Webcast Dialogue with Schiller Institute Founder and Chairwoman Helga Zepp-LaRouche
Thursday, October 3, 2024
HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute. It’s Thursday, October 3, 2024. I’m Harley Schlanger and I’ll be your host today. You can send us your questions and comments by email to questions@schillerinstitute.org or post them to the chat page.
Today is October 3, 2024: In Germany it is Tag der Deutschen Einheit or German Unity Day, and we’ll get to that in a minute, Helga, as you can provide a true expert’s assessment of what happened 34 years ago, and how a great opportunity was lost at that time. But to begin, we have several questions from viewers who are responding to your warning over the last few weeks that we’re headed toward a possible World War III, especially given the escalation of fighting that’s going on now in Southwest Asia, the so-called “Middle East.” The common question is: Are we already in World War III? If not, what can be done to prevent it? And one who asked these also asked: “Why is the U.S. establishment cheering on Israel, when it should be evident that Netanyahu’s goal is to bring the United States into this war against Iran?”
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: That’s a very good question, because I think we are heading step-by-step closer to World War III, and I think the newest development, that there was an Israeli attack on the Russian military base in Latakia in Syria, after supposedly an Iranian plane had landed there, shows you that our warnings have not been exaggerated in the slightest. Because if you now have an effort to attack a Russian base in the Middle East. I mean, we are getting very, very close that other powers, nuclear powers are getting drawn into this conflict and many, many experts in different countries are all saying the obvious things: Namely, that Netanyahu is clearly betting on being able to draw the United States into a fight against Iran. Biden yesterday was asked if the United States would agree with an Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities in Iran, and Biden said, “No.” But the escalation scenario is already clearly there. You would have an Israeli counterstrike against maybe the Iran oilfields, oil refineries; then Iran would retaliate against that against Israel, and then Israeli would hit the nuclear facilities of Iran, because the whole propaganda of a whole wing of war-hawks has been that Iran is now very close to having its own nuclear bomb, maybe one or two weeks away. That’s very difficult to estimate, but Israel has nuclear weapons. And I think we are that close to such an explosion.
Now, if the Russian military base in Syria is attacked, that shows you how a slight escalation can really bring about the involvement of the other nuclear powers, if the escalation continues.
So, we are close to World War III, there is no question. The only question is, why is the United States not stopping Israel, because it’s very obvious that the United States is the only power which could do that. The United States has, since the attack by Hamas on Israel on Oct. 7, a year ago, very rapidly afterwards built up a military presence in the whole region, in the Mediterranean, in the Gulf; there are several aircraft carrier groups, actually, with destroyers and other warships in the region, obviously, as a deterrent—I’m saying “deterrent” in quotes—against Iran. But basically, this creates a situation where Israel feels they can do whatever they want, because the United States is not stopping them. As a matter of fact, very recently the United States provided them with a very large amount of money for weapons purchases.
I think the only thing in my view which can be done, is that the whole world speaks out against this danger. I think the peace movement, in all countries, in the United States, in Europe, must get into the streets. There was just a demonstration in Berlin, with anywhere between 20-30,000 people. That’s good, but it’s by far not enough to present the powerful message needed. I think the countries of the Global South must speak out, urgently, because if it comes to a nuclear war, everybody will be involved. And while the scientific debate may not be completely settled, whether a global nuclear war would be followed by a nuclear winter, the radioactive fallout would be sufficient to kill all human beings, and probably much of life at all on the planet.
So, we are really playing with an incredible threat to the existence of humanity, and I think everybody—countries of the Global South, the peace movement in the West—must become stronger and stronger very, very rapidly, because I think we are really incredibly in danger.
SCHLANGER: You’re listening to Helga Zepp-LaRouche: She has initiated a weekly meeting on Fridays of the International Peace Coalition. If you can join, it’s at 11 a.m. Eastern Time [17:00 CET]. It’s been growing in importance, because the people who are coming to have their voices heard.
