This transcript appears in the June 7, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche in
China: East-West Cooperation
Is the Only Way Forward
This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s May 30, 2019 New Paradigm webcast with the founder of the Schiller Institutes, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. A video of the webcast is available.
Mrs. Zepp-LaRouche recently returned from a ten-day trip to China, where she delivered a number of public presentations and had many private meetings. She submitted a paper to the Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, held May 15-16 in Beijing, and was invited to speak on the topic for ten minutes. Her paper, “The Highest Ideal of Mankind Is the Potential of the Future,” was been published as part of the Conference proceedings. See EIR Vol. 46, No. 21, May 31, 2019 for the full text.
William Jones: Hello everybody. My name is Bill Jones. I’m the Washington Bureau Chief for Executive Intelligence Review. Today is May 30th, and we’ll be talking with Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Hello Helga.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Hello!
Dialogue of Asian Civilizations
Jones: Let’s start with this trip to China that you just finished. You were a representative at the very important Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations, which had been called by President Xi Jinping, with representatives from all over the world. It was an idea, I think, that he had already in 2013, when he spoke at a security conference on Asia, that he wanted a conference on Asian civilizations and their importance. And it is only now that the first major conference of this type convened, and you were invited as a guest speaker. I’d like you to give us your impressions of the conference: Who attended, were other Western representatives there? And where do they want to go from here?
Zepp-LaRouche: This was a truly remarkable conference. What became very clear is that beginning with the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Belt and Road Forums number 1 and number 2—the first one I attended two years ago—Xi Jinping is creating a completely new paradigm of international relations. This time, at this conference, the focus was on Asian civilizations. Attending were mostly Asians, some heads of state and maybe other leading institutional people; but there were also some from European governments like the President of Greece, for example.
But the main focus was Asia, Asian civilization, and what came across is that the Asians right now are very proud. There were many presentations on the fact that many of the greatest of civilizations were in Asia, in China, in India, among other Asian great civilizations, and that people are very proud.
The presentations also brought out the beauty of their cultures, their optimism, an orientation to the future. In the two-day conference, there was not one speaker from Asia who expressed any negative or dark notes. Everybody was absolutely practicing the principle of relating to the best tradition of the other, of pointing to the fact that there is no conflict which cannot be solved through dialogue instead of confrontation.
I think this is an extremely promising road for the future of international relations. And I’m pretty sure, even though it was not mentioned explicitly, that more such conferences will follow, involving other continents, like Europe, like Africa, hopefully the Americas. So I think this was really a very exciting event.
There was a cultural event, the Dialogue of Asian Civilizations Carnival, which was truly impressive! They had artistic presentations from all the different Asian countries, and on the stage were, I would guess, maybe 20,000 people. The choreography was so well-tuned, and so well done, that anybody could really see that in Asia, there’s optimism; the Asians think that their century is on the rise. And it’s not just China rising, it’s really the entire Asian continent.
Coming from Europe, I must say, I cannot over-emphasize the absolute difference between the positive attitude, the optimism for the future that you find in Asia, compared to the dilemma of the European Union, for example, or even the mood of the population in the United States, which is very, very, far from having this kind of optimistic outlook on the future.
So I think the West would do better by learning a couple of things, because Asia is doing something right. I think they are carrying out values and virtues which we used to have in the Western countries from which we have strayed, and we are experiencing the consequences of that going away from our best traditions.
Jones: It really contrasts starkly with U.S.-China relations, where this trade dispute has unfortunately been escalated over the last few days, creating a tremendous amount of tension. So, on the one hand is Asian collaboration, the Asian dialogue; and on the Western side, is the dispute ostensibly about trade. Did this cast a shadow over the conference, and how did people react to that? And what is the impression now among Chinese with regard to the possibilities of creating a working relationship with the United States?
Zepp-LaRouche: I don’t think the conference as such was so much affected. In private discussions and other meetings I had, I was really quite amazed: What had started a couple of months ago as minor trade tariff quarrels, where Trump had said he wanted to “Make America Great Again,” some people thought these were protectionist tariffs. But I think it was clear to anybody who understands what is really going on, that these were never Hamiltonian-type policies. Trump may have intended one thing, but given the fact that he is in a very complex administration, and that the U.S. security forces in the meantime, have decided to declare China an enemy, an adversary, a rival, a competitor, or a combination of all of the above, this thing has escalated.
