This transcript appears in the December 6, 2019 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
SCHILLER INSTITUTE WEBCAST
Treason Exposed: Will You Now Join Us in the Fight to Defeat
the ‘Seditious Coup’?
This is the edited transcript of the Schiller Institute’s November 30, 2019 New Paradigm interview with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, by Harley Schlanger. A video of the webcast is available.
Harley Schlanger: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast for today with our founder and President, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. It’s November 30, 2019.
The strategic situation continues to evolve in dangerous ways, but also in a way in which there is an opportunity to completely outflank the coup that’s being run in the United States and elsewhere. One of the more important developments is an article in Consortium News by Scott Ritter, a member of the VIPS—the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity—in which he outlines very clearly how the coup has worked. It’s done in a way that it unmistakably shows that this was a very intricate, complex conspiracy run by the old Obama intelligence crew, and so on. So, Helga, why don’t we start with that, what Scott Ritter had to say?
Flanking the Coup-Plotters
Helga Zepp-LaRouche: There have been quite a number of articles by people who discuss the coup, the attempt to overthrow the U.S. government. All of this is practically not covered at all in the mainstream media in Europe. And naturally in the United States, the mainstream media are part of the cabal involved in this, so they aren’t covering it either.
Scott Ritter, if people remember, is a former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq, from 1991 to 1998. In 2003, he became a whistleblower by saying that there were absolutely no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So, he has a reputation of coming out in extremely crucial moments in history to speak the truth.
I really urge all our viewers to go to the Consortium News website and read Ritter’s 7,500-word article, titled “The ‘Whistleblower’ and the Politicization of Intelligence,” because it is clearly based on a very connected network of sources.
Ritter gives the inside story on the current whistleblower, whose name has not been officially disclosed and whose testimony is still a secret. Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, protects him as if he were the most important jewel in the crown of the Queen. Schiff doesn’t want to have anybody know his name, which is sort of ridiculous, because his name—which I don’t want to mention either—has been all over the internet; everybody knows who it is.
In this article, Ritter describes how this whole development occurred and never mentions the name of the whistleblower! He describes him as still being a very young man who nevertheless went to several positions in different security sections of U.S. intelligence; working in part for the National Security Council, the CIA, in various functions with former Vice President Joe Biden, and with former CIA Director Brennan. He held a relatively high-level, responsible position for Ukraine and Russia policy.
So, he is clearly somebody who was in the middle of all the Russia and Ukraine operations of the Obama administration.
Ritter’s article, in a very special way, interfaces the strategic shifts in U.S. policy with respect to Russia with the role of this particular person, this whistleblower. Ritter ties it into the attempt by the Obama administration to use the time when Dmitry Medvedev was President of Russia (2008-2012), to go for a so-called reset of the Russia policy, trying to influence Medvedev. At that time, it was really unclear what the relationship of Medvedev to Putin was, and so forth.
It Started in Syria
But the whole thing really started in Syria. One can say the “prehistory” of the present coup started when Vladimir Putin again became President in 2012. If you remember, this was the period after the initial period in the first Presidency of Putin, when he still had to deal with the incredible heritage left by Boris Yeltsin—the powerful position of the oligarchs.
Putin could not really do all that much; even so, if people remember, in 2001, he gave a very optimistic speech, in German, in the Bundestag—the German Parliament—making all kinds of offers. The West could have easily taken these up and had a real reset of U.S. and Western policies toward Russia. But when Putin came back into the Presidency the second time, he was clearly much more resolved to prove wrong what Obama later said, on May 20, 2014—that “Russia is just a regional power”—to prove that that was not the case, that Russia still is a global player, which Putin definitely established with the intervention in Syria in 2015.
But this was obviously too much for the Obama administration and the forces of the British Empire in general, so they started to really operate against Russia in earnest. Which then led to the famous coup in Ukraine, starting with the European Union Association Agreement in November 2013, which then President Viktor Yanukovych could not agree to. That led to the Maidan coup and his removal from office in February 2014.