Helga, we have an email from a viewer from Brighton, U.K., asking, why is the U.S. taking advice from the British on Ukraine? He’s referring to especially coverage in The Economist and in Financial Times. But he said, “We can’t even get our aircraft carriers out of drydock. Why should the U.S. listen to Starmer or Lammy?” referring to the prime minister and foreign secretary.
And related to that is a question from another viewer in the U.K. who asks: “Who is making the final decisions on Ukraine’s request to use U.S. and U.K. missiles to hit targets inside Russia?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think one has to look at the longer arc of history to understand why the United States is doing that, in listening to the British, again and again. And I think the answer is to be found, that when the American colonies fought the first war against colonialist suppression, namely, the British Empire, that has to be noted that the American Revolution was the first anti-colonial war! That is important to understand what can be done, today. Then, basically, the British Empire did not agree to that, and they tried with all means to undo that, first by military means in the War of 1812, the Civil War in which the British Empire allied with the Confederacy, and then eventually, when they realized the colony could not be reconquered by military means, there was a whole effort by the Fabian Society, by various other British outfits, to convince the American establishment that they should adopt the model of the British Empire for a common rule. H.G. Wells wrote about that in his book The Open Conspiracy, published in 1928, where this is described in great detail. And I think that that, if you look at how, for example, American Presidents have been wandering back to Great Britain—the Queen is dead now, but before, meeting with the Queen would be an adequate expression of political rule in the 20th and 21st centuries that you still have monarchies, where some people, the bluebloods, the aristocrats, believe that they are a higher species than ordinary human beings. That idea, that idea to belong to an oligarchical elite, I think that somehow that has gone into the idea of ruling the world based on the special Anglo-American relationship, and the idea of the “rules-based order,” which is basically an oligarchy that tries to maintain hegemony over all institutions in the world, which is clearly no longer possible, because we have reached a multipolarity a very long time ago.
So I think the tendency of the American elite to listen to the British is because it’s not alien to what their own intent is, and the British being more experienced over several centuries of colonialism, naturally they come up with the ideas again and again, for how to escalate. And right now, Starmer’s visit to the White House in Sept. 13, was just a recent expression that it is, again and again, the British who want to instigate the Americans to escalate in this war against Russia.
But it is in my view, a certain comfortable feeling with that arrangement of the special relationship, and that that provides a narrative for the unipolar world run by the Anglosphere. So I think that is something that can only be answered by more people becoming state citizens, by more people taking responsibility for what their countries do. But I think we are at one second before midnight.
SCHLANGER: And the second part of that question was: “Who’s making the final decision on Ukraine’s request to allow U.S. and U.K. missiles to be shot into Russia? That was stopped by Biden at the Sept. 13 meeting, and then again at the United Nations, but Blinken and others said it’s still on the table. So, who makes the final decision?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think it is this “collective Biden,” as he has been called recently, when it was clear that people in his immediate environment, including in the Democratic Party didn’t think he was fit to run again for President, so they basically put Kamala Harris in that position. But that naturally raises the big question, “Who is running the United States?” And that’s not just now, but since probably several years, and people have always answered that question, saying it’s the “deep state.” But I think it is the permanent bureaucracy, it is people who have been groomed to be in these positions. I think the elections are much less important than people think, because the idea of moving young leaders, of grooming people in positions and then making sure that they are there, especially in times of crisis, has been the name of the game for a long time. In France, it was called the Synarchy. In the United States, it is this permanent bureaucracy.
And there are fights: It seems that the military and the Pentagon have been the main reason why this decision was not cancelled, but at least postponed. But there are other people who are pushing ahead, and I think the State Department is in a very prominent role. So the final decision, I think unfortunately, it doesn’t seem to be the President.