And while in the beginning, in the trade negotiations it looked like a solution would be possible,—at least this was expressed by the Chinese and also by President Trump—this thing has gone completely out of control. And when the trade talks failed, because, apparently U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, and maybe others, included conditions unacceptable to the Chinese, which conditions would have forced China to abandon its entire model of success. That, naturally, was completely unacceptable. It became very clear that the real issue here is not protection of jobs in the United States—that may be a sub-feature for Trump—but what is really behind this attack on Huawei and on other top-level technologies of China, is the effort to contain China, to prevent its rise, to make sure that China will never pass the United States.
I think this is, first of all, a futile effort, and secondly, very dangerous. You cannot contain a country of 1.4 billion people, whose government has set the policy obviously in the right direction; otherwise, you would not have the tremendous success of the 40 years of reform and opening up, whereby 800 million or so were lifted out of poverty. And now, the Chinese model is being looked at by the developing countries as a way to overcome their own underdevelopment. Therefore, the Belt and Road Forums showed an alliance, or rather, a partnership, of 150 nations and international organizations which are all committed to the New Silk Road Spirit.
Also, China, as well as many of the other Asian countries, has a 5,000-year history! China, for example, is very proud that they invented many, many things—from gunpowder, to porcelain, to silk, to book printing, long, long before the West.
So, the idea that you can contain a nation just because it’s not Western, is a completely absurd idea, and shows you just the stupidity of those people who are pushing now the “clash of civilizations” line of Samuel Huntington. Many years ago, when Huntington wrote The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, I tortured myself to read it, and I came to the conclusion that Samuel Huntington has no idea of any of the civilizations he was talking about: not of Christianity, not of Islam, not of Hinduism, nor Buddhism or Confucianism—he just is a very superficial geopolitician who tries to play on their differences.
And I think it was noted by many scholars, and also in the Chinese media, that this woman in the U.S. State Department, the Director of Policy Planning, Kiron Skinner, who made this unbelievable, racist comment that with China, the West and the United States in particular, is confronting for the first time, a “non-Caucasian” culture or civilization. This was noted very negatively that this is an effort to go back to the confrontationist policy of Samuel Huntington.
Two Opposing World Models
So, before the world today, are two completely opposing and competing models of international politics: one is the dialogue of civilizations, which is very attractive, because it brings benefit to all participating nations; and then you have the effort to maintain a unipolar world order, based on the Anglo-American alliance, de facto, bullying countries, which does not come across very well, as the reaction to the Huawei fight shows, where 170 nations are cooperating with Huawei, because it’s the better technology.
And I think this is really something which should be reversed, because it can only lead to a dangerous development for the entire world economy. There is even talk about a complete decoupling between the U.S. and Chinese economies, a Cold War, where two completely different economic blocs would form. This would be a catastrophe for the world economy, because the West is not in a condition to maintain that. But obviously, for China and everybody else, it would also be very dramatic.
Jones: Talking about the Huawei, it seems that this is much more serious than simply the trade dispute, because it attacks the very basis of China’s development, having made headway in some of the most advanced technologies in telecommunications. Attacking Huawei is attacking the very existential basis on which China has developed. So the potential cutoff of trade, of course, is a problem, but the attack on Huawei is an existential threat to China. It seems to me, if they move forward on this, and try to cut off Huawei—with which they in general may not succeed because it has already come so far in terms of its relationship—but, continuation of that attack would, I think, wreak serious long-term damage in U.S. China relations.
Now, President Trump has made an indication that this could be a part of the trade negotiations, that is, that the attacks on Huawei could be a part of negotiating where the Chinese can continue developing in that direction. But what you’re getting out of the State Department and out of the neo-cons, is that Huawei has got to be taken out of the way, because they cannot allow any country other than the United States to be a top dog in any technological field. And of course, not only is that an attack on China, but on every other country which wants to develop and wants to become the most important country in one or another field, which is the right of every nation.
So, how do you see things if this policy doesn’t change, if it isn’t shifted, how is this going to affect U.S.-China relationships in the long term?
