HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. She’s the founder of the Schiller Institute and the convener of the weekly Zoom call of the International Peace Coalition. Today is April 29th, 2026. I’m Harley Schlanger and I’ll be your host. You can send your questions and comments for Helga via email to questions@schillerinstitute.org or post them on the chat page. Helga, the last days have been filled with developments of strategic significance, including the visit of the Malthusian King Charles to America, a peace initiative by the Iranian government, which included a meeting with President Putin, the resurfacing of the Epstein issue with the pending collapse of the Starmer government in the U.K., and news from Ukraine.
As your husband, Lyndon LaRouche, always insisted, the only way to understand such developments is not as things in themselves, but by examining the dynamics from the top down to get the big picture. And for that, we’re turning to you. Let’s begin with the disgusting spectacle of King Charles visiting America. To entreat the historic antagonism of the British Empire toward the American Revolution as a punch line or an ironic footnote is an insult to our founding fathers and an obvious effort to conceal the continuing efforts of the city of London to deploy U.S. military power and the war machine to defend against the collapse of the Anglo-American Empire. What’s your assessment of the King’s visit thus far with a speech yesterday to Congress, which included repeated reference to the unique relationship of Britain and the U.S. to “uphold democracy,” as our “shared responsibility”?
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: It was an amazing spectacle. I think there are several aspects to be noted. The most obvious one is that it was a blatant attempt to completely wipe out the memory of what the American Revolution was all about, that it was, after all, a war of independence against the British Empire. It was the first anti-colonial war in history. And the American Revolution established the young republic, defined by principles which Benjamin Franklin and the other Founding Fathers had basically gotten from republicans in Europe, such as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. And it was an attempt to establish a republic which only has legitimacy with the consent of the governed. And it has a Constitution which is devoted to the common good of the people, not only of the present, but also of future generations. It established the American System of political economy. It had so many revolutionary features when it occurred.
And what happened, or what was attempted to make happen with these two speeches, you know, you had the speech of King Charles in the Congress, but then you had earlier the speech of President Trump. I mean, what was basically attempted by both, one would guess, the speech writers of President Trump and Charles, was to wipe out any memory of what the American Revolution was all about; and completely replace it with what Trump unfortunately called the Anglo-American Revolution, as if this would be one piece, as if it would be a joint venture, when one was clearly directed against the other. It was an amazing effort to rush over that history in such a way that people would just forget about it.
Now, that was, I think, the first one. And the reason is obvious, because the American Revolution did set a precedent, in a certain sense, against empire. And that is obviously a memory which these people wanted to completely make people forget. So that was the first thing.
The second thing, obviously, was the absolutely amazing behavior of the U.S. Congress, except for a few generals who stayed seated a couple of times. But what you could see from the video, was that practically everybody on both sides of the aisle gave Charles a standing ovation, I think altogether 11 times, clapping and praising him through their attitude. How can American patriots, when they hear such a complete distortion of American history, stand up and give this guy a standing ovation?
I mean, I think this is one reason why the movement of independent candidates, led by Diane Sare, is so absolutely crucial, because all of these Congressmen, and -women for that matter, should be voted out as a complete disgrace to the principles on which America was founded.
Then there is another element which I think some British patriotic-minded people pointed out, and that is the fact that the King, according to the British Constitution, is not supposed to give political speeches. He gave a very political speech. He praised the Ukraine war. He praised practically, despite the conflict Trump has with Starmer, nevertheless, praised the special relationship in face of all kinds of adversaries. So in a certain sense, it depends now how the British patriots, if there are enough of those left, react to that. But this potentially could create a constitutional crisis, because according to the British Constitution, the Prime Minister and the Parliament are supposed to set policy. And the monarch, who is not accountable, because it’s an inherited monarchy, cannot make such political speeches.
So I think that that is a minefield in several respects. And if people wanted to take an issue on it, on the three points I mentioned, they have plenty of opportunity to do so. Obviously, I think President Trump has obviously no understanding of history. That was already clear when he attended this big dinner in Buckingham Palace when he visited Great Britain, when he praised all the philosophers of the British Enlightenment, against whom explicitly the American Revolution was made. So he has obviously no sense of that. And that would unfortunately explain why he is doing certain things he has been doing recently. So I think it was a travesty. And obviously, it’s up to American patriots to remedy this disaster.
SCHLANGER: Well, on this last point you made, one analyst asked if you think the timing of Charles’ visit is related to the collapse of the Starmer government as a result of the Epstein-Mandelson exposure, with the King feeling the necessity to step in above his constitutional mandate because of the collapse of the Starmer government. An example of this was Charles’ reference to what he called the unique relationship of the Atlantic partnership in defending Ukraine. Specifically, he referred to the U.K. rallying support for the U.S. after 9/11, with British support for invoking Article 5 of NATO to defeat terrorism.
