JASON ROSS: Hello!
Thank you for joining us.
This is our regular Friday webcast at LaRouchePAC.com.
A special welcome to our new viewers!
This is our weekly roundup, where we discuss
the state of the world and our best options
for changing it.
I'm your host this week, Jason Ross.
We'll be joined in this episode by two special
guests, two leaders of the LaRouche movement.
We'll be hearing from Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche,
the President of the Schiller Institute, wife
of Lyndon LaRouche, joining us from Germany;
and by Diane Sare, who is a leader of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, joining us
from the greater New York area.
Mrs. LaRouche has recently returned from a
successful trip to China, about which we will
hear more very soon.
To situate today's discussion, let me briefly
discuss some of the major developments on
the subject of warfare and on economy.
On the war front, Obama is now engaged in
a second war in Libya, again without Congressional
authorization or a UN mandate.
He is saying that he's attacking ISIS, which
was not a problem in Libya, prior to his disastrous
war there earlier and his attacks in Syria,
creating an unlivable situation in the entire
region.
Meanwhile, as Russia is collaborating with
Syrian Armed Forces for retaking Aleppo from
precisely such types of terrorists, this is
being denounced by the media in the West as
"Russian meddling to prop up," as they always
put it, "the Assad regime," as they say "in
Syria."
It's part of a broader orientation towards
warfare with Russia, to prevent a new paradigm
from taking the world.
As we've seen with the recent release of the
28 pages of the Joint Congressional Inquiry
into 9/11, the Bush and Obama administrations
have been covering up for almost a decade
and a half now, Saudi Arabia involvement in
9/11, Saudi support for that attack.
In light of this being known now, the wars
in Iraq and other places, seem even more cynical
and more oriented towards geo-politics, since
we know what the real situation was, regarding
9/11.
And briefly on the economy: As a recent series
of "stress tests," as they call them in Europe,
have shown, leading European banks are ready
to collapse.
This was not really a secret before the stress
tests, but now it's being discussed more openly,
leading to a growing chorus of economists
and others, calling for precisely the kinds
of measures that the LaRouches have been advocating,
namely, an end of the universal banking model,
and a return to a Glass-Steagall type separation
between commercial and investment banking.
This is not to be seen as a banking reform
in itself, but to make it possible to use
the banking sector for real economic recovery.
Briefly on the U.S. election: I can say that
Lyndon LaRouche's assessment, in the past
couple of days, is that the system is finished;
that there is no solution in the game that
the American and European elites are trying
to play; that the financial sector has to
be cancelled in large part, cleaned up, as
Roosevelt did.
Neither of these two candidates are winning
in the United States.
At most, the only success they can achieve,
would be to cause doom.
Hillary Clinton?
A stooge for Obama; is going to push for increasing
warfare, as expressed by her policy of her
campaign team right now.
What's needed instead, is a bulwark of positive
ideas of what we ought to do.
Let's bring in our special guest Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
Thank you for joining us tonight, Helga!
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes.
Hello!
ROSS: As we can see in some pictures to display
for you now, Helga has just returned from
a trip to China, where she was a participant
in this year's G-20 process, specifically
with her participation in the T-20 Summit,
the "Think 20" Summit, which was being held
as a prelude to the Heads of State G-20 Summit
coming up in early September.
As you can see, Helga was one of the panelists
at this discussion forum.
In your speech there, Helga, you pointed out
that the G-20 is the most powerful combination
of nations on the planet, having a unique
and appropriate forum to discuss the existential
challenges facing civilization.
You called upon the world "to take up a new
paradigm that can lay the basis for the next
100 years of the human species and beyond,"
and pointed to the New Silk Road being led
by China, as an "expression of that vision."
You called for that to be coupled with projects
"to have the optimal impact on the cognitive
powers of the populations of the respective
countries, to facilitate the best possible
increase in the productivity of the world
economy," such as through "crash programs
for the development of thermonuclear fusion
power."
So, Helga, could you please tell us about
your participation in the T-20 forum, about
the responses of others to your initiatives
and discussions?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: This coming G-20 meeting, beginning
of September, which will be sponsored by China,
will take place in Hangzhou, is coming at
an extremely important moment.
That was also expressed by many of the participants,
representatives of different think-tanks from
mainly Asia, Europe, Australia, Japan, South
Africa, other places, India.
People were expressing, to different degrees,
an awareness of the fact that you have an
absolute coincidence of many crises, and that
therefore the fact that China is the one which
is designing this G-20 meeting, if there's
anybody who can come up with a positive approach,
it is China.
