Go to home page

This transcript appears in the November 8, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

[Print version of this transcript]


People are in Rebellion Globally Against Collapsing Neo-Liberal Economic System

U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s New Paradigm Webcast of November 3, 2019. A video is available.

Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our weekly webcast with our founder and chairman, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Today is November 3, 2019.

We’re in the midst of an insurgency that’s moving to an—almost every day—to a higher level worldwide against the neo-liberal policies, the neo-conservative strategic policies, and shaking the roots of the British Empire and its satraps around the world. Helga, maybe we can start with some developments in the United States. You had a chance to watch some of the rally of President Trump in Tupelo, Mississippi. What’s your impression of that?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: The British Empire allied forces are making a very high-risk game right now, because what they are doing can backfire bigtime. Look at this speech Trump gave in Tupelo, Mississippi. He was very feisty, very much in direct connection with the people. He blasted the whole conspiracy against him. He said the first phase was the so-called Russia-gate; out of that came absolutely nothing. Then came the Mueller investigation, which produced zero evidence of him having colluded with Russia. Now we are in the third phase, he said, the evidence-less effort to go for impeachment. This is a big scandal, and as my late husband Lyndon LaRouche had said when Trump had won the election in 2016,— he had correctly said at that time, this is not an internal development to the United States, but it has global implications and is part of this global, growing rebellion against the neo-liberal policies of the British Empire.

In a certain sense, what we see right now is the showdown between the forces of that British Empire that have pretty much captured the Democratic Party from the top, and the former intelligence apparatus of the Obama administration, in and out of office, is still at it. But, Attorney General Barr has declared this all to be a criminal investigation, creating a strong force in the opposite direction. The mood has shifted, and these people now have to watch—they may be caught being involved in something that will lead to them being charged with obstruction of justice or even caught in a conspiracy against the President of the United States.

So, this is hot. I can only urge you, our viewers, use your own intelligence; do not go by the media. Listen to what Trump is saying; form your own opinion. Because this battle in the United States right now is, in my best estimate, the unique, key factor that will determine in which direction this historical period will go. So, follow our revelations and read our materials. The best thing is to subscribe to our newsletters; get in touch with us. This is a battle that will determine the future of civilization.

The Fake Whistleblower

Schlanger: We have repeatedly emphasized that this is a coup, not an impeachment. The fact that the Democratic Party is almost universally supporting it doesn’t make it less of a coup. The Democrats are now a regime-change party trying to change the regime in the United States. The vote in the House was 232 to 196, with all but 2 Democrats voting for the impeachment, in spite of the fact that there’s nothing that has been brought forward on Ukraine.

Helga, we’ve seen some very interesting things coming out on the role of the so-called whistleblower, who is alleged to be Eric Ciaramella; you may have some things to say on that. And also, importantly, former CIA analyst Larry Johnson spoke about it in his presentation on October 31 in the LaRouche Fireside Chat [published in this issue of EIR]. This is looking just like an extension of the coup in 2014 in Ukraine, isn’t it?

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. There is a very interesting article by an investigative journalist, Paul Sperry, in Real Clear Investigations. He has a very interesting article there, in which he says that, while officially the identity of this whistleblower who supposedly triggered the whole impeachment drive against Trump is not known, because the Democrats are frantically trying to somehow hide the identity of this person—everybody inside the Beltway knows who he is.

Sperry reports that because so much is at stake with the impeachment, he reveals this name, and it is a guy—Eric Ciaramella—who is 33 years old, who used to be a CIA analyst, and then was deployed for a short period of time into the White House, and now he is working for the CIA at Langley, CIA headquarters. The specific background of this person Ciaramella is that he used to work for Joe Biden and Susan Rice in the critical period of the coup against the Ukrainian government, the Maidan coup. His expertise is the Ukraine. He speaks I think Ukrainian and some other languages, but he was sort of working for Biden who was the point person of Obama for the Ukraine during this period of 2013, -14, -15, and -16. Therefore, what is really at stake here is the entire policy of the containment against Russia.