Here’s what he said: “Today, Mr. Speaker, that same unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and our most courageous people. It is needed in order to secure a truly just and lasting peace.” Do you think this reflects an intent to invoke Article 5 today?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I thought it was very interesting that he called 9/11 a defining moment in American history. Now, you can read that in several ways. You can, on the one side, take the official narrative that this was bin Laden and al-Qaeda, whatnot. But if you think about it, my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, had warned, I think, nine months before 9/11 happened, on the 3rd of January, 2001, that because of the miserable condition of the financial system, the incoming Bush administration would attempt to create a new Reichstag fire as a pretext to implement measures which they thought otherwise were not easy to implement. And then, indeed, nine months later, 9/11 occurred. And it was the defining moment in American history insofar as it gave a pretext to implement the Patriot Act, which basically took away a lot of civil rights inside the United States. And it put the United States on a certain war footing in respect to foreign policy. The so-called war on terror, which gave them a pretext for the interventionist wars; and we have seen the disaster which they caused in every country where this policy was implemented.
But it is also interesting that Peter Thiel called 9/11 a defining moment in history. And when you read his text, it’s very clear that it refers to the Straussian idea—and Carl Schmitt naturally, the architect of the Reichstag’s fire laws—that only he who controls the crisis has real power. Now, that is an utterly fascist concept. And I find it quite interesting that the same interpretation of 9/11 is given by King Charles and the crowd from Silicon Valley, who, you could argue, represent a new version of fascism. The blatant mixture of the extreme oligarchical form, namely that it is totally OK to be a billionaire aiming to become a trillionaire at the same time when the income and the well-being of billions of people are being slashed—typical Schachtian economics. So I think people should really look at these speeches and not forget history. Because if you do, then you are not forced to repeat history as a farce, as some people said, but as a worse tragedy than the first one was.
SCHLANGER: Now, another correspondent mentioned the hypocrisy of Charles’ expression of concern over growing economic hardships for many of his subjects, while praising the biggest increase in defense spending in history. He boasted about the cooperation between British and American military contractors in building F-35s, submarines for AUKUS, and spoke highly of the new economic and tech agreement that was signed when President Trump went to London. Another contact noted the Congressmen wildly cheering, which you mentioned before, like they did for Netanyahu, and asked the question, “Where are the real American patriots when we need them?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yeah, that is the $64 million question. Where are the real American patriots? I think the Diane Sare presidential campaign and the congressional campaign of Jose Vega, plus a growing number of other independent candidates, really represent the hope. Because normally it was said that in America, no independent candidate can have success because of the party system. But I think the way things are going, the world is heading towards a new depression. The livelihood of American citizens is more and more in danger.
So we are seven months away from the midterm election, and then obviously the Presidential election following two years afterwards. I think in this period, the growth of a real independent candidates’ movement is absolutely possible, but it’s also extremely mandatory because as we see, what some people call the Deep State, or the permanent bureaucracy, seems to be all powerful in their control over both parties. And if you look at what happened to President Trump in about one year, he started off by saying he wants to be a peace President; he never wants to enter new wars. He wants to end all wars. He bragged that he would end the Ukraine war in 24 hours even before he was President.
Now if you look at where we are, he threatened to end an entire civilization, meaning the Persian civilization, even though he didn’t name it like that, but he meant it. He meant Iran, actually. He has used incredible language to motivate and apologize for his war policy, which could bring the world to World War III. It is obviously the fact that the permanent bureaucracy has taken over the Trump administration completely. I mean, where is the difference between what the Pentagon vote was at the end of the Biden administration, who thought that it was 50% likely that these policies could lead to a nuclear war, and that that was acceptable; and what Trump is doing now? I mean, OK, there is a certain difference in style, a certain difference in personality between Biden, who was pretty old when he left office, but what Trump is now doing, raving around. In essence, it’s the same thing. It’s still the same confrontation against Russia, against China, against the Global South, and the idea of maintaining U.S. hegemony no matter what. So the essence of the policy has not changed one iota.
So that means American patriots obviously are not in a good place in either the Democratic or the Republican Party. And the MAGA movement probably is disintegrating anyway because of what Trump is doing. So it is the moment for independent candidates to really rise and unite and take the American Revolution back, because if it’s sold out the way it was sold out by the Congress yesterday, I mean, any red-blooded American patriot should really feel a noble impetus to support these independent candidates.