And Now, Ukraine
It is very clear that the people who are now the so-called accusers of Trump, are all up to their ears in the destruction of Ukraine, with the “shock therapy” after 1991, but especially also the coup. So, these people are now engaged in an attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, and Scott Ritter in this article makes the very important point that the very forces, the very institutions which are there to protect the nation, to provide for the security of the nation, have instead turned into an apparatus denying the will of the American people, who should be the key executive; it is those very institutions that are involved in this coup.
I think this article is a must-read, as well as the LaRouche PAC’s Fireside Chat webcast of November 27, featuring LaRouche PAC’s Barbara Boyd and Bill Binney, former Technical Director at the National Security Agency. [See a partial transcript elsewhere in this issue.]
Anybody who wants to find out what is going on in the United States—and by implication strategically—must get up to date on the inner workings of this coup. This Scott Ritter article is really incredibly well researched and reflects the giant faction fight initiated by people who have a conscience. It is no coincidence that Scott Ritter belongs to the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. This is an organization of former intelligence officers who have not agreed with the way this whole apparatus has developed. At the end of his article, Ritter says the outcome of this battle will determine whether the United States remains a republic, or if the Constitution is overturned. So, this is really big, and I urge all of you to get the inside story, because this is determining the fate of humanity in the immediate period ahead.
Barr, Horowitz, and Durham
Schlanger: And Ritter is writing this at the time where you now have another session of testimony planned in the House of Representatives, this time in the Judiciary Committee, to continue the Ukrainegate nonsense.
I think it’s also worth noting, in the context of what Ritter wrote, that there’s total panic among the supporters of the coup over William Barr’s November 15 speech to the Federalist Society’s 2019 National Lawyers Convention, in which he described this as sedition. The panic is not just that Barr said that, but that he’s involved in an investigation which is looking into this and is probably looking under rocks—and the various snakes in the intelligence community are diving for cover. How do you assess this potential now to overturn the coup?
Zepp-LaRouche: It’s obviously extremely big, because Barr, after all, is the Attorney General of the United States. There is a whole hoopla around the upcoming Horowitz Report on alleged FISA abuse ahead of the 2016 election—Michael Horowitz being the Inspector General of the Department of Justice. He will come out with his report I think maybe as early as next week.
Some people say there will be no proof of what Trump is asserting. However, Larry C. Johnson, another one of these VIPS members, pre-empted that by attacking an article in the New York Times, titled “Russia Inquiry Review Is Expected to Undercut Trump Claim of FBI Spying,” which said the Horowitz Report will prove nothing. So what Johnson says, in his article, “Yes, There Were FBI Informants, But They Were Paid by the CIA,” posted on November 29 to Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis blogsite, is that maybe Horowitz doesn’t classify these people as FBI agents, because they weren’t paid by the FBI, but instead by the CIA.
So, this is a war and a half. I think when Barr says this is a seditious coup against the government—this coming from America’s equivalent of a Justice Minister—the Attorney General of the United States. Then we will have the criminal inquiry underway under the direction of John H. Durham, which will follow up on everything said in the Horowitz Report, and other sources.
These investigations have the potential to lead to a dismantling of what people wrongly call the Deep State, which Trump recently attacked again as the “military-industrial complex,” warned of by President Dwight Eisenhower in his final address to the nation on January 17, 1961. This military-industrial complex has evolved quite a bit since then.
This is the problem: These are the people who want confrontation with Russia, with China. People look at it, and they ask, “Is Trump strong enough to defeat these people?” I know that the Chinese and Russians are really wondering who the power is in the United States.
At this point, nothing is decided. I would really appeal to you, our viewers and readers: Make as much publicity about this as possible, because the more people discuss it, and investigate it, and follow the investigations, the better to defeat this coup. This is not something to be passive about. For Americans it means, if you consider yourself a patriot, this is the moment to fight for your country. If you are an international observer, this is the moment to really rethink Trump.
The reason these people are attacking Trump so absolutely viciously is that he had said in the election campaign in 2016 that he wanted to have a good relationship with Russia. For those who try to geopolitically manipulate the world—the British Empire—they just couldn’t tolerate that. There are forces in Europe who understand that the relationship to Russia cannot remain hostile if you don’t want to risk World War III.