At least that's what I would also say was
confirmed by the different speeches.
One goal the Chinese expressed, for example,
was to move the G-20 process away from crisis-reaction,
to a more doable global governance structure.
In other words, bring the world in such a
shape that you're not just running away from
one crisis to the next, like the response
to 2008 � the financial crisis � or other
crises.
I think that this will be very difficult to
accomplish, because to move away from crisis-reaction,
to a more global governance, a new relation
among nations in the world, would require
that the trans-Atlantic countries � the
Europeans and the United States � would
be willing to look at why is the world so
much in disorder.
There was actually quite upsetness [sic] and
heated presentations by some of the participants,
pointing to the fact that you have an unprecedented
coincidence of crises.
The Eurozone, after the Brexit, is on the
way of disintegration.
Other countries may follow the example of
Great Britain, leaving the EU.
There was much awareness of the fact that
the 2008 financial crisis was never really
remedied, and that we are now in front of
a new crisis, which some participants, more
privately, said they fear would be much, much
worse than that of 2008.
Then, terrorism out of control, especially
in France, in Germany, in Belgium; the whole
refugee crisis; the coup [attempt] in Turkey,
which had just taken place shortly before.
Generally, there were many people expressing
complete outrage, or dismay, about the fact
that there is such a strong anti-globalist/globalization
movement, the rise of populist movements.
They were really upset.
They said this is bringing everything in[to]
question, what we've been working for.
But what I thought was the most striking,
is that these same speakers who were expressing
quite an outrage about all of this, totally
lacked the ability to make the right analysis
and diagnosis of why is the world order so
completely out of whack and out of order.
While people were reacting to all of these
phenomena, there was a complete lack, at least
on the side of most Europeans and most Asians
other than, let's say, the Chinese, to investigate
what are the wrong beliefs, what are the wrong
assumptions.
If there's not even a question of asking why
we have this accumulation of crises, then,
naturally, they can't come to decisions, and
they can't come to the correct perspective
of remedy.
The Chinese said many things which were very
useful.
For example, they put a lot of emphasis on
that we have to bring the world economy on
an innovation basis; that everybody must join
in the fruits of innovation, as the only basis
for "sustainable" development.
But the Chinese gave this word a new meaning,
and that no one must be left behind; that
also the developing countries should have
immediate access to the fruits of innovation.
That is, naturally, a very good approach,
which however I don't think will be shared
by all the participants from Europe, or, potentially,
even the United States.
I think it was a very important meeting.
There is some hope, because I think China
has a clear sense that you need a new paradigm.
But everything will really depend on will
the Europeans, in time, be able to reflect
on why is the EU disintegrating; why do [we
have] all of these problems, including the
non-performing debt?
There was a lot of talk about the Italian
financial crisis.
Will the Europeans be willing to correct their
erroneous views?
I did not see much [of this] demonstrated
at this meeting, but we will see.
It's less than four weeks until this Summit
will take place.
One thing is for sure: the crises will get
more acute as the days pass.
ROSS: It seems that there was, from what you're
saying, an understanding among the people,
that there is a serious financial crisis in
the works.
Could you say more about the contrast between
the view of China, and the view of other leaders,
that you saw at this Summit?
What more does the world need to learn from
China?
What are some of the blocks that you're seeing,
in terms of people's abilities to understand
things?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think the Chinese approach
is the only one on the table to overcome geo-politics.
The Chinese new model of relations among nations,
is reflected in many different aspects.
One of them being what they call the "One
Road, One Belt" initiative, which, for Western
ears sounds a little bit funny, but that's
how they call the New Silk Road perspective,
domestically in China.
That has, very clearly, the idea of a "win-win"
cooperation.
They are inviting every country on the planet
to cooperate in these projects.
They want to work with the European nations.
They want to work with the United States.
They want to invite all developing countries.
And they explicitly do not have a geo-political
confrontation [policy] of "China vs. the United
States," or "China vs. the West," but they
want to be inclusive.
It's very interesting, that one of the speakers
� actually the professor who gave the final
speech � explicitly said that this is a
Confucian idea; that if you want to have benefit,
you have to make sure that the other one has
a benefit as well.
That is actually what can constitute a harmonious
development among different nations of the
world.