SCHLANGER: I mentioned at the beginning that in Germany, today is the 34th anniversary of the reunification of Germany. You had an event yesterday, which is posted now on the Schiller Institute’s website and its YouTube channel: “Another Step Closer to Nuclear Armageddon—Germany Needs a New Security Architecture,” which had a very extraordinary panel and discussion. What are your thoughts on why this is such an important question?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: What we tried to do yesterday, and I can only urge you, our viewers and listeners, to go to this video, because it is very clear that Germany plays a very specific role. It was the view of such people like Ray McGovern and Scott Ritter already a long time ago, that if Germany would not go along with this present NATO war policy, it could not be done. Naturally, the present government shows absolutely no inclination to do anything different from what London and Washington are telling them, but that is why we had this extra program yesterday, because we had former Ambassador Jack Matlock, who was Ambassador in Moscow at the time of the end of the Cold War and the German reunification. He is an eyewitness, and he, indeed, spoke incredibly openly about what he thinks about the present politics. Then we had Ted Postol, who is in my view, the West’s leading expert, who gave a hair-raising presentation about what will be the effect of nuclear war on Germany. And then we had many other esteemed speakers from France and from Germany. Altogether, it was an extraordinary open, and really, the kind of discussion people cannot hear—I listened today to the speeches at the Berlin rally, which were very good. But what people need to know is what we presented yesterday: Because I’m absolutely sure that if people would really get a sensuous idea that if there is a nuclear war, Germany does not have a snowball’s chance in Hell. Pretty much instantly, it would evaporate. And I think that’s what people have to understand.
So, we discussed this, also from the standpoint of how could things go wrong so utterly quickly? Because only 34 years ago, today, there was the German reunification. That was naturally not the Fall of the Berlin Wall, which happened earlier on Nov. 9, 1989, but Oct. 3rd was the day of the official treaty which gave Germany de facto sovereignty. It’s written in the papers that Germany has received the right of sovereignty. But naturally that was never politically realized. And however, we proposed a solution at that time, which would have been the economic development basis for a peace order for the 21st century. We called it the Productive Triangle, at the time. This was proposed by my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche. And then, when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, we extended that to become the Eurasian Land-Bridge, which was the idea to connect the economic realm, the space of Europe, the population and industrial centers, with those of Asia, through economic development corridors. And we presented that to various governments. The only government which responded was China, and I would say, if you look at the Belt and Road Initiative and the New Silk Road today, you can find a lot of the original ideas in our proposals from 1991, or even 1989.
So we discussed it, that that was a tremendous chance! What Mr. Matlock illustrated was that there was no threat! The Soviet Union, in the last period, and then early Russia, were not a threat to the West. So it would have been very easy to create a peace order, and that chance was utterly destroyed by the really, ill-advised idea of expanding NATO to the East, for which there was no reason. Mr. Matlock said it was the East Europeans who demanded to be part of NATO. I know that many people are saying that, but from many, many interactions in Latvia, in Estonia, Poland, and other East European countries, I know that—I mean, sure, they have historical reasons in part—but the reason why this happened is because many of the leaders of these countries had their careers in exile, in Great Britain, in the United States, and then they came back and became presidents and ministers. And naturally, then everything fell into line with the demand for the expansion of NATO.
So, I think it’s a tragedy: Because you had the chance to create a peace order, to overcome the idea that you must solve conflict with war. And now, we are on the verge of World War III. So, I think it is legitimate, and actually urgent, to review what went wrong, and then draw the conclusions and try to rectify it, because it’s still possible. You know, the new world economic order which is emerging from the countries of the Global South and the BRICS, the only way how we will avoid World War III, is if we get Europe and the United States to stop the geopolitical confrontation and start to signal that they’re ready to cooperate. I don’t see any other way out of this crisis.
SCHLANGER: We have a follow-up on Germany. “The Greens and the Liberals [FDP] are in sharp decline in three recent state elections.” These are the other two parties that are part of the national government coalition with Scholz. And the questioner says, “They deserve to be in decline.” But in his view, the Christian Democrats [in the opposition] under Friedrich Merz seem to have similar policies on Ukraine and NATO and the European Union as the coalition, and they’ll never accept an alliance with either the Wagenknecht party [Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht] or the Alternative for Germany (AfD). It doesn’t look to me as though there’s a solution. But how did things get so messed up in Germany?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: [laughs] I think that’s a very good question. I think you have to go back, at minimum, 200 years to find the answer. Because, how could Germany, which was on the height of historical culture in terms of universal history, in the time of the German Classical period, how could it go down, first to the horror of the Nazi period, and then after a certain recovery after the Second World War, where Germany did progress in many respects, economically, politically, culturally, and now, being in the pit again?
