ZEPP-LAROUCHE WEBCAST

Putin-Biden Summit: Potential
Step in the Right Direction

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger. Welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. It’s Saturday, May 29, 2021.

The Biden-Putin Summit

Helga, since the last time we spoke, it’s now been confirmed that there will be a summit between President Biden and President Putin of Russia. This will take place in Geneva on June 16. Now, while the United States said it’s looking for a more stable relationship, it’s continuing to put sanctions on Russia. You said this was an opportunity to put an end to geopolitics. How do you see things developing toward this summit?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: I think under present circumstances, and the past years, where the relationship between the United States and Russia had reached a historic low point, the fact that this summit is taking place at all is an important fact. It’s much better to talk, than to have all this series of confrontations. Both sides have expressed satisfaction that the meeting is taking place. However, the Russians are not exuberant, because, as the First Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations Dmitry Polyanskiy just said, there are many cases where the U.S. was capricious, and conditions were put up as a precondition. This has not occurred so far, and therefore, they’re looking toward it with a certain expectation, but not as the miracle solution to all problems.

Let’s hope that there will be a positive discussion about strategic issues, other important issues like the pandemic, the financial crisis, and not just climate change and the agenda of the City of London and Wall Street.

Also important is the statement made by a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, saying that nobody should hope that a positive meeting between the United States and Russia would somehow break the relationship between Russia and China.

There is the potential that this summit could be a first step in the right direction, and hopefully, the other proposal by President Putin—to go for a UN Security Council five permanent members summit—would follow, and address then the really urgent global issues. But it’s a building process. I think the more people are discussing solutions the better, so let’s hope it works in a positive direction.

Moscow Academic Economic Forum

Schlanger: It’s significant in the buildup to the summit, that you were invited to deliver an address to an important conference online in Russia in the last few days. What was the conference, and what was the topic you addressed?

Zepp-LaRouche: This was the Moscow Academic Economic Forum, actually a very big conference. Many of the important businessmen, financial institutions, and top politicians participated in it. We have not yet fully evaluated the many panels, because it was a huge conference.

I was invited to a subsection which took place in the Financial University, and I spoke basically about the choices which are on the agenda: On the one side the Great Reset, the idea to impose alternative energies globally, to redirect all financing into “green” financing; as compared to the need to build up the economy of the developing countries, which is more the road of China, the Belt and Road Initiative.

I discussed the economic principle of my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, who very importantly developed the idea that there is a direct connection between the energy-flux density used in production processes, and the potential relative population density which can be carried by each level of energy-flux density. In other words that if you go only to wind and solar and hydropower, then the population potential is very low, because the energy flux-density is very low.

And obviously, this is the hidden implication of the Green Deal and the Green New Deal, that with it goes—even if it’s not discussed—not only an increase in the prices of energy, and therefore a complete collapse of the living standard of many people who simply cannot afford energy or many other things any more, but also the danger of leading to social chaos in the industrialized countries that already are extremely tense in the aftermath of the pandemic, the lockdowns, a lot of loss of jobs. So if you now go for the Green Deal, you create havoc and deindustrialize the so-called “advanced sector.”

But for the developing countries, it would be absolutely catastrophic, because it would simply mean that there is no development. It would mean basically cementing the poverty, the underdevelopment, and under the present conditions of pandemic and world famine, it would mean a massive depopulation. And that, in my view, is what some of the Malthusians who are pushing the Great Reset would not be unhappy about, because they think the world is overpopulated anyway.

So this is a very dangerous development. And I thought that in response to my speech, there were quite different reactions—some people being on board with the Green Deal, simply because they made the argument: “Well what should we do? The EU set the rules, so we have to react;” but others understanding quite well that this is not in affinity with the laws of the physical economy and the requirements of the population.

The Russians and the Chinese do not have the same model of anthropogenic climate change—they have a much more balanced view, looking at all the different aspects of it, including motions in the Solar System, and oscillations in the astronomical developments. So they have generally a much clearer, more scientific orientation than many of the ideologues in the West.

Danger of the German Green Party

Schlanger: Speaking of “ideologues in the West,” given what’s going on in Germany, it would seem to be very useful if you were invited to address some of these similar kinds of forums at German universities. Because what we’re seeing now is the lineup of the Greens who may end up in the government, as a war party, in addition to their continued commitment to deindustrialization. What are the latest developments that you’ve been following?