The Nations Ask U.S. to Join In
Zepp-LaRouche: I think there are many voices expressing concern: One is Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad, who has just attended a conference in Tokyo on “The Future of Asia,” where he said that some political figures have adopted the approach, “if I’m not on top, I send warships.” This is neither negotiating nor competing. It instead had the potential to lead to military conflict.
And I think that there is no peaceful way—I mean, there have been 16 cases in history, where a second-tier country bypassed the then dominant country: 12 times it led to war; four times there was a peaceful accession to dominance by the rising country. But it should be clear to anybody that in the age of thermonuclear weapons, a conflict between the two largest economies—and China has not only a sizable nuclear force itself, but is also strategically extremely closely allied with Russia, which has made significant breakthroughs in military technology—I mean, this can only lead to the total catastrophe for all of mankind.
I think we need a chorus of people, institutions, countries, to all say: “China has made the offer to the West and to the United States repeatedly to join the Belt and Road Initiative, to have multilateral and bilateral cooperation between China and the United States, and also joint ventures in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia, in Europe; and so therefore the United States should accept this offer, and seize the enormous economic potential the Belt and Road Initiative represents for all mankind.”
Right now, I’m trying to get the idea around that more leaders should do what the President of Panama did, who said, Yes, Panama wants to cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative, but absolutely including the United States. Something similar to that was just said by the Prime Minister of Cambodia Hun Sen, who said that Cambodia is absolutely working with China, but the U.S. policy of the Indo-Pacific should not be opposed to the Belt and Road Initiative, but should be integrated, and there should be a joint development.
The more leaders from developing countries, from Europe, from other peace-loving people around the world who understand that this conflict should absolutely be de-escalated, who say, we work with China and the Belt and Road Initiative, but we emphatically invite the United States to be part of it, this geopolitical thinking, this zero-sum game thinking that if one wins the other one has to lose, can be overcome, and the world can go to a completely different paradigm: namely, that if you make the cake bigger by focussing on the joint programs for the future, everybody can win.
Opportunity for Good at the G20
And I think between now and the G20 Summit at the end of June, the more people who join in and demand that the United States become part of this Belt and Road Initiative, I think, the better. Because I think President Trump still talks about Xi Jinping as his “good friend,” and he does have a positive image of China, which he has expressed many times. So I think if we get to the G20 summit, where hopefully there will be also a summit between President Trump and President Xi Jinping, and maybe also President Putin, that if we meanwhile have a mobilization of the whole world’s population to say that we must have a new paradigm of international relations, we have a chance of overcoming this geopolitical outlook.
Jones: Signals from both sides indicate that there will be a meeting of President Trump and President Xi at the G20 meeting in Osaka, Japan on June 28-29. What do you think President Xi can do, what can he offer President Trump, consistent with maintaining the dignity of China, to get him off of this path of a trade war? What proposal do you think he could make that maybe could win the U.S. President over to another direction in policy towards China?
Trump Is Otherwise Quite Stuck
Zepp-LaRouche: If you look at the situation of President Trump in the United States—and we should talk about that a little bit later—he is quite stuck. On the one side, the Mueller report produced no evidence for any “collusion” with Russia, but that does not prevent Mueller from constantly keeping at it, and even calling on the Democrats more or less to go for impeachment. Then the Democrats, joining in that. Obviously, if you have that going on, then the possibility of a joint infrastructure program for the United States, the chances of getting any kind of financing for it, appear almost non-existent.
So, China could really show, and President Xi Jinping could really show what the world could look like in a few years, if there would be a joint cooperation: There’s either a new study from some British institution which says that the annual increase in production will be $7 trillion even if the United States does not join, and the economic benefits for the United States just coming from this increased trade around the world are overwhelming. So I think this would be the case all the more if you had a positive attitude, and American corporations could join, and this could also lead to the U.S. recovering.
The U.S. doesn’t have a full, global industrial supply chain anymore, because of many years of outsourcing and destruction of the middle-level industries. So the United States needs, really, a change in the direction that Trump wants, but I think China could extend a helping hand, because of the internal mess in the United States.
And I’m confident, I’m pretty sure, that Chinese scholars are working around the clock to come up with solutions to overcome that, because it’s very clear that China does not want to have this trade war, because it has a tremendous risk for not only China, but for the whole world economy. So, I think the more people demand that the United States should cooperate, especially in the development of Latin America, of Africa, reconstruction of the Middle East, the better it is.