Dialogue with Russia Is in
the Interest of Europe
This is the reason the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, for example, is absolutely not on the line of the rest of the EU—or of NATO for that matter—and he is calling for a dialogue with Russia because he believes not to have a dialogue with Russia cannot be in the interest of the Europeans. So, I think this gigantic battle in the United States has all kinds of international ramifications, and it is at the center of how things will go. Will it go in the direction of a New Paradigm, or will it go in the direction of World War III? What we are really looking at is war or peace.
Schlanger: Just to add a footnote to what you were saying, Bill Binney, who participated with Barbara Boyd in the discussion on Wednesday, reiterated the point that his forensic investigation shows that there was no Russian hacking. It was an inside job. Although submitted as evidence in the trial of Roger Stone, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson suppressed that truthful finding, refused to let it come out, because doing so would totally blow apart what’s left of whatever credibility Russiagate ever had.
The Hong Kong Elections
Now, while we’re discussing the broader strategic situation, Helga, something has happened since last week that is very significant. The Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, initially introduced in 2014, was passed by almost unanimous votes in the House and Senate. Trump signed it, issuing a statement indicating he wasn’t very happy with it. This Act has been very strongly denounced by the Chinese, and it brings up the broader issue of China being given an enemy image. What do you think of the reaction of the Chinese to this? What are the implications of it?
Zepp-LaRouche: There is right now an unprecedented escalation in the putting out of lies about China that are really unbelievable. For example, you mentioned Hong Kong. What’s going on there is a classical color revolution, and the Chinese are extremely upset about it.
First of all, on the significance of the election for district councillors, which the “pro-democracy” forces won, mainland China still won more than 40%, so it’s not that clear-cut. The Chinese government clearly denounced the meddling of institutions like the National Endowment for Democracy, and also the British, going back to the Opium Wars. So, they called in now the U.S. Ambassador Terry Branstad to complain that Trump did sign this Act. The Chinese know perfectly well that Trump only signed it because the majority in the Congress was so overwhelming that a veto would have been overruled. So because he’s in an election campaign, naturally, he signed it.
The conclusion the Chinese are drawing out of this is, naturally, that even though Trump may be opposed to it, he does not have the power to prevent such an Act from going through. Which relates to what I said earlier, that the “dual power” situation in the United States has all kinds of strategic implications as Russia, China, others say to themselves, “How much can we rely on what Trump is saying? How much can we afford to base our own policy on this present administration when the coup forces are still so strong that they can overturn the policies of the President?”
So, you have to understand what is being done. First of all, we have discussed this in the past, that the demographic composition in Hong Kong is very much still under the influence of the 150 years of colonial domination. One-third of the population are Vietnamese boat people; you still have a lot of people who were alive from when Hong Kong was a British colony.
Remember, the Hong Kong population had no right to vote until the very end when Chris Patten, the last British Governor of Hong Kong, decided in 1997, at the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong to China, to deliver a poison pill by allowing elections, with the clear implication that once the One Country, Two Systems Agreement was in place, the interim agreement for 50 years until Hong Kong reverts to mainland China in 2047, gave time to manipulate the former colony.
This is exactly what you see right now. So, this is orchestrated. The economy is collapsing, the airline is massively losing freight and passengers. The future of Hong Kong does not lie with the destabilization. I think independence is out of the question; this will not ever be allowed, because China correctly says Hong Kong is part of China, just as Taiwan is part of China. So, the people of Hong Kong have the choice to either participate in the absolute economic boom taking place in Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhuhai—the motor, not only of the New Silk Road, but of the world economy, the most productive part of the entire world economy—or they will end up being “erased from modern maps,” as an editorial in one Chinese media outlet put it.
China’s Treatment of Uyghurs in Xinjiang
But you have to consider the Hong Kong situation in light of the attacks on China in respect to the Xinjiang Autonomous Region in China’s far northwest, and the treatment of the Turkic Uyghur minority there. An unbelievable report, titled “China Cables: Exposed: China’s Operating Manuals for Mass Internment and Arrest by Algorithm,” came out on November 24 from the so-called International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, blasting the so-called “detention camps” for Uyghurs in Xinjiang.