Zepp-LaRouche: The Greens have completely unmasked themselves. Out of a party of green hippies knitting socks, and wearing jute clothing of environment-friendly textiles, they have transformed into a war party. This started really with Joschka Fischer, who agreed when he was in the government in 1999 with the bombing against Yugoslavia. And if you look at [Green Party co-chairs today, Annalena] Baerbock and [Robert] Habeck, you can actually see: Baerbock was in a virtual conference with the Atlantic Council recently and afterwards the Atlantic Council wrote a very telling headline: “Atlantic Council, Baerbock in Synch with Joe Biden.” And indeed, she said everything which is really on the confrontation [track] with Russia, with China, taking a harder stand against those two countries, being in complete synch with the confrontation. So that’s really very clear, and I think people are slowly waking up to that.

That was reinforced when Habeck, the so-called Number 2, who just went to Ukraine. He met with President [Volodymyr] Zelensky, and then, from Ukraine, basically said it’s completely understandable that Ukraine wants to have lethal weapons, they have the right to have defensive weapons.

First of all, in the German Grundgesetz [Basic Law], but even in the program of the Greens, it says very clearly there should be no weapons exports to crisis areas, or countries where there are wars, which clearly is the case for Ukraine. And for Habeck to not recognize that this government in Ukraine is a very, very mixed bag to say the least. The coup in 2014 was sponsored by the State Department, with Victoria Nuland bragging about it quite shamelessly. And Nazi groups were in it, which are still integrated into the parliament, in the government, in the army. If you supply weapons to that government, you are arming the Nazis for a war against Russia—which is quite an incredible thing. There is really no such thing as “defensive weapons,” because almost any weapon can be turned into an offensive weapon under certain circumstances.

But this has caused quite an uproar. Even within the Green party there are people now questioning this confrontational course. But the thing with Baerbock is, she has been groomed. Think about it. How come all of a sudden, at the point that the financial system is bankrupt, and there is a danger of a hyperinflationary blowout of the system, which is being talked about quite a lot, the financial oligarchy wants to postpone the collapse by redirecting investments by the trillions. They’re talking about maybe $60 or maybe $100 trillion over the next several years, investing in green investment only—leaving out all fossil-related industries—which is a gigantic bubble, a new bubble which is supposed to make the upper part of the speculators rich and the poor, poorer.

But just at a moment when such a grand scheme is being launched for the United States, for the EU, for London, for some Asian countries, at that point, they pull out of the hat a Green chancellor candidate who fits that program to the dot, who says exactly what is needed to go along with this larger scheme. Now, that is not a miracle: she has been groomed by the World Economic Forum; she was in the Young Leaders program; she has connections to the British and the American establishment—so she is really a puppet of that oligarchy which is trying to impose this green dictatorship. She is just fitting that scheme completely.

And if you look at the program of the Greens for Africa: green energy only—that fits exactly what Mark Carney, as we mentioned last time—Mark Carney is pushing with his carbon offset market, whereby the Africans are supposed to sign contracts that they will not develop their resources, not develop industry and agriculture, even turn arable land back into forests, in order to keep the carbon emissions very low; and then the Western firms, which have emissions, can buy this offset from the Africans—which means, the underdevelopment of the developing countries—Africa is supposed to be cemented forever!

This is the open, naked reintroduction of colonialism, and it is quite telling that Richard Moore, the Chief of MI6, Her Majesty’s foreign intelligence agency, came out and said they regard the policing of “climate sinners” as their most important job. So you not only have the reintroduction of colonialism, you already have the colonialist police to make sure that the rules are followed.

This is so blatant, that one can only wish that people would start to think about these things, because normally this passes by. It’s a complete scandal.

Scientists Present Truthful Climate Science

Schlanger: In contrast with this there was a very significant event in Italy, which is part of an ongoing series: Italian scientists who had put out a statement in 2019, “There Is No Climate Emergency,” are beginning a series of debates—I don’t know if anyone’s willing to debate them—but this just took place the other day, where they’re taking on the fake science. What can you say about that?