Whither Mexico and Latin America?
Jones: So the support for the Belt and Road coming from Latin America, and most recently, of course, Mexican President López Obrador has indicated a positive attitude towards it. But they are really under a lot of pressure: It seems like the United States is reviving the old Teddy Roosevelt policy of using the club on the Latin American nations to prevent, in this case, development in Latin America.
How do you see the situation moving in that region of the world?
Zepp-LaRouche: Well, you had all kinds of representatives of the U.S. administration, such as Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Advisor John Bolton, who all told the Latin American countries very explicitly, that they should not cooperate with China. They quote the Monroe Doctrine, but what they really refer to is the Theodore Roosevelt corollary to it, and I think it’s very important that people study the difference: Because the original doctrine was the policy of John Quincy Adams of an alliance of perfectly sovereign republics, and the “corollary” is an imperial policy of Teddy Roosevelt. People mix those up a lot.
In that context, there is a tremendous opportunity in the recent visit to Washington by Mexico’s Foreign Minister, Marcelo Ebrard. He met with Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, senior Trump advisor Jared Kushner, and the Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen, and he repeated what President López Obrador had already proposed several times, namely that the United States should join in a large investment program, especially in the south of Mexico, in Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, bringing in trains, developing ports, electricity grids, pipelines, industrial parks, agriculture, to bring about economic development.
Ebrard spoke about a “Marshall Plan” for that region. Because that way, you would create an incentive for the migrants who are now desperately trying get across the border to the United States, to instead stay in their home countries. That this is the only way to stop the migration crisis for the United States.
Ebrard was talking about $20 billion investment from Mexico, another $20 billion from the Central American countries, and then requiring $5.6 billion from the side of the United States, which Trump already had talked about and sort of promised last December. So I think if President Trump would respond to this positively, this would be a very good step in the right direction. It would be in the direction of the cooperation which my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, had proposed almost 30 years ago, in collaboration with then President López Portillo—the famous Operation Juárez economic development program for Latin America—and it would be a first step in the direction of the United States cooperating with the Belt and Road Initiative idea.
I think this should be absolutely supported. Bringing development to these poor countries is the only way to stop the migration in a human way.
Jones: It would also be going back to the type of Alliance for Progress program that President John Kennedy had, when we had much better relations with these Latin American countries.
The European Union Elections
Let me shift over to Europe, now, Helga, with regard to the support for the Belt and Road Initiative that’s been coming from a lot of the European countries, especially spearheaded by the Italian government. We’ve also had European Parliament (EU) elections, and we’re getting different interpretations of that: On the one side, some people are saying that the new parties in Europe, the parties that have been in revolt against the “business as usual” of the EU, have moved ahead; on the other hand are those who are saying that the center-liberal coalitions have maintained their power. What is the situation most specifically? What is the effect of these elections on the Belt and Road Initiative and the European support for it?
Zepp-LaRouche: The Belt and Road Initiative is supported by most European countries—22 of the 28 EU member-states cooperating. The Eastern and Central European countries, plus Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Austria. So it is actually moving forward.
The anti-EU parties have won in the elections, not a sweep as was expected, but they are definitely rising. The Brexit Party in Great Britain got something like 38% and the Tories collapsed to 7%! Now, that is quite telling. Also, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally party won more than President Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche in France. But the real disaster happened in Germany. I must say, this is an example of meddling in the internal affairs of a country, if I have ever seen one! What happened was, you had a buildup of the Greta Thunberg school boycott climate campaign.
Pied Piper in Pigtails
Thunberg has been a rather busy Swedish 16-year-old. She was invited to the COP24 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Katowice, Poland; then she addressed the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland; then she travelled to Rome, where she addressed a big rally in front of the parliament and met with Pope Francis. She then went to Great Britain, met the Queen, and addressed the House of Commons. So she got a play-up. She was in Germany several times.
This all led to the “Friday For Future” demonstrations which created really a hysteria among teenagers, saying “Oh, Greta Thunberg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, they are all saying the world will end in 12 years, so why should I keep learning?” So it led to this whole hysteria.