SCHLANGER: You’re listening to Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute. We have a couple more questions on the Trump and Charles meeting. Both of them spoke of the shared “political and cultural heritage of the British Enlightenment and its influence on the Founding Fathers.” You, in contrast, have repeatedly emphasized that the ideas enshrined in the U.S. Constitution are diametrically opposed to those which come from the Magna Carta, for example, or British philosophical thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Bentham. And I’m using the term philosophical as an exaggeration. But a supporter from Pakistan wrote in and asked, if you could explain, “What is the concise difference you could give between British philosophical radicalism and the Leibnizian philosophy of the Founding Fathers?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I mean, first of all, the British Enlightenment has an image of man where basically man is defined as a beast. For example, the Leviathan, it’s the idea that because man is evil, that you need to have a strong state which suppresses the evil impulses of the citizens. Now, that goes along with the philosophy which was expressed by Joseph de Maistre, who argued that it’s only the monarchs who are good, only the high nobility which is born noble, and all the common people are beasts and criminals and therefore must be contained by a strong state.
Now, that’s an oligarchical cover story for the rule they want to implement. It’s not the reality. This is in total contrast to the idea of a republic influenced by Leibniz as expressed in the American Constitution and actually the Declaration of Independence, which has the idea of life, liberty, and happiness as compared to the property notion of Locke and Hobbes. So the happiness idea is not what you would call “being happy,” like people are using that word today in a completely banalized way. Don’t think, be happy. But happiness, according to Leibniz, meant the idea that every human being has the inalienable right for happiness in his life, meaning that you can develop and unfold all the potentials which are embedded in you when you are born as a child. And happiness means that you have the right to have a life, to unfold all your great potentials and contribute to the common good with your life. Now, that is a completely fundamentally different idea. One is a republic where all citizens are born equal and have the same constitutional rights, as compared to the British model, which is the idea of an inherited monarchy. Why would these people be anything different than the other ones? The very idea that you have nobility, that you have high nobility, and even monarchs, is so absolutely ridiculous. It’s an idea which should have been gotten rid of a long time ago. The American Revolution was a very good attempt to do so.
But the British Empire has worked meticulously for 250 years now to undo that very American Revolution. And unfortunately, I have to say, this speech by Charles in the Congress was a crowning success of that effort. I mean, Charles referred to his grand-grand-grand-something grandfather, George III. He had the nerve to call it the tale of the two Georges, which is ridiculous all by itself. But George III, we should not forget, lost his marbles. He went crazy over the loss of the American colony because they regarded it as their crown jewel. And he really went crazy over that fact. The British then continued to try to undo the American Revolution for the whole time. They first tried it with the War of 1812. Then when that failed, the British Empire allied with the Confederacy against Lincoln in the Civil War. This was a blatant effort to undo the American Revolution. And when that failed, they realized that it was militarily not possible to undo that development. And then they shifted policy and said, we have to obviously influence the establishment. And we have to convince the American elite to adopt the special relationship between the British and the Americans as the so-called special relationship to convince the Americans to run the world as an unipolar world based on the model of the British Empire. That was the idea. This was very openly expressed in an article by H.G. Wells, the Open Conspiracy article, which says exactly that very, very clearly. That the only way to remedy the American Revolution is to convince the American establishment to adopt the British model; and that’s what they succeeded in doing.
And you had certain deviations from that. Franklin D. Roosevelt naturally was one. John F. Kennedy was another one. And unfortunately, Roosevelt died at an unfortunate moment when the Anglophile Truman got into the Presidency and allied with Churchill. And that unfortunately influenced a lot of the post-World War II world order. Then Kennedy was definitely going in a different direction, and he got assassinated. So I think that the whole history of the United States, I mean, this is the 250th anniversary. And we planned from the LaRouche organization and the Sare campaign, we planned several major events; a huge concert, I think, in September, other events. We have a beautiful calendar out, which you can order via our website. You should read this calendar. It was made by Lynne Speed. And it gives an absolute account of what were the real issues of the 250th anniversary. And unfortunately, the celebration, which is planned by President Trump, again, has nothing to do with the real American Revolution. It’s a travesty.
But the year is not over yet, so American patriots still have time to rally around the flag of the American Revolution.
SCHLANGER: Well, a good place to start is the LaRouche Organization website and also the Schiller Institute website. Let’s just shift for a moment to the war against Iran. What do you think about the visit by Iran’s Foreign Minister, Araghchi, to first Pakistan, then Oman, and then to Russia, where Putin spoke of his admiration for the resilience of the Iranian population? While it seems, in contrast, there is a fracturing of the pro-war networks, including in the United States and Israel. What more can be done to bring the opponents of the war in Iran into the streets to put an end to this travesty?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think we are still in absolute danger because there are several experts who are warning that a new military attack against Iran could happen anytime soon. And President Trump has said that he wants to keep the Strait of Hormuz closed for the indefinite future. Now, that is threatening to throw the world even deeper into an economic crisis, even a global depression, which would have incredible dangers for millions of people who may not survive this. So I think there are ample reasons to reflect. I mean, one thing which I think is very clear, this is now more than two months since the attack started. None of the goals of Trump have been fulfilled. There is no regime change. There is no dismantling of the policies of Iran at all.