This was an elaborate operation that started in November 2013, when the EU tried to lure the Ukrainian government into the EU association agreement, but President Yanukovych in the very last moment jumped out of it. He realized that this was an untenable situation because it would have opened the Russian markets for EU goods and flooded the Russian economy with goods that they could not compete against. It would have opened the gateway for NATO access to the Black Sea.

Ukraine in 2013

So in any case, as people remember, in November 2013, Yanukovych opted out, and that immediately led to the demonstrations in the Maidan. And in a few days, these demonstrations were basically taken over by successors of the Bandera organization, meaning real Nazis. These Banderists were then heavily involved in the coup of February 2014. This was when the famous incident occurred, in which Victoria Nuland of the State Department was talking to Geoffrey Pyatt—U.S. ambassador to Ukraine at that time—about getting “Yats,” Arseniy Yatsenyuk in as Prime Minister of Ukraine. So, this was all the story as to why Joe Biden’s son was put on the board of the Burisma oil and gas company, and he got a very high salary for having really no specific expertise. The Burisma case, which Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky to look into, was about why the prosecutor general who looked into corruption in Burisma was fired.

Left: Former U.S. Career Ambassador, Victoria Nuland; right: Former Prime Minister of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk.

Trump made this request in a phone discussion with President Zelensky in July. This was then construed by the Democrats as blackmail, that Trump had threatened to withhold military aid to the Ukraine; that this was a quid pro quo, and this is the reason why Trump should be impeached. There is absolutely nothing to it. There are some statements from the present U.S. ambassador in Kiev, who claims that Trump said something different than he did. But Trump, in an interview with the Washington Examiner on October 31, suggested that he would go on national TV and read the transcript of that phone discussion with President Zelensky. So, there are other witnesses who say that there was absolutely nothing illegal in the discussion between Trump and Zelensky. Zelensky himself absolutely denies that there was any quid pro quo.

The whole story is so unbelievably blown up, but there is no substance. Because as this transcript will prove, Trump was just carrying out foreign policy, what every President should do. Therefore, the blowback potential of this whole story is enormous.

The Irony is Powerful

Schlanger: I just want to highlight two points, and there are so many points. I would urge people to go to the larouchepac.com site to look at our new report from Barbara Boyd called “Ukraine-gate: The Coup Against President Donald Trump—Phase Three.” But Ciaramella was assigned to the White House by the CIA Director, John Brennan, who of course is under enormous pressure from the Barr-Durham investigation. The other thing I think is important is that at the hearings called by Rep. Adam Schiff, the Republicans still have not had access to the documentation that’s being churned out by Schiff and his people, including a lot of dishonest and lying transcripts. They haven’t been able to cross-examine, but many of the people from the State Department and intelligence who were testifying, who are making up these stories about Trump’s call, were part of the Ukraine coup in 2014.

Some of this was brought out by Larry Johnson in a discussion with our supporters the other day. What did you find about Johnson’s revelations that was most significant?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I really like the way he opened his discussion, because he said that he likes irony; and the irony is that we, meaning the LaRouche movement, have always been accused of being conspiracy theorists. But now we are in the middle of proving the biggest conspiracy in history ever. So, I think the most interesting point that he made otherwise is that there was a sudden reversal. The intelligence bureaucracy had tried to prevent the report of Horowitz—Horowitz is the Inspector General of the Department of Justice who had been preparing over a long period of time a report looking into the wrongdoings around the lies to the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court. This is the court that can, in secrecy, order tapping of people and so forth.

The intelligence community tried to prevent that report from coming out for about two months after it was ready because apparently, according to Johnson, this material will be very damaging for such people as former CIA Director Brennan, former FBI Director Comey, former FBI Deputy Director McCabe, and various other people. When it became clear that Attorney General Barr has declared a criminal investigation into all of these maneuvers, they completely switched their behavior, because they didn’t want to be caught in something that would turn out to be an obstruction of justice or an actual conspiracy. He referred to the very interesting case of Sidney Powell, General Michael Flynn’s lawyer, who had produced the evidence that there was direct interference by David Ignatius of the Washington Post, with his January 12, 2017 article that created the environment for General Flynn to be indicted.