I think that the idea of inclusiveness, of
overcoming geo-politics with a win-win cooperation
for the extension of the New Silk Road to
every corner of the world; the idea of having
an innovation-based approach, where everybody
can share the benefits, especially developing
countries, so that their development is not
being held off � I think these are all extremely
useful conceptions, which I think are in real
stark contrast to the kind of United States
being the only one setting the rules; sticking
to the unipolar world, which, obviously, means
confrontation in many parts of the world.
I must say that, unfortunately, some of the
Europeans, especially the Germans, were all
on this green-economy perspective, which really
is a British policy, because it goes back
to a paper which was published by Hans Joachim
Schellnhuber, who is a leading energy advisor
of the Merkel government, who published in
2011 this paper about the great transformation
of the world economy; requesting the de-carbonization
of the world economy.
And Schellnhuber had said that the carrying
capacity of the world would only be 1 billion.
Now, what to do with the other 6 billion people
living on the planet is obviously a question
he didn't want to answer; but there is such
a thing as the correlation between the energy
flux density used in the production process
and the number of people which can be maintained.
This is one of the key principles of the physical
economy as it was developed by my husband,
Mr. Lyndon LaRouche.
Therefore, if you want to go to only very
low energy flux densities like solar and wind
� renewable energies � but without nuclear,
which is what the German government has decided
to do; that is terrible.
So, I think that the conflict between ideology
and reality clearly was visible in this conference
as well.
ROSS: You're mentioning the economic conceptions
of your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, whose ideas
are becoming increasingly well known in China.
You're also quite well known in China, and
I know that while you were at the conference,
there were some interviews that took place;
I think we can show on the screen one of these
interviews that was with the Beijing Reviewwhich
was just published in yesterday's edition.
Could you tell us, what is the interest in
China in your activities, in the LaRouche
outlook?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, first of all, the ideas
of my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, have been
studied by many scholars since at least the
'90s; maybe even earlier.
There are quite a number of scholars who have
gone in depth into the question of physical
economy, of studying the whole question of
physical economy going back to Leibniz, going
back to Friedrich List, Henry C Carey.
Friedrich List is one of, if not the most
known economist in China.
I think these scholars have recognized from
a very early time, the affinity between what
they call the Chinese economic model and the
ideas of Mr. LaRouche.
I personally was in China many times since
the '90s; because we had promoted at that
time the question of the Eurasian Land-Bridge,
the New Silk Road.
Which at that time was declared to be a long-term
strategy of China until the year 2010; but
then the Asia crisis intervened.
George Soros speculated against the currencies
of the Asian nations, bringing them down by
80% in one week in the cases of Malaysia and
Indonesia and so forth.
So this whole process was interrupted; but
now, it's fully back on the agenda in the
form of the New Silk Road/Maritime Silk Road
initiative which was announced by Xi Jinping
in 2013.
This initiative is now the most dynamic policy
on the whole planet; because more than 70
countries have joined already in different
infrastructure projects, high-tech cooperation.
It is expected that by the end of the year,
about 100 nations will cooperate with this
new economic model, which is not only infrastructure,
R&D, high-tech projects; but also has developed
an entire parallel banking system in the form
of the AIIB, the Asia Infrastructure Investment
Bank, the New Development Bank of the BRICS,
the Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road
Fund.
And all of these banking institutions obviously
function completely differently; they're not
oriented towards a casino economy, but they're
oriented towards infrastructure financing,
and therefore are really the kind of industrial
banking, or financing of agriculture and other
projects of the real economy, which unfortunately
the trans-Atlantic sector has completely abandoned
� especially since the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Therefore, it's now a very important lifeboat
in case of the collapse of the financial system
of the trans-Atlantic sector; which may happen
sooner than most people think is possible.
The good news is you have this parallel, or
as the Chinese would say, this complementary
banking system; so it's not completely without
hope that the Europeans and the United States
could associate with this system, if the non-sustainability
of the present system becomes obvious � which
could happen at any moment.
ROSS: It's interesting, while the Germans
are bringing this deadly Green ideology to
China, at the same time you were in China
there was a conference in Hannover marking
the 300th anniversary of the passing of the
great German thinker Gottfried Leibniz.
And a number of Chinese scholars participated,
and some of their themes were on the relationship
between Confucianism and Leibniz's outlook
on world affairs.
The theme of the overall conference, as stated
by one of the Chinese-born main speakers,
was about how concern for others is the necessary
outlook to have in life.
Let me ask just one more question about the
G-20; and then I want to ask you about Deutsche
Bank.
