank. If there is a collapse they will do that, they will apply the Cyprus model, and they will take people’s savings away. And for that reason, I have been told, and we have been told by several top level people in the financial sector, in the context of our campaign to change Deutsche Bank, that the money presses, the printing presses are going on full steam, because they expect a collapse, a run on the banks, or a possible trigger; and in that case, they want to have physical money, because everything else will not function. And that’s where we are at. And we have had it confirmed by top, top-placed sources, that people have earned their money in an honest way, they will lose everything if we allow this to happen.

So that is where we are at, and you have to be conscious and look at it, because that is what the situation is. The debt of $2 quadrillion outstanding derivatives is unpayable! And that’s why we need the kind of orderly reorganization, of Glass-Steagall or to use the reorganization of Deutsche Bank as a leverage to do the same thing. The reason why we are using Deutsche Bank is not because that bank is — I mean there are criminal practices, they have more a thousand lawsuits, LIBOR manipulation, outright fraud against their customers — there is not one crime Deutsche Bank has not been involved in. But you need to remind people, what was industrial banking, and therefore, the example of Alfred Herrhausen is a very, very useful reference.

But you should have no illusion where we are at. We are at the point of a disintegration of the financial system, and the bail-in is law in the EU and in the United States. So make your own calculations of what that means, if you don’t get an orderly reorganization very, very quickly. [applause]

CHRISTIE: Thank you very much.

This entry was posted in LPAC, New Economic Order and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.