Former CIA Director, John Brennan.

When the Prosecutors are Criminal

Larry Johnson reports that Flynn pleaded guilty at a certain point; he was running up enormous legal costs, and the prosecutors were threatening to go after his son. He agreed to a plea bargain—the prosecutors in essence saying, “Well, he’s already guilty, so there is nothing we can do, even if it was a Brady violation.” A Brady violation occurs when the government has exculpatory evidence that it does not reveal to the defendant, in this case, Flynn. This is really a big story. Remember that General Flynn was the one who had spilled the beans early on, on the whole U.S. intelligence support for the jihadis, al-Qaeda, ISIS, and so forth. So, this is all now unraveling. You don’t have to like President Trump—and I know many people here in Germany absolutely don’t; but it is really an amazing fact that this man has the courage to stand up against these people who are in an open revolt.

The Democrats have gone completely crazy. It is quite an amazing fact that Nancy Pelosi and people who should know better, they can never win the election in 2020 by going only for the impeachment against Trump. And if all of this comes out any time before 2020, and it is more likely than not that it will, this will lead to an earthquake in the United States and worldwide as the world probably has never seen it.

Schlanger: There are two other developments I’d like you to comment on that show that the characterization of Trump as inept or bullying or incompetent are completely wrong. One is developments in Syria, where there is now a constitutional process underway from a meeting in Geneva. The other is the breakthrough on the U.S.-China trade talks. What can you tell us about that?

The U.S. and China

Zepp-LaRouche: To start with the latter, I think this is promising because both sides, the Chinese and Trump, said that the first phase of this deal looks very good, and that Xi Jinping agreed to come to the United States to sign that agreement. He may very well come to Iowa, because part of the deal is a very large export of agriculture goods from Iowa and other farm states. So, I think that could be a very important rekindling of the good relationship between Trump and Xi Jinping that they had at the beginning.

Indirectly related, is the fact that there is now significant progress in Syria, despite some things that need to be straightened out such as the oil question. In general, the Syrian process is moving forward in a good way. The Constitutional Council started to meet in Geneva with the aim to soon have a new constitution, a new election, and then have the Syrian people elect a new government. At the same time, there is in the background a rapprochement and cooperation on that matter between the United States and Russia, and implicitly also with China, which has agreed to help in the reconstruction of Syria. So I would really appeal to you, our viewers and listeners, that you rethink all of these questions.

What is the most important to maintain world peace? It is the collaboration between the United States, Russia, China, and the other countries that could be in collaboration with these larger nations. I think that this is an historic moment that is extremely dangerous—there is no question about it that it’s totally dangerous; but on the other side, I think it has an enormous potential to lead to a completely new epoch in the history of civilization. So, all the more reason to be active with us and be optimistic.

Schlanger: Then, you’ve emphasized for a long time, it’s this attack on geopolitics, the doctrine that the British have used for these never-ending wars and never-ending austerity that we hear that Trump is breaking with, that is behind what is the attempt to get rid of him. We also have the other factor—the ongoing financial collapse. There is a lot to report on that is coming out. Why don’t you just go through, as you have, Helga, because it’s becoming more and more apparent that something is going to happen soon. And it better be steps to counteract this hyper-bailout policy.

Left: European Parliament; right: European Commission
Left: Mario Draghi; right: Christine Lagarde
Economic Club of New York
Mark Carney

Europe and the Bank of England

Zepp-LaRouche: Now Mario Draghi is out as the head of the European Central Bank; that may not be so good for the Italian people, because there is a big push to make him President of Italy, which may not function, but the push is there. But unfortunately, he is being replaced by Christine Lagarde, who is determined to continue his policy of quantitative easing, of asset buying through the ECB (European Central Bank). There is a big push also in some financial media, picking up on the proposal that was originally made by Blackhawk to the annual conference in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, where they proposed that there should just be “helicopter money” given to the consumers directly so that they would buy and then get the economy going.