Do you see that this is the kind of forum
that can be effective in making these sorts
of policies a reality?
In other words, is the G-20 a sort of discussion
group that can make headway on getting these
policies implemented?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I don't know.
As I said, it is the present organization
of the most powerful nations.
Naturally, there were also some representatives
from some smaller countries who were expressing
that they did not feel totally represented
by this combination of the G-20; and it remains
a big question.
I think the Chinese will have the best intentions
to bring in a New Paradigm; to address the
questions from the standpoint of moving mankind
into a new era at a point of utmost peril.
But I don't know if this format will be suitable
to accomplish that, given the fact that it's
one thing to have nice summits and obviously
it is important to have them; but the real
questions are decided in what will happen
to the financial crisis.
As I said, to turn the G-20 process from crisis
reaction to a more stable perspective for
the entire human species would require that
the Europeans and the Americans are willing
to address the fact that their financial system
is bankrupt; and implement Glass-Steagall.
Get rid of the non-performing debt; stop the
casino economy � what we have proposed.
Fortunately, there is some motion for Glass-Steagall
in the United States and also in some European
countries; but presently the G-7 governments
are not expressing a willingness to do so,
so that will create a real conflict.
Naturally, on other issues which you mentioned
in your introduction, the conflict between
the United States and Russia in Syria and
over the question of who is a terrorist and
who not; these are question which will be
decided outside of the framework of the G-20
summit, which only deals with economics and
financial matters.
Even if these other issues naturally impact
the financial system.
I think it will be very important to mobilize
the populations of Europe and the United States
to recognize that we have to move into a New
Paradigm of international cooperation.
Because the problems which are facing mankind
right now are so big, that I don't think � if
you don't come to a solution which is inclusive
� we have to move from geopolitical confrontation
to the common aims of mankind; such as fighting
I think the G-20 probably will say something
useful in terms of addressing overcoming hunger
and poverty.
From various discussions I had, I think there
will be such an agenda; but will it be realized?
Because it means to get rid of $2 quadrillion
in outstanding derivatives.
So, will these nice words be accompanied by
the actions which will make it possible?
Which is ending this present system of globalization
based on high-risk speculation; that is the
crucial question.
So, therefore, I think we should not sit there
and wait to see what happens, but we have
to mobilize the populations in the respective
countries in the United States and European
nations to make sure that the existing solutions
are being implemented.
Such as the Four Laws defined by Mr. LaRouche.
Immediately, Glass-Steagall is the first step;
then move to a credit system in the tradition
of Alexander Hamilton; then go to a science
driver based on space cooperation and colonization;
and create a new international credit system
to facilitate the kinds of projects defined
in the New Silk Road.
I think we have to mobilize the population
to get active; because this is not a moment
to sit on the fence and just watch what these
so-called "elites" do, because this was another
thing that came up in various forms.
That the populations have lost trust in these
elites representing this globalization system.
Therefore, the responsibility to remedy the
situation must shift to those who have concepts
of how to get out of the situation.
Which is what we are doing in New York with
the Manhattan Project, what the international
Schiller Institute is doing; but I think we
need your support � you, who are watching
us right now.
I want to appeal to you, to get active with
us to help to implement these solutions.
ROSS: Good!
Thank you very much for joining us, Helga.
I really appreciate your time.
Now, we're going to be hearing from Diane
Sare, a leader of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee and the founding director of the
Schiller Institute New York City Community
Chorus.
So, thanks for being with us, Diane.
Hello.
Let me start by asking you to help our viewers
understand how to approach the context of
the election; how we can shape what the United
States does, which in many ways, many people
think that the election is the most important
way to shape that.
But in reflecting on what Helga had discussed
about the potential for the G-20 to have ideas
about eliminating hunger, poverty; but where
will the ability to take on the derivatives
bubble come from?
And where will the ability to stop the push
of geopolitics and war come from?
The US is really essential to change that.
Let me ask you if you could share with us
what is your assessment, what is Mr. LaRouche's
assessment about the selection, about Hillary
Clinton, about the threat of war in particular?
DIANE SARE: Well, the so-called election is
really a fraud.
I think what Helga Zepp-LaRouche has just
outlined is the major "game in town" to put
it in American lingo; and the truth of the
matter is that the major player in world politics
today is Vladimir Putin.
It is not Obama; it is not the United States,
although we are, I'm afraid, a deadly menace
because we have the wrong policies.