That would require a whole long discussion: I think the cultural influence of the Romanticism, which started to destroy the Classical period, the pessimism of Schopenhauer, the youth movements before World War I, all of these were influences which eroded the German culture. But one should not forget that it was the Congress of Vienna, the order which was imposed by the international oligarchy; in a certain sense, the Liberation Wars had practically brought almost the unification of a nation-state, based on monarchy but a constitutional monarchy. But the Congress of Vienna never even brought that proposal on the table, which had actually been worked out by vom Stein, and Scharnhorst.
So there is always this international oligarchy. In the case of the Congress of Vienna, it was the British, Castlereagh; it was the French, Talleyrand. You know, there was actually a conspiracy to wipe out these ideas of the French Revolution, but more importantly the American Revolution, the ideas of 1789, against which the Conservative Revolution was organized. I wrote several articles about this, so if you want to read more about it, you can look into our archives.
And that was a big factor, but naturally, without the role of the British orchestrating the various conflicts before World War I, that would not have led to World War I, and then naturally, the Versailles Treaty was so unjust, and it created the precondition for World War II. And then the postwar occupation of the occupying powers and the kind of paradigm shift they deliberately induced via the Congress for Cultural Freedom. And then a lot of similar influences, such as the Club of Rome. So I can only touch upon these different influences, but we have researched this a lot, and it is important to study this, because I believe the only way Germany will ever get back to its positive traditions, is that we have to revive the knowledge about the most noble ideas: those in music, of Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms; in literature, of philosophy, Nikolaus of Cusa, Leibniz, Kepler; in literature, Lessing, Schiller, Goethe, Möricke, Heine. And in science, one can find similar great thinkers, Riemann, Gauss, Einstein: That has to be revived! We have produced so much as a people.
But we have been targetted, I think by the international oligarchy also, exactly for that reason. Because, Wilhelm von Humboldt, who was education minister for only a very short period of time, but who developed the Humboldt education system which was, and is, up to now, one of the best education systems in the world, because his idea was that every pupil should become a genius, every pupil should have a beautiful mind: If that had become the politically generally accepted idea, oligarchy would have disappeared.
So, I think the answer to your question is not simple, but one can find it, and one can act on it.
SCHLANGER: You’re listening to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute, and she knows what she’s talking about on this.
Helga, there’s sort of a tactical question from D—, who’s an activist in the peace movement. He asks, “Can the Schiller Institute draw up a list of the peace demonstrations for the U.S., the U.K., and Europe, and publicize these, so we can let people know?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we are doing that continuously. I can only repeat what Harley just said: Join the International Peace Coalition, which holds its next meeting tomorrow [11 a.m. ET] 5 o’clock Central European Time, because that is always where we discuss the most immediate dangers to world peace, and tomorrow you can be sure that we will have several top-ranking speakers on the crisis in the Middle East, and on the situation on Ukraine. And in the end, we always make a list of suggestions and I will gladly pick up on your proposal to discuss ahead of time, that we make proposals for what to do in the next period. Because I think that between now and the American election on Nov. 5, and then, depending on how that will go out, until the next President is in the White House—and naturally, even then the danger is not over—but I think the period between now and the U.S. election on Nov. 5, and then the new President getting into the White House, this is, in my view is the most dangerous period we’ve ever had in the entire history of mankind, and therefore, such a list of demonstrations is absolutely urgent.
SCHLANGER: And you can find the invitation to sign up with the International Peace Coalition and get the link to the Zoom call on the Schiller Institute IPC page.