Zepp-LaRouche: This was an initiative which was launched already in 2019. It was in the beginning 500 climate scientists who wrote an appeal to the EU, to the Italian government, to the United Nations, showing that there is no climate emergency. They now want to have a series of such virtual debates about the actual science for the theses of climate change. And they very strongly make the point that the anthropogenic part of the climate change is negligible, that it is such a tiny amount that you can forget it. As I mentioned earlier, the astronomical oscillations which have been going on for as long as planet Earth has existed – namely, that you have for example, a 1,000-year cycle, which is completely left out of the present calculations of the IPCC; that you have, alternatively, ice ages and warming periods; and that these measurements have to be taken far more seriously.

So, they want to have a debate about it, and I think that is absolutely a good idea. In the meantime, their letter has been signed by 800 other scientists. Meanwhile, a new debate is erupting inside the United States and in European countries, where people from the climate science field realize that if they don’t speak up now, then based on this fraudulent science, all these financial schemes will be implemented, and the damage will be gigantic. This is a very welcome initiative and any climate scientist who hears this should join it.

Regime-Change in Russia, China

Schlanger: Getting back to the war threat, we see a continued escalation from the United States and NATO against Russia, in this case using Belarus as the entry point, with the demands for massive new sanctions. And again, creating a fraud, the Atlantic Council saying there’s no question that in bringing this plane down, Belarus was aided by Russia. And then they admit, there’s no circumstantial evidence for this, but it had to be the case. They won’t give up on this Russia question, will they?

Zepp-LaRouche: No, because their policy is regime-change against Putin, and regime-change against Xi Jinping. The Atlantic Council published an incredible 85-page paper in late January, “The Longer Telegram: Toward a New American China Strategy,” openly calling for the opposition in the Chinese Communist Party leadership against Xi Jinping to topple him and replace him with somebody more agreeable to submitting to the unipolar world defined by Washington.

Now, the same policy against Russia which they pushed with the Navalny affair, and now obviously, they’re using Roman Protasevich, a so-called blogger, who was famously taken off the plane. Now, this guy is not just a simple “journalist”: You have to remember that [Belarus President Alexander] Lukashenko charged at the time that there was an attempt to kill him; that there was an attempt to create a coup in Belarus. He is now claiming that this guy, Protasevich, somehow was involved in these operations. If that is the case, then it’s a very serious charge, and obviously it requires an investigation and facts. But in the meantime, pictures have appeared of this so-called blogger, who in 2014 was in Ukraine, on the battlefield being trained by the Azov Battalion in bombardment, in killing civilians. He was there in full military uniform. This is part of the regime-change apparatus!

He also had been in the United States, where he apparently had meetings with the State Department. He was involved not only in the press work for the Azov Battalion, but also in the fundraising. Now, these are all very nebulous things, but there has been a policy of regime-change against Ukraine since 2013; since 2004 in Georgia. There were attempts in other East European states, all trying to replace neutral, or Moscow-friendly governments, with those that are part of the pushback, basically the idea being to topple the government of Russia.

None of what is happening is what’s being presented by the media, which are completely in synch with each other. And when I listen to the German media, whether it’s TV or radio, it is really hair-raising, because there is not one news item that does not have spin. We have been following these matters from many angles, trying to get a realistic picture, but they’re really a brainwashing operation, trying to portray China and Russia as the enemies. It’s extremely dangerous.

I have to say, Ursula von der Leyen as the President of the European Commission is part of this! She just said that they will give €3 billion in EU money to the opposition in Belarus, hoping for a “democratic transition.” She is fully part of the regime-change operation! How is it her business to decide who should be the government of any country? She is not—I mean, this is really incredible!

I think the question of sovereignty is such a precious good, that I can only say that this EU is really violating all principles of the UN Charter.

Swiss Stand Up for Their Sovereignty

Schlanger: Also going to the issue of the EU, there have been negotiations under way with Switzerland, and the Swiss just walked out. What were they contesting there? What was the issue?

Zepp-LaRouche: This is a very good example where even a small country, when they decide to fight for their sovereignty, can do it. There is a big upset right now, but the Swiss were worried that if they agreed to the negotiations, all kinds of guidelines would be imposed on them which would increase prices and force them to cut wages. The very high wages in Switzerland attract a lot of foreign, high-skilled labor, and that is part of the productivity of the Swiss economy.

Concerned that they would lose their sovereign self-government, they broke off these negotiations. I think it’s excellent. It gives a very good example that a country which stands up, can really accomplish something. The Swiss have a very interesting constitution, but they also have many referendums—they will have one in three weeks on CO₂ emissions and prices.