What we've been discussing recently here in
Manhattan, because Manhattan in a sense is
the center of this electoral process; both
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are based
in this area.
Both of them are highly destructive individuals;
and Americans should simply not fall into
the trap that they somehow have to choose
between one or the other.
In fact, we heard recently that only 9% of
the American population have indeed voted
for one of them; so you have 91% of the population
whose "vote" is for neither.
That in and of itself is not sufficient; we
have to actually identify the root of this
evil, and we have to put the solutions on
the table.
ROSS: Well, the Four Laws is something we've
been discussing in this broadcast today; that
history isn't made only through opposing things.
In mid-2014, LaRouche had issued this policy
document on "The Four Laws to Save the USA
Now".
Let me read a concluding section of this,
and then ask you to comment on this.
LaRouche ends: "Mankind's progress, as measured
rather simply as a species, is expressed typically
in the rising power of the principle of human
life over the abilities of animal life generally;
and relatively absolute superiority over the
powers of non-living processes to achieve
within mankind's willful intervention that
intended effect."
He says, "Progress exists so only under a
continuing progressive increase of the productive
and related powers of the human species.
That progress defines the absolute distinction
of the human species from all others presently
known to us.
A government of people based on a policy of
zero population growth and per capita standard
of human life, is a moral and practical abomination."
He concludes saying a fusion economy is "the
presently urgent next step and standard for
man's gains of power within the Solar System
and later, beyond."
That's how he concludes this document that
opens with some of the necessary steps: Glass-Steagall;
national banking; Federal credit; a commitment
to a fusion driver.
And he puts this all in the context of what
economic value means to the human species.
So, I was wondering, Diane, could you say
more?
How do you see the purpose, the nature of
the human individual and the relation of that
to economy?
SARE: Well, I think the key is as Alexander
Hamilton, his understanding; and Lyndon LaRouche
� I do think our viewers should really be
aware � is a great scientific thinker and
has made great unique contributions in this
field.
Specifically, the relationship of human creativity
to generating the conditions where a growing
population can have a higher standard of living
from one generation to the next.
What they understood is that the source of
wealth is not money; it's not property; it's
not even labor � we are not animals.
The source of wealth is the potential to make
a creative discovery which exists in the mind
of each human individual; which transforms
our relationship to the Universe and our power
over the Universe.
For any society to be just � and that I
think is the importance of Leibniz and the
relationship of Leibniz to the framers of
our Constitution; for a nation to be just,
it has to embody a commitment to that principle
of creativity in the individual citizen.
ROSS: You know, maybe Helga might actually
like to speak on this, too.
When these proposals get made, for example
the proposal by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche on having
an emergency recapitalization of Deutsche
Bank on condition that the role of that bank
would change in a different context of economic
activity.
Sometimes, some of our supporters have a very
difficult time believing Mr. LaRouche would
ever call for the helping of a bank as it
seems.
Would either of you like to say more about
that proposal and about what is the true role
of the banking sector in a productive economy?
Why would we need say, for example, Deutsche
Bank?
What role can banking play usefully?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we were all very surprised
at the waves of almost hatred came out when
we made this proposal.
People reacted in the strongest terms, saying
"Let them go bankrupt!
Why should we save this bank?
Or, why should we save any bank, for that
matter?"
Which naturally has to do with the fact that
the populations who have been victimized by
these policies for the last really decades,
but especially after the 2008 crisis; experience
that the rich becomes more rich, and that
the middle class vanishes � becomes poor;
and that the number of poor becomes bigger
and bigger, and their livelihood is being
eaten away.
People just have a sense to just get rid of
these banks.
But naturally, the question is, what happens
if you have an uncontrolled collapse?
That is what we are looking at right now;
where it's staring at us that you could have
right now a collapse of the system which would
create instant chaos.
And that chaos is probably as dangerous as
the danger of thermonuclear war; because once
you have a collapse of production, supply,
there is no food anymore in the store.
Which could happen if one of the "too big
to fail" banks would go bankrupt.
You have now so many mines, it's like a minefield
with a thousand possibilities to blow up.
The idea to have an orderly process of unwinding
these very complicated instruments � the
derivatives have so many counterparties that
you need an approach.
You need to have an approach to bring some
kind of orderly reorganization in this to
prevent a chaotic collapse.
We are not proposing to save Deutsche Bank
or any other bank for that matter, as they
are; but the idea is to put a control commission
or insolvency commission or some kind of administration
in there which does an orderly unwinding of
these outstanding debts and their complicated
involvements with many international contracts.