Now, we know a lot about that situation, because two members from our international network visited Xinjiang—one member from France was there for a week, visiting all these places. Our other member was in Xinjiang for almost a week. Their on-the-ground findings are in direct opposition to what these “investigative journalists” report.
Xinjiang was one of the poorest areas of China, which was providing a lot of conditions for the recruitment of the terrorists. In order to know how terrorism came into Xinjiang, you have to go back to Zbigniew Brzezinski, and his proposal to the Trilateral Commission in 1975, to use the “Islamic card” against the Soviet Union. It was these networks, both French from the Sorbonne, but also from the British, and Brzezinski’s networks, who set up the radical Quran schools, which led to a radicalization of Islam. The Mujahadeen-e-Khalq were then deployed in Afghanistan in the 1980s against the Soviet Union. And when the Soviet Union collapsed, these networks did not just vanish, they spread all over the place, to Pakistan, to parts of the former Soviet Union, to Xinjiang. The territory they occupied was identical to the main drug routes into Europe.
So the West had a very big role in creating this kind of terrorism!
On the other side, what China did was to bring economic development and education for Muslims, for people who were, before, in the vicinity of the terrorists, providing them with job opportunities, a future! Now, which approach is better for getting rid of terrorism? Is it by sending in troops, and having them there for 19 years, like in some Middle Eastern countries? And then leaving without having accomplished anything? Or, is it through education and economic development? I think the Chinese approach has definitely been very good.
Many journalists from Pakistan, from Geneva, and diplomats from many countries have visited Xinjiang, and the reports they give are also all quite different from those of the “investigative journalists.” Form your own opinion and understand that the present escalation against Russia and China is very dangerous and can only be called a pre-war orchestration, because if you want to eventually make war, you have to create an enemy image. So I think this is really, very important.
China Has Transformed from Extreme Poverty to Ultra-Modern
People always ask me, “Why are you so naïve about China?” Well, we have just published a special report, which you should get—we’ll put the link on this webcast—in which we detail the networks behind the anti-China propaganda campaign. I wrote an article in this report so that people can appreciate that China, in the last 40 years, has undergone the most incredible transformation, transitioning from extreme poverty to a modern nation.
I’m very proud of a photograph I took that appears in this special report. I took it in 1971 near Shanghai when I was in China—it shows a very poor man, pulling a rickshaw overfilled with a heavy load, which was the usual kind of scene you could see; and next to that, the report has a photo of a high-speed train arriving at the Shanghai Railway Station, the fastest and most modern train you can imagine. Think for a moment about the difference: On the left, freight transport in 1971 during the Cultural Revolution, and on the right, the most modern transport in the world. You have to appreciate that this change is an incredible contribution to the development of all mankind!
Now, the Chinese have a different system, but that system is not “challenging the West,” as some people say. They are not imposing their system; rather they want to have a harmonious development of different nations, different systems, and I would really like, if you have any questions on my views on China, please send them to this webcast, and I will try to answer them the next time, because it is really important, that this present anti-China campaign is understood for what it is: a last-gasp effort by the collapsing British Empire to sabotage or halt altogether the new paradigm which is clearly emerging. And don’t fall for malicious propaganda which has only a warmongering aim.
Schlanger: The special report is called, “End the McCarthyite Witch Hunt against China and President Trump.” It is so important to read, to counter so much propaganda against China coming out in the media.
The Repo Loan Crisis
Now, Helga, the media are still not reporting the extent of the financial crisis; we’re now well into the third month of the so-called “repo loan crisis.” There’s a big fight now in Europe. You brought it up last week. There was something interesting that German Chancellor Angela Merkel did, a complete turnaround on the European Banking Union. Where does this stand now?
Zepp-LaRouche: I think it’s an open secret. If you talk to anybody in the field of finance or banking, they immediately admit that the system is gone, it’s not sustainable. The reason why they’re pushing the reform of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), and why German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz and Merkel now all of a sudden are agreeing to the European Banking Union, is that all the banks are bankrupt. And the ESM reform is supposed to save the banks through a gigantic mixture of bail-out, bail-in, hyperinflationary helicopter money. For example, the European Central Bank (ECB) is now buying the bonds of Daimler, the multinational automotive corporation, so what else do you want to have?