But they also have the influence of Wilhelm Tell, who was an historic Swiss citizen, but more importantly, the drama Wilhelm Tell written by Friedrich Schiller, which is all about the question of sovereignty. The Wilhelm Tell narrative coming out of this drama by Schiller has an even higher influence in Switzerland, than the historical figure of Wilhelm Tell. As you know, the Rütli Oath in Wilhelm Tell is very similar to the Declaration of Independence in the United States.

At the crucial moment that they declare the Rütli Oath, the people say that there is a lawfulness, a natural law hanging in the stars, and that that lawfulness is something you can appeal to, which helps to defeat the tyrant. It says, “No, there is a limit to the tyrant’s power.” It’s a very beautiful, little oath, and if you compare the Rütli Oath with the Declaration of Independence, it is very clear that Schiller was inspired by the Declaration of Independence, and it came to excellent use. And as you can see, it’s working into the present.

U.S. Hoarding COVID Vaccine

Schlanger: These kinds of legends and stories actually help shape a national culture. I want to get to the question of what’s going on with the COVID vaccinations. WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros has been talking about this in the last several days. The U.S. is continuing to hoard vaccines when they’re drastically needed around the world. Give us a quick update on this.

Zepp-LaRouche: Dr. Tedros in a recent appeal expressed horror at the fact that some countries are hoarding vaccines. As a matter of fact, I think the U.S. has more than 100 million doses, maybe more than that, sitting in warehouses not being used, while the situation in many countries, almost every developing country, but especially countries in Latin America—Brazil, Peru. India, the neighbors of India, and many African countries are in dire need, such that, even if the full production program of all the different pharmaceutical companies continue, by September there will be only 10% of the world population vaccinated. That’s really not a lot.

Dr. Tedros said that people have to realize that it is absolutely wrong to vaccinate young children, who have a low risk of becoming seriously sick through the coronavirus, when even the healthcare workers in the developing countries, who are at high risk, are not being vaccinated!

So, I think there must be a rethinking, and this is why we keep pushing the idea of the world health system, because unless people understand that this pandemic—and coming pandemics of which Tedros and many other experts are warning—unless and until every country has a modern healthcare system, this pandemic will not be defeated, and it will come back. And the big danger is that variants, mutations, will develop which will make the original vaccines obsolete—and then we would be in a real crisis.

That is why people should join the Committee for the Coincidence of Opposites, and the Schiller Institute, and help us to fight for such a change. Because a life in Mali or in Haiti, or in any other country, is as holy and sacred as a life in the United States, in Germany or in any other country on the globe.

Upcoming Schiller Institute Conference

Schlanger: The themes we’ve been discussing today, the strategic situation, the war danger, the insanity of the Green New Deal, and just what you’ve brought up now, the need for a world healthcare system—these will be the main topics of an upcoming Schiller Institute conference on June 26-27, which we’re building as an effort to create an anti-Malthusian opposition. What’s the latest on this conference?

Zepp-LaRouche: First of all, we will address, as a very urgent question, the danger of a hyperinflationary blowout of the financial system. It is now becoming very clear that this relentless money pumping, QE, injection of large so-called “recovery” programs, stimulus programs, which all went into building the financial bubble and not into physical economic investments, is now starting to show with very high inflation rates. The Bank of England ridiculously called this a “transitory hyperinflation.” This is like calling a woman “a little bit pregnant.”

Once you start this process, you end up like Germany in 1923: A hyperinflationary blowout, and we are on that road. So that will be discussed, as well as, naturally, the solution to that: A global Glass-Steagall banking separation, in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt; and the full program, a New Bretton Woods, but also the issues we’ve talked about in this last half-hour.

So you should mark the dates, June 26-27. Make sure you register and participate. [See the conference announcement elsewhere in this issue.] Become active—help us. The Schiller Institute is a very important voice in the world and is recognized as such in many important venues. Join us in expanding the extension of that power even more broadly. The mainstream media are all going in the opposite direction.

Schlanger: And as Helga said earlier, you can join the Schiller institute. Share these webcast videos. Go to The LaRouche Organization website and get your friends involved, get the pamphlet, “The Great Leap Backward: LaRouche Crushes the ‘Green New Deal’ Fraud” which exposes in great detail the Green New Deal and also presents the alternative.

So Helga, thank you. We’ve covered a lot today. We’ll see you sometime next week!

Zepp-LaRouche: Till next week.