On the other side, the failure of the United States to even win against the middle-sized power is evident. I mean, I think there is a rethinking about what is America’s military power. I mean, the CIPRI Peace Institute in Sweden a couple of days ago announced that the world has spent $2.9 trillion on weapons. This is a record high ever spent on militarization. Now, just think with almost $3 trillion, what good could you do in terms of defeating poverty, getting good health systems everywhere, getting schools in order, education? I mean, it’s so mind-boggling that the world has reached this point of using all of these weapons, which are essentially a destruction of physical assets.
Now, the situation is basically such that the United States has not succeeded in the war. Now, that is not exactly increasing the reputation of the United States’ military strength. Look at what the Gulf states’ situation is. You know, there is a complete re-evaluation. OPEC is falling apart as one consequence. Then you have several countries who are really rethinking what the value is of U.S. military bases in their countries when that just makes them be attacked in case of a war without having the benefit of any American defense of them? You know, I mean, that is a blatant result, and I think it will have, maybe not in one day, but I think in a couple of months, the consequence of this will be shown.
So I think it’s very clear that this paradigm failed. And what we are proposing is to really put what we call the Extended Oasis Plan on the table, which is the idea to completely change the situation. I mean, look also at the situation of Israel. The former head of Mossad just made a warning that what is happening in the West Bank is a repetition not only of what happened in Gaza, but he says this reminds him of the Holocaust. I mean, this is a former Mossad head. And he says this is an existential threat to the existence of Israel. Now, this is not coming from some anti-Semite lefty, you know, what would be immediately the characterization of some so-called Democrats. This is the judgment of one of the former intelligence services of Israel itself.
So what we are proposing is to change the entire paradigm and put on the table the Extended Oasis Plan, which is the idea to not only create new fresh water sources through a system of canals and irrigation for Israel and Palestine, but to take the entire region of Southwest Asia, in which many countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen are all in terrible condition as a result of previous interventionist wars. And to develop these countries as one integrated economic space through economic development corridors, connecting Asia with Africa and Europe in the tradition of the ancient Silk Road.
And I think that that idea, to completely change the paradigm and create a future for all countries involved, is gaining increasing traction among many people because if you continue with the present course of action, it could blow up the whole world and bring misery throughout the whole world, either militarily or economically. So if you agree with our Extended Oasis Plan, then you should join us.
SCHLANGER: And you can see a video on the Oasis Plan, a new video that’s up on The LaRouche Organization website. Helga, I want to finish with two quick questions on Europe. The first one, “Is there any support in Germany for the proposal from the likes of German Defense Minister Pistorius for a doubling of the size of the Bundeswehr?”
And secondly, “Will the collapse of Germany’s auto production be reversed by spending for tanks and anti-aircraft systems? Do the Germans not take seriously talk in Russia of targeting the military production sites, providing weapons for Ukraine?”
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I’m really unnerved by what is going on in Germany, because there is in the population a mixture between desperation and disagreement. But that does not reflect itself in the public media or in what politicians say. This new militarization plan for Germany, I mean, Pistorius really wants to put the army up to, I think, altogether 460,000. This includes reservists. I think this is against the 2+4 Treaty, because when German unification happened, this 2+4 Treaty was signed. And it limits the total number of troops Germany is supposed to have. And I think this number goes above it. So theoretically, the countries who signed the 2+4 Treaty could undo German unification. I would not be surprised if there would be big support for that idea in East Germany, because people in East Germany may have had one idea of what the peaceful revolution in ’89 was supposed to accomplish; but then they had the experience of what they regard now as a colonization of East Germany. And they feel that their entire history has been wiped out. So I could very well imagine that there are many people in East Germany who would not feel so badly if the German unification would be undone as a result of it.
SCHLANGER: Well, we have the International Peace Coalition Zoom call coming up on Friday morning, 11 AM Eastern time. This has been a center of discussion of key activists and intellectuals. And it’s become, I think, the launching point also of the independent candidates’ movement you’ve mentioned earlier. What’s the plan for this Friday?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, we want to continue the discussion from last week, where basically we absolutely have to have a paradigm shift in the direction of a new development perspective for the Middle East. We want to have the idea of a new security and development architecture which, given the fact that the old order is disintegrating in front of our eyes, NATO is falling apart, the Middle East is falling apart, the EU is internally completely fragmented. So the need to have a new security and development order, which especially puts up the right of the Global South as an equal partner, is the most urgent question on the table. So that will be a big topic of discussion.
SCHLANGER: And who knows, there may be more things coming out on the whole Epstein revelations. I watched the parliamentary debate this morning from the attacks on Starmer. And there’s obviously something big going on in Britain, which has a lot to do with King Charles’ visit here.
So Helga, thanks for your time today and your insights. And we’ll see you on Friday.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I hope so.