We urgently need a reform, because Deutsche Bank is probably at the center of this. Today is the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Alfred Herrhausen. In a November 30 article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the new head of Deutsche Bank, Christian Sewing, said, if Deutsche Bank had followed the policies of Herrhausen, it would not be in the mess it’s in today.
Now, Herrhausen—I want to just remind people—was murdered on Nov. 30, 1989, by the so-called “third generation” Red Army Fraction/Baader Meinhof Gang, an organization whose existence was never established, and there’s every reason to think that it never really existed, but it was, rather, an intelligence operation.
Herrhausen had a completely different policy: He wanted to have debt relief for the Third World, he wanted to develop Poland, very much like my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, did, to develop Poland with a completely different model in 1989, based on the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau—meaning not under the austerity regime of the IMF and its shock therapy, but giving state credit for real investment in the real economy.
So, he was murdered with a car bomb. Germany at that time was in the middle of a great transformation. The Berlin Wall had just come down three weeks earlier. At that time, everyone understood that the assassination of Herrhausen was meant as a signal to Chancellor Kohl not to continue in the direction of the ten-point program he had issued, not to have German reunification with a special relationship with Russia. So, Herrhausen’s assassination was a turning point in the very historic moment of the process leading up to German reunification.
A couple of years ago, when Deutsche Bank was already having a major crisis, my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, said that the only way to save Deutsche Bank was to go back to the policies of Herrhausen. In the meantime, the world financial/economic crisis has developed so far, that you need an overall approach: You need a Glass-Steagall banking separation. All the trouble of Deutsche Bank came, really, from the British branch of Deutsche Bank in London, and the worst kind of investment policies which got Deutsche Bank into so much trouble were coming from this British branch.
That has to be sort of decoupled: Deutsche Bank must go back to being an industry-financing bank, in the tradition Herrhausen, of Hermann Abs; but in the meantime, you need a total Glass-Steagall, and you need a return to the kind of national banking as existed with the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, leading to the reconstruction of Germany in the postwar period, the German economic miracle. And that needs to be done for every, single European country, and the United States, for that matter. And then there is no reason in the world, why this crisis cannot be solved. But you need that kind of a change.
LaRouche’s ‘Four Laws’ and
‘Four Power Agreement’
Schlanger: And that’s the basis of the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, which emphasizes the absolute, essential nature that an economy is not about money, it’s not about statistics, it’s about physical production and especially the improvements in productivity based on scientific discovery. At the recent conference of the Schiller Institute in Bad Soden, Germany, this was a topic throughout the conference. [For transcriptions of Panels 1 and 2, see EIR, Vol. 46, No. 46, Nov. 22, 2019, and for transcriptions of Panels 3 and 4, see EIR, Vol. 46, No. 47, Nov. 29, 2019.]
Helga, to conclude, I think we’ve got to come back to Europe again. Besides the fight over banking, we saw a huge demonstration of farmers in the streets of Berlin this last week. On December 5, there’ll be an escalation of a general strike in France against the Green policy and the destruction of agriculture.
At the same time, while these demonstrations are going on, the European Parliament declared a “climate emergency” this last week! How insane is that? What’re the implications for the world?
European Commission Declares ‘Climate Emergency’
Zepp-LaRouche: Yes, the European Parliament declared a “climate and environmental emergency” on Nov. 28, calling on the European Commission to make sure that all legislation and budgets align with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.
In another resolution, it called on the EU to submit a strategy to the UN Convention on Climate Change for reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. The European Commission has already proposed a 2050 carbon neutrality goal, but the opposition of Poland, Hungary and Czechia has stopped it from earning the endorsement of the European Council.
Ursula von der Leyen, who will assume the Presidency of the European Commission as of Dec. 1, announced that she wants to have the Green New Deal implemented in the first 100 days of her being in office. On Monday, the UN Climate Change Conference, COP25, opens in Madrid. The venue was moved from Chile at the last moment due to the mass unrest there.