Nobody has an overview anymore about these
matters, not even the central banks have an
overview.
Then put a different business plan in such
a bank; the reason why we were referring to
Alfred Herrhausen, who was the last decent
industrial banker of Deutsche Bank, is because
you need to get people an idea of what we
are talking about.
There was once a different kind of banking
philosophy, namely that banks are not a thing
in themselves, but they should be the servants
of industry, and agriculture and trade.
Right now what you have is, the bankers think
they are the kings of Olympus; that they should
have bonuses of two to three digit million
sums every year.
For what?
I cannot see that they do any work which is
productive; but they somehow have developed
that they should have all of this wealth and
bonuses and millions.
And that the effects of their policies should
be discounted.
But there was once an idea of banking � in
Germany it was such bankers as Herman Abs;
the postwar reconstruction period which contributed
to the economic miracle of Germany in the
postwar period.
Or Alfred Herrhausen, who had the idea that
banking must provide for the well being of
the people; that the idea of giving credit
is to promote the productive part of the economy
and to further productive relations among
different nations.
That is what we have to get back to; but people
have such a short memory that nowadays people
have no memory of how it was.
How was the Franklin D Roosevelt Reconstruction
Finance Corporation, which was exactly such
a mechanism, that you have a certain state
role in providing for the productive capacities
of labor.
That was also the philosophy in the reconstruction
of Germany after the Second World War; and
Herman Abs and Alfred Herrhausen are the kinds
of bankers who should be a role model, because
banking is necessary.
You have to have some kind of distribution
of credit lines, because we have to reconstruct
the real economy; so the idea to just close
down the banks is an impulse which is understandable,
but it does not address the problem.
Because we have to rebuild the economy, we
have to have a banking system where credit
lines are given for those kinds of things
for which you would invest if the economy
would be in good shape.
You have to have physical principles, you
have to have the idea that these credit lines
should increase the productivity of the industrial
capacities and the labor power.
We have a gigantic job of education to do,
because the dumbing down of the labor force
as part of the general population has become
such a crucial factor.
That you have many people, who maybe they
can write and read comics, but they are functionally
illiterate from the standpoint of comprehending
difficult texts or difficult physical conceptions
of the economy.
There are many people in the youth age who,
from the standpoint of industry, are completely
unemployable.
What you need is a kind of approach like the
CCC program of FDR; where you have training
programs.
You have to increase that creativity in the
population which makes them want to know new
things; to be part of an innovation-based
economy.
Which is why I was emphasizing the Chinese;
fortunately, they have this idea.
They put an enormous amount on the best qualification
of their youth, their students.
They have the idea of not using up old industries
from the so-called West; but they want to
leap frog always to most advanced technology.
They have an enormous emphasis on the development
of thermonuclear fusion power of other advanced
scientists.
And among the scientist community, there is
a general understanding; if you want to get
something done in science, go to China.
It's no longer go the United States or go
to Europe; and that has everything to do with
the Green policies and these ideological policies,
which have more to do with control rather
than promoting excellence or scientific progress.
So, I think that the idea of going back to
the paradigm of Alfred Herrhausen is much
more a pedagogical device; because you have
to get people to understand that banking is
necessary, but it must be based on completely
different principles.
SARE: I'd just like to follow up with what
Helga said in terms of the US elections and
people's hatred for Hillary Clinton; which
is similar to their hatred for bailing out
banks, although in the case of Hillary, they're
more correct than they might realize.
We just had here, as people know, the Democratic
Party convention; where even in the somewhat
scrubbed coverage that you saw, you could
see huge numbers of people who were frowning,
scowling, who had signs up about not having
a war � "Walk the Walk".
There's a great deal of anger at Hillary Clinton.
People perceive her correctly as a stooge
of Wall Street; as she identified herself
last year, when one of my associates � Daniel
Burke � asked her at a meeting whether she
would support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
She refused to answer.
Mr. LaRouche said that was the beginning of
her disintegration; although it was not the
beginning of her becoming a stooge, of selling
her soul to the Devil, so to speak, and her
decision to work with Obama.
I just want to fill this out, because there's
not a difference between someone who would
support these criminal bail-outs and bonuses
that Helga was talking about for these bankers,
these speculators who have destroyed the entire
trans-Atlantic economy and the living standards
of all the people here; but also those who
are pushing war.