We have one more question from a contact in Africa, who writes: “I really appreciate that you speak of the importance of the Global South and the BRICS, the importance of the Belt and Road Initiative to overcome the deliberate underdevelopment of the Global South. What do you think will happen at the BRICS summit, and why do you think Macron seems so interested in the BRICS and that French have asked to go there as observers?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, Mr. Macron obviously needs something, because his fortune in France is not looking so good, and if you look at his recent years in office, he always would go on some spectacular trip abroad, like he went to China some years ago, and he made a beautiful speech. And I already said: “Oh, wow. If he does that, what he promises there, it will really be a revolution.” And then our colleagues in France already warned me at that time, saying, “well, he’s very capable of making beautiful speeches, but let’s see what he does.” And unfortunately, there was no follow-up. And subsequently France has been kicked out of Western Africa, pretty much for good.
So I’m hesitant to put much hope into such announcements. He may not even be invited, for that matter.
But I think the Kazan BRICS summit will be of super importance, because that is the place where the now nine BRICS countries; there is a list of I believe 13 countries that will become new members, and another second row of countries that are seriously applying for membership.
So, it will definitely be a very strong demonstration that a new economic system is forming itself. I would not expect totally miracles from it, because, first of all, many of the BRICS countries are under enormous pressure and attacks, in the field of financial policy and monetary policy. But I’m also sure that it will be a demonstration that an alternative, based on the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence is emerging. And as I said before, we have to convince every country in the world that rather than fighting this new formation, it is a model for cooperation based on equality, noninterference in the other’s affairs, respect for the other social system, different cultures. So, I think it will be a very powerful intervention, because I can only imagine that the leaders of the BRICS, those countries that are already in the BRICS, will absolutely act together and provide the world with leadership, which unfortunately the West is lacking utterly at this point.
SCHLANGER: There’s a question we got from James H, who refers to what you said earlier about Israel’s having attacked a Russian base in Syria. And he says, in his view, Ukraine and Israel are linked in the global strategic warfare picture. Would you say something about that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Because it’s very clear that both Ukraine and Palestine-Israel have historic reasons for the conflicts, in many cases going back for decades. But the way this is playing out right now is not a regional affair, in each case, but it is part of the geopolitical confrontation between those countries that are allied in NATO and unfortunately the EU, which insist that their unipolar world order, their so-called “rules-based order” should remain the dominant dynamic in world politics. And this is directed against those countries that are perceived to be the leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, which is experiencing a renaissance in the form of the BRICS, the revival of the Bandung Spirit, and therefore, even though these two crises may look separate and different, if you look at who has an interest to promote conflict and who is being discarded as cannon fodder, it is very clearly linked.
SCHLANGER: As we mentioned earlier, we have the next meeting of the International Peace Coalition tomorrow, the Zoom call at 5 p.m. Central Europe Time; 11 a.m. Eastern Time. Any comments on that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It is really scary, and if you’re not scared, you’re not in the real world. All the leading experts we are working with at this point—such extraordinary commentators and activists as diplomats like Jack Matlock, Ted Postol, Scott Ritter, Ray McGovern. Yesterday, we had Rainer Rupp and Wolfgang Effenberger, Alain Corvez, and many other experts before in the IPC meetings: They all are convinced that we have to scare you even more, because the greatest danger right now is the complacency of the majority of the population, and the propaganda machine which is trying to tell you, “oh, there is no worry. Russia will not do anything. Putin is just bluffing. If he just upgraded Russia’s nuclear doctrine, don’t worry, the Russians are afraid to do anything”: This combination of complacent people, and lying political narratives, that is the greatest danger because they’re worse than sleepwalking into a potential Third World War—we are galloping into one! And some people have their eyes wide open, except they’re looking at their smartphone rather than at reality!
SCHLANGER: I think with that, it’s incumbent upon all of us to make sure that we’re logged in tomorrow for the IPC call. It’s at 11 a.m. Eastern Time in United States; 5 p.m. Central European Time. So, Helga, I’m looking forward to seeing you tomorrow.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, please join us.