So there is a full offensive, because, as we discussed in the past, the central banks, Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, and now ECB President Christine Lagarde, and others, all want to have “green financing,” to channel all financial investments into the gigantic green bubble. Some people hope that that will avoid the crash, if you combine it with opening the money sluices—helicopter money—but this will be the end of the economy!
I mean, if you go to green financing only,— the only reason the German Mittelstand survived the 2008 crisis, is that the savings & loan banks provided credit for the real economy. If the EU makes legislation channeling financing only into green “climate-friendly” fuels, technologies, and enterprises, an economy like Germany, which needs high energy-flux dense fuels and production techniques, will not survive! This “green finance” is really what’s behind the whole “Greta” hype.
Green Financing Scheme
I think this policy is going to collapse; it will fail. It’s a big question as to whether the EU as an institution will survive that, because you will have the assertion of the interest of the population against the supranational bureaucracy, which is clearly violating the principles of existence of people! Why do you think there are such mass demonstrations around the globe? In Chile, in Bolivia, in Colombia, Pakistan, and Lebanon. In Iraq, the government collapsed with Prime Minister Abdel Abdul Mahdi resigning on Nov. 28 under the pressure of mass unrest.
On Dec. 5, a general strike is scheduled in France, where the government fears that it may fall as a result. Two days later, the French farmers will take to the streets. The farm demonstration you just mentioned in Berlin, had 10,000 tractors, and was 12 kilometers long going into Berlin. This is unusual for Germany, because normally the Germans are the last ones to protest, but here you go!
So, I think if now there is an effort to impose increased prices on energy, on food, on all of these things which go along with the so-called “climate” hysteria, you will have the danger of a complete disintegration of the very fabric of society.
You Are Needed to Push Through the Solutions
This is an unusual time. I really urge you, again: Become active with the Schiller Institute. Help us to expand the viewership of this program, spread the word about it; distribute it through all your channels—social media, emails, whatever you have—talk about it with your friends and colleagues, and help us in the mobilization.
The solution is absolutely there: Lyndon LaRouche proposed already many years ago, the kind of collaboration among the four major powers of the world—the United States, Russia, China, India, but open to other countries—to make the kind of reform which is necessary to establish a New Bretton Woods system, which will correct the flaws of the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreements, which were due to the fact that Franklin Roosevelt had died too early, and the final Agreements were shaped by Truman and Churchill.
The New Bretton Woods will be a system that will provide credit for development for the whole world; it is in the interest of all the world’s people. And with Trump the potential to get a collaboration among the United States, and Russia and China, in particular, does absolutely exist.
Also, the combination of forces exists to implement a global Glass-Steagall—get rid of the casino economy—start to issue credit for real investment, and reform the global system, restoring the principles of physical economy before it is too late.
I think we have a window of opportunity of tremendous potential, if you think about what we have discussed, in terms of the coup and the potential that it can backfire against the coup plotters in the United States; the fact that Russia, China, and many other countries are already collaborating with the Belt and Road Initiative; and President Xi Jinping having said many times that the Belt and Road is open for cooperation with the United States, with Europe, with Africa.
The framework to make the kind of reform so urgently needed is absolutely there. What is absolutely required is you: That you become active, and that we increase the number of people who truly think about themselves as citizens. That is the kind of thinking required to win not only this battle, but this war for mankind.
Schlanger: And for those of you out there who are still pessimistic, I can tell you, as one who saw this German farmers’ tractorcade close up, this was extraordinary! Estimates range up to 40,000 farmers, and these were big tractors! They blocked traffic, just because they were moving through Berlin. But what was exciting about it, was to see farmers enthusiastic about demonstrating and about making their case against the Green policy, and so on.
The awakening is not over. In fact, what’s necessary, as Helga has just been emphasizing, is for you to join in.
Helga, we’ve covered a lot. Anything else you want to add?
Zepp-LaRouche: I think people should just really understand that there are historical periods in which individual action matters, and that we are clearly in such a moment where the subjective factor probably determines 80% of what will be the outcome of this current history. Objectively the conditions are all there for victory, but we need courageous citizens to work with us.
Schlanger: We’ll see you next week, Helga. Thank you very much.
Zepp-LaRouche: Till next week.