In the recent days, several of Hillary's spokespeople
have come out calling for the overthrow of
Assad explicitly.
She herself has commented that she knows for
a fact that Vladimir Putin is somehow behind
the hacking of the emails among the Democratic
National Committee.
How she knows that, what her evidence is,
I have no idea.
She has not been forthcoming on it.
There's an op-ed in the New York Times today
titled "Spooks for Hillary", written by Michael
Morell, who describes himself as a 33-year
career CIA operative.
In fact, he was the Deputy Director during
the September 11th attacks.
First of all, that in and of itself I would
say, is a complete indictment of his own powers
of morality and judgment; because as we know
from the 28 pages that were just recently
released, both the CIA and FBI had quite intimate
knowledge of the activities of the people
who became the hijackers on that day.
They were tracking many of them two and three
years before the September 11th attacks; and
they decided not to pursue these leads, because
Saudi Arabia was an ally of the United States.
So, first of all, who would want to be publicly
associated with such criminal agencies and
brag about that as if that gives them any
kind of authority?
Then, he goes on to say that the reason he's
endorsing Hillary is because "Mrs. Clinton
was an early advocate of the raid that brought
bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some
of her most important colleagues on the National
Security Council.
During the early debates about how we should
respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a
strong proponent of a more aggressive approach.
When some wanted to delay the bin Laden raid
by one day because of the White House Correspondents'
Dinner, she said 'Screw the White House Correspondents'
Dinner!'|"
So according to this CIA careerist, who presumably
was involved in the cover-up of the Saudi
role in 9/11 and the activities of the hijackers
going into this, Hillary Clinton is the qualified
candidate.
Then he goes on to attack Vladimir Putin and
says Putin is manipulating Donald Trump.
It's outrageous.
Seymour Hersh has exposed the Osama bin Laden
[inaud; 47:36] as a complete media-video-public
relations stunt done by Barack Obama; where
the location of Osama bin Laden was revealed
by a Pakistani physician who wanted to get
the reward that was being offered by the US
State Department.
So, they had all of the details of his whereabouts;
the security was taken down so we could march
in and film the capture and killing of Osama
bin Laden.
And Barack Obama could take credit for it.
So, you have Hillary Clinton on record as
backing that premeditated assassination of
Osama bin Laden; you have her on record giggling
after Qaddafi was killed, saying "We came;
we saw; he died" or whatever it was.
This is a form of pure evil; it's a terrible
sell-out of the American people.
And it is actually a cover for Obama continuing
his war policy now; which you referenced at
the beginning of this discussion � the new
war in Libya.
Where apparently, Obama gave a speech yesterday,
claiming that the United States is conducting
the most precise air campaign ever waged.
We're invited by a Libyan government that
has not even been officially confirmed by
its own parliamentary rules.
This is a war that has not been approved by
Congress; and Obama is engaging in this against
our Constitution.
You then had the questions of who we're supporting
in Syria; the alleged "moderate" Syrian rebels,
one group of which that we are claiming to
be an ally � this al-Zenki group, who just
decapitated a 12-year old and filmed it.
And now it's been found that they used poison
gas in an area; and when our State Department
spokesman, Mark Toner was asked about this
and whether we would continue to provide funds
to what I would class a terrorist organization,
he said well, one incident here and there
doesn't necessarily make you a terrorist group.
So, if you're using chemicals to exterminate
groups of people, or beheading children, don't
worry; you most like will not lose your funding
from the US State Department.
This is what Hillary Clinton actually represents.
What Mr. LaRouche further stressed � which
I think is the important question for Americans
and the viewers � is we have to look at
what action created Obama.
How do we get the Obama Presidency?
What was the role of the British monarchy,
through certain of Her Majesty's creatures
like George Soros; the Jew who claimed that
the high point of his life was working for
the Nazis in Hungary, taking all of people's
possessions as they got herded off to the
boxcars for the concentration camps?
People know that Soros played a major role
in funding the Obama campaign; he has given
Hillary Clinton's campaign millions of dollars,
and that would imply ownership of this.
I would just say that it is really high time
for the American people to stop going along
with these kinds of criminal policies.
There is an entirely New Paradigm out there
which is largely the creation, the work of
Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche has been the inspiration
of this.
The United States could choose to leave the
insanity of � frankly, the way the United
States is functioning, it's almost like we're
in a real live Pokemon Go game, which they're
calling an election.
We could actually step out of that and into
reality.