There are also studies out which show that the excessive consumption of digital devices, from smartphones, Play Stations, tablet computers, has severe neurological effects on the brains of the people who use them, and that young people are more likely to look at their smartphones than talk face to face with their neighbor, so their judgments of history, of natural science, are very poorly developed. That is without question. So you can almost call this child abuse, because if you hype people up this way, you get these results.
The Rezo Media Operation
Now, there was a special operation, just a couple of days before the election: A video appeared by a so-called “YouTube influencer” called Rezo, who made a devastating attack on the main parties in Germany. They have done badly on every point, he said, and really tore into them. And then he said, “You have to vote only for the party which is taking care of the climate protection,” and that for sure had an impact, especially on the youth vote and first-time voters.
The end result was that the Greens are now the second largest party in Germany, which means that Germany as an industrial nation is finished, because the Green policies are completely incompatible with Germany as an industrial nation. So this is definitely a huge existential crisis. The Greens won 9 out of the 10 major cities—they got something like 32% in Cologne, 31% in Hamburg, in Munich, in Frankfurt, and similar results elsewhere. In Berlin, the Greens got almost as much as the CDU and the SPD combined, so it’s really a landslide.
And the reason I say this is meddling, is that, if you think this video was merely one young man attacking the leading parties on his own, you obviously don’t know that he is a “YouTube influencer,” and how this works. Some people know what that is: A YouTube influencer usually promotes lipstick or various cosmetics—which promotions are financed by the firms that benefit. Large PR firms sponsor the products advertised. The firm that sponsored this YouTube influencer, Rezo, is called “Ströer,” a digital multi-channel media company, which owns T-Online, Germany’s biggest news portal and other outlets. This was then played up by all the mass media as if it was just this young man, who finally gave the bill to these parties.
But the difference is—I mean, I’m an influencer, you are an influencer—but the difference is that nobody pays us to get our messages out, and when someone puts out a political message and orchestrates the mass media to amplify it, right before an election, you get this kind of result. Now, I think this was a classic case of meddling. This kind of PR operation is not a German thing, and it’s not in any way fair play, nor in accordance with the rules of the election process.
This is really bad, and unfortunately, I think that Germany will have to feel some of the economic consequences before reason returns.
Now, fortunately, this is not the whole story: There are now many people in medium-level industries who want to join the Belt and Road Initiative. The Institute for Economic Research in Munich has just issued a statement that cooperation with China is very advantageous for Bavaria, so it’s not the end of the story. But I really think Europe is in absolutely critical condition; it’s disunited. North-South, East-West conflicts are severe. And I think the only thing which can unify Europe, is the cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative, and hopefully some people of influence will get that idea that the consequences otherwise would be a Weimarization of the entire European continent. And hopefully reason can return, maybe even by the time of the G20 summit on June 28-29.
Trump Impeached? Coup Plotters Jailed?
Jones: Switching over now to the situation in the United States, you no doubt saw that Special Counsel Robert Mueller presented his Swan Song yesterday, but he couldn’t help but leave a last bit of excrescence to the Washington media, in more or less throwing the whole issue of the so-called “collusion” into the assembly of the U.S. Congress. So the drumbeat for a Trump impeachment drive is now becoming much louder. The more attuned people in the political realm, including Nancy Pelosi, really understand that this could be the death knell of the Democratic Party, ruin any chance they have for winning the next Presidential election, and probably suffer major losses in the House of Representatives.
But it has created a situation in which nothing can really be done to address the economic situation in the United States. President Trump’s attempt to come to a compromise with the leaders of the Congress on the infrastructure question has been destroyed, while impeachment is now becoming a major drumbeat among some Democrats. Given the situation now, with flooding in the Missouri-Mississippi River Basins—really the whole Midwest—it’s not a question simply of “infrastructure investment”: it’s now reached a crisis situation, of meeting the total devastation of the infrastructure there and saving people’s lives. But the government is in gridlock as a result of the impeachment war cry.
How can we change the situation here, and how do you view the situation now with regard to the U.S. economic direction?