That is an insane proposal, because while the negative interest rates and zero interest rates are already eating up the pensions and the savings of the people; because the inflation rate is higher than the interest rate they don’t get from their savings. But if you would have “helicopter money,” you would enter exactly what happened in 1923 in Germany—a hyperinflation that would completely destroy the income of the general population. This is an insane push, and now Lagarde attacked Germany and Holland that they are not doing enough.

But I think it is the experience of 1923 that sits in the bones of the German people. Every family recounted that, and even if you didn’t experience it yourself, you have heard stories; you have seen the money of 1923—the Reichsmark—being completely worthless in the end. Jens Weidmann, who is the President of the Bundesbank, at a recent conference of the Bundesbank at the end of October, said he agrees that part of the tasks of the central bank is to estimate the risk factors and included in that is the “risk” of climate change. That, he said, he opposes the idea that central banks should direct money into Green financing. He mentioned Bank of England head Mark Carney several times as the person who presented this idea of the regime change at the Jackson Hole conference, where Carney said that from now on the central banks should make the monetary policy, and not the governments.

I find it very important that Weidmann is opposing this, saying that the central banks do not have the democratic legitimacy to do that, but that it is the task of the politicians to make such decisions. That’s not yet the great policy shift that is needed, but at least somebody is there making the argument that if the central banks take over—and remember that Mark Carney also had the idea of replacing the dollar with a global synthetic cyber currency; that would be a world dictatorship of Green finance. Jens Weidmann is opposing that, which is important. As I said, it’s a stopgap; it’s not the solution. At least there is somebody who has not gone completely crazy, and is defending the need for a stable monetary policy, or rather blocking the kind of hyperinflation that Lagarde is pushing.

The Revolt Breaks Out

Schlanger: We’re also seeing this as part of the global upsurge against neo-liberalism. Farmers on the march in Germany. We just saw another vote in Thuringia in Germany where the leading political parties were smashed. What’s your sense of the mood there? Is Weidmann reflecting something, or is he in front of something?

Zepp-LaRouche: I think there is a growing awareness that this thing is not functioning. I have here some figures that I want to read. There is a Forsa poll that says that 80% of the German population today think that there have been too many privatizations leading to negative consequences for pensions and the health sector. 87% of the people in Germany think the income gap is becoming a problem for the cohesion of society; meaning the rich are getting too rich, and more people are getting poor. 62% believe that the top rich echelons have their rights undeserved. 81% think that they may fall into poverty. 83% think there is a risk of social decline for them in the next several years. So, that is really I think a symptom.

You mentioned the German farmers, who are now organizing themselves outside of the German Farmers Association, because they don’t see any longer that they are represented by that institution; it’s thoroughly discredited for many decades as a matter of fact. But they are now recruiting 1000 farmers a day; they organized 100,000 farmers in three weeks. And they are planning a major big demonstration towards the end of this month. I think there is for the first time some real serious social ferment breaking out in Germany of all places, which has been the least willing to wake up to what the situation is.

Another symptom is the vote in Thuringia. The Linkspartei (Left Party) won 3%; the AfD (Alternative for Germany) doubled its vote, while the parties of the grand coalition all collapsed. The SPD is down to 8%; that’s almost a free-fall. The attempt by the CDU to block a CDU-Left combination, which is the only one that would work. No one wants to make a coalition with the AfD. We are very close to ungovernability in Thuringia. That is probably just a foreboding of things to come. The situation in Germany is just one of many. You have a global mass strike process. In Chile, despite total police brutality, people are still out in the street en masse. President Piñera had to cancel both the APEC summit—which has not been rescheduled—and the COP25 summit, which is now supposed to take place in Madrid, leaving Greta Thunberg stranded without a boat to travel there, at least so far.