I would say that people should know that within
the next couple of days, we're going to be
launching a campaign here in Manhattan, producing
several thousand copies of a broadsheet which
will have the documentation on Hillary Clinton's
criminal background and her commitment to
a war drive against Russia and China; which
I think will have quite an impact here.
The material in that will be available on
the LaRouche PAC website very soon.
ROSS: I'd like to just ask Helga if you have
any other remarks you'd like to add?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think most people have
a sense that things are really getting out
of control.
That the coincidence of all these things happening
at the same time gives many people the feeling
that there's nothing one can do; that there's
an unbelievable process of disintegration
going on.
Naturally, if you look at the two candidates
of the United States, there is a rather perplexed
reaction in the rest of the world that the
United States should not have come up with
some better candidates.
The rest of the world looks at the European
Union and says the European Union is no longer
a model; it used to be a model of integration
for ASEAN, for Latin America, for the African
Union.
But no longer; the elites obviously can't
handle the situation that is credited by the
people and so forth.
So, while I could describe these symptoms
more, I would like actually to say that we
are in a moment which is really an extraordinary
moment in history.
At this T-20 conference, one Chinese speaker
said this is moment like 1989; referring to
the point when the Berlin Wall came down,
which was the prelude to the German reunification
and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
So, it's one of these monumental, apocryphal
moments in history, where it is impossible
to make a prediction.
We cannot responsibly tell you this will be
the outcome of this period of history.
All I can say is � and Jason, since you
mentioned Leibniz, who was an important influence
in the American Revolution, the Declaration
of Independence, the whole idea of the pursuit
of happiness goes back to Leibniz.
He said something which I think we should
think about, and that is that the nature of
human beings is such, and the nature of creation
is such, that when man is confronted with
a great evil, there is a capacity in him that
brings forth an even greater good.
I think it is very important that each of
becomes conscious about that; and you consciously
actualize that greater sense of good in yourself,
each of us in ourselves.
Because I am absolutely certain that the solutions
are at hand; it's not a reason to be desperate.
Because it would be relatively easy to implement
Glass-Steagall; you just have to move it from
the Glass-Steagall formulation in the platforms
of the Democratic and Republican Parties,
to move it into actuality.
And do a similar reform in Europe and then
have the United States and Europe join with
this parallel economic system which I described
before with the AIIB, the New Development
Bank, and so forth.
Then move to a New Paradigm; do what Franklin
D Roosevelt did with the New Deal, with the
Reconstruction Finance Corporation, with the
rebuilding of the economy in the '30s.
This can all be done today.
So, it's not that we are without solutions;
we have a clear perspective, because you have
all of these nations working together already
in different degrees on this "win-win" perspective
for a New Silk Road.
So, a lot depends upon the subjective; because
it's not that we have an objective breakdown
crisis, we have that.
But if the solutions which exist can be implemented
in time, really depends upon the moral quality
of the population; especially in the United
States and in Europe.
And since I believe there is this capacity
for the good in human beings, I appeal to
you; invoke that inside yourself.
Don't sit on the fence and watch history.
We are in an apocryphal change, which is probably
at least as big as the transformation from
the Middle Ages period to the new modern times.
We have to leave this present collapsing epoch
behind us and replace it with a New Paradigm
which is worthy of the dignity of man and
is the true character of human beings as being
beautiful potentially, as being creative,
as being loving.
The human being is potentially a genius; human
beings are good by nature, and just the fact
that today so many people are not good doesn't
say anything about the nature of man.
It says something about conditions which have
evoked the evil in people rather than promoting
the good.
I think history is not determined by objective
factors; we don't have what the Communists
used to call a "histo-mat" � historical
materialism � or "dia-mat" � dialectical
materialism.
I think that the subjective factor in history
is much more important, and many times really
decides it.
I want to say that both to give you confidence
about the nature of man; but also to appeal
to you to get active with us.
So, contact us and we will move mountains.
ROSS: Many opportunities to do good right
now.
Thank you both for joining us; and thank you,
viewers.
To find out more about these things, "The
Four Laws to Save the USA Now" � the document
by LaRouche as displayed during this webcast
� is available through a link in the video
description, and at lpac.co/four-laws.
Please subscribe to this channel if you haven't
already; "like" this video.
If you have questions or comments, leave them;
and donate to LaRouche PAC.
We rely entirely on the support of individuals
like you to finance our operations and to
achieve this victory.
So, help; let's win this one.
Thank you for joining us.