Zepp-LaRouche: I think the Democrats and the intelligence service heads left over from the Obama Administration are extremely panicked, because, after all, Trump issued a memorandum authorizing Attorney General William Barr to declassify all documents relating to the meddling in the 2016 presidential campaign. There was a very interesting program on Fox TV, the Hannity show, discussing that U.S. intelligence outsourced dirty operations of spying in the 2016 campaign, to British intelligence, to Australian intelligence, and that that all has to be investigated. And there was even a demand that former MI6 agent Christopher Steele, who is at the center of this operation, be extradited to the United States, since he refuses to cooperate with Barr—he only wants to cooperate with Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz.
So I think the climate is such that these people who did the coup attempt against Trump, are now afraid that any such declassification and continuing investigation of the investigators, will bring forth incredible things, criminal things, maybe things which they have to fear, such as going to jail. I think the frenzy is just incredible, especially also with the 2020 Presidential election approaching.
Midwest Flooding Continues
There is really a crisis of a different kind happening in the United States. You mentioned the flooding in the Midwest—this affects lots of agricultural products, soybeans, this affects the world production of corn; the United States produces a very large quantity of the world’s corn [maize], and these regions in the Midwest and also the South, have been flooded for months now.
I think the only way to go about it, would be to go on a bipartisan mobilization to implement the Four Laws defined by Lyndon LaRouche in June 2014: Go for Glass-Steagall; go for a national bank; a new credit institution; a crash program for the increase of the productivity of the economy, as it is possible with the space program put on the agenda by President Trump. But the space program alone doesn’t do it; you need the full package designed by my husband, including a New Bretton Woods international credit program, because a new financial crash is hanging over our heads like a Damocles Sword.
So I think Americans had better start to get away from this partisan approach, because if you only hack away at the other to diminish their election chances, and you forget the common good, then the common good suffers. And I think the United States is not in safe waters, at all.
Only the package of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Laws, and the cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative, internationally, where the United States would take a role in shaping the future, not just being part of it, will work. Go back to the American Revolution, go back to the ideas of Benjamin Franklin, of the Founding Fathers, of John Quincy Adams, I think there must be a national debate which goes a little bit deeper than the present hysteria orchestrated by the mass media. So, I think there is an absolute need to go to a higher paradigm of thinking.
Jones: This is the ideal opportunity, now, with all the memorials that are being held for Mr. LaRouche worldwide, just most recently in Yemen, but also in Latin America. There will be memorials here next month in the United States. Reviving the tradition, the ideas, and the life of Mr. LaRouche can create a different atmosphere in the United States, create a pathway for President Trump to move in that direction.
Exonerate Lyndon LaRouche!
Helga, you’re calling for President Trump to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche to clear him of all the lying accusations that led to his imprisonment for five years. Some of the same people who have been after the President of the United States, including Robert Mueller, and others, were involved in attempting to destroy LaRouche. If Trump could be brought to understand that, the entire situation might change.
So, I think the possibility of moving in the direction of the Four Laws of LaRouche is much greater today, because his tradition, his ideas will now be revived on a higher level as a result of all the activity that’s going on. Maybe you want to say something about that exoneration campaign?
Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, I want to say this in conclusion: That the most important thing, you, our viewers and audience, can actually do, is to help in this exoneration campaign. There is no greater contradiction between the beauty and wealth of the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche and the picture which has been painted by this apparatus that is now perpetrating the witch hunt against Trump. Ironically, now, the Chinese are saying, “Here Trump is complaining that behind Russiagate is a witch hunt, but now, the United States is committing a witch hunt against China, with China being the victim.” So you have three victims of a witch hunt: My husband, President Trump, and China—and it comes from the same people. It comes from people who absolutely want to suppress a New Paradigm.
I have said it before, but let me restate it: The exoneration of my husband is important, so that people may have an unrestricted, unprejudiced view of the solutions he presented. I’m absolutely convinced that his exoneration is almost the precondition for the United States to stop the policy of international confrontation, of being in cahoots with the British Empire. Only when you shed that kind of geopolitical thinking, and look at the solutions presented by Lyndon LaRouche, can you come to a solution on a higher level.
So I urge all of you: Join in our mobilization and get in touch with us. We are doing a lot of important things, and I think that’s the best thing you can do for yourself, your country, and all of humanity.
Jones: With that, Helga, I think we’ll conclude. Thank you for taking the time today to be with us, and hope to see you again, soon.
Zepp-LaRouche: Till soon!