CC/G20 Argentina
Sebastián Piñera, President of Chile.

Then you have mass demonstrations. Argentina is completely hot, with the new government of Alberto Fernández and Christina Kirchner that looks better. But it’s a very hot situation because the Argentine economy, as a result of the IMF policies, is in a completely terrible condition. Demonstrations in other places—Bolivia, Haiti. Haiti is completely collapsing. Iraq, Pakistan, other countries are in a similar condition. So, I think what we see is a global disintegration of the system, and that is not even with the coming collapse of the financial system. So, the time to go for the reforms we have been proposing for many years, the ideas of Lyndon LaRouche that must be put on the table because there is simply no other solution that would guarantee the survival of civilization.

Defeating Empire

Schlanger: Helga, I did a radio show this last week on a station in Iowa, and the host was asking about our coverage of the coup, why we say the British Empire rather than simply the Deep State. I went through Lyn’s economic solutions. At a certain point, she said, “Wow! I wish I would have known about LaRouche all these years. This makes so much sense.” I think it would be good, as we’ve just been reviewing the collapse of this system, for you to restate both the policies of your husband, but also the prospects for these being implemented.

Zepp-LaRouche: My husband many years ago, said that the only combination of countries powerful enough to oppose this British Empire—and remember, when he said British Empire, he said he didn’t mean the British subjects, the British people living under the monarchy; he meant the British Empire—this new central system of central banks, of investment banks, of reinsurance companies, of hedge funds. That system that has been favoring the high-risk speculation for the advantage of a few at the expense of the many. What he said at the time was, you need four large nation-states to be powerful enough to cause a change of the system.

We need collaboration between the United States, Russia, China, and India. Not to the exclusion of other countries, but simply these four countries—if they would work together—are representative enough also of the developing sector that they could really speak for the world community and act for the world community. What it would require is the immediate implementation of a global Glass-Steagall law; the separation of the banks, the protection of the commercial banks; leaving the investment banks on their own. If they are bankrupt they would close down; if not, then one can think what they can do in a different environment. But most of them are bankrupt and they should just close down.

There is a lack of liquidity, so we need to immediately go to a credit system as it was defined by Alexander Hamilton. We need a national bank in every country, and these national banks have to cooperate in a new credit system; a New Bretton Woods system that would make sure you have cheap, long-term credit for investment in the real economy and infrastructure. The good thing is that this is no longer merely a programmatic idea. With the Belt and Road Initiative, 157 countries and many international organizations are already cooperating on principles going in this direction.

U.S., China, Russia and India

The missing link in all of this is the United States. That is why the relationship between Trump and Xi Jinping is so crucial. Unless the two largest economies work together, there is no way we can get out of this crisis. And for strategic reasons, Russia must be in this combination. The inclusion of India is really not very difficult, given the present policies of the Modi government and China and Russia.

So, I think this is very close. We can have that, and I think part of the raging fury against Trump and the insane escalation by the crazy Democrats, as Trump called them, is because they don’t want a person in the White House who could, under circumstances of crisis, actually go in this direction and implement such a policy. That is the real background. If you don’t understand that, you are missing the whole point of what this strategic battle is all about.

Rather than looking at this as a passive observer, or some pessimist saying, “Oh, you can’t do anything anyway,” get active with us. This is a moment in history in which your help is required. We have a lot of things we are doing. We are an international organization; we have many activities you can join in every country. You can contact us and help to spread the webcast; sign up for our newsletter. Get active; there are many activities we can do together to change the course of history in a better direction. It’s a moment that Friedrich Schiller would call a “pregnant moment,” and you should not miss it.

Schlanger: Well, you took the words right out of my mouth. I was going to encourage people to make sure they circulate this webcast; get people to go to larouchepac.com; and make sure we win this fight. Because we don’t want to have another lost opportunity. We may not have another chance.

So Helga, thanks for joining us this week. And we’ll see you next week.

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, ’til next week.

Back to top    Go to home page