Zepp-LaRouche: Bringing America Into The New Paradigm

TRANSCRIPT

KESHA ROGERS:  Good morning everyone, I’m very happy to see our audience here this morning in Houston for this very special event and occasion that we’re going to be having here today for our day-long seminar, called “A Symposium To Prepare You for Victory.”  This is titled, “Unleashing the Creative Nature of Man.”

We have a special guest with us today, the founder and chairwoman of the Schiller Institute, Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche who will be addressing us this morning.  And I think Helga’s address is coming at a very timely point for mankind and for the nation in history.  And I’d like to say good evening to Helga, who’s addressing us now from Europe.  And I want to go ahead and let Helga get started with her remarks and then what I’m going to do is come back up and fill in the course of the day what you guys are in for in terms of the treats that we have. [laughter] And what we will be presenting in terms of what this true unleashing of the human creative identity and the Renaissance culture, the new paradigm for mankind that we are now in the midst of and seeking to create.

And Helga will start us off with that discussion.   After Helga’s remarks, we will open it up for questions and answers, and then after that we will continue with our program for the day.  So, again, thank you Helga for joining, and thank you all for being here this morning.  [applause]

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Anybody who watches the very rapidly changing strategic situation, which almost creates a new unbelievable moment every day, is probably wondering where should this go?  We have on the one side, a very, very dangerous confrontation exploding from the side of the United States and NATO against Russia.  When the ceasefire negotiations  between Secretary of State Kerry and Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia broke down, basically because there are certain forces within the United States who did not want it to succeed, then we are now fully back on a potential confrontation between the West, and especially the United States, and Russia.

This is a situation which comes from a certain paradigm of thinking; it comes from the fact that the United States insists that it is the United States which sets the rules around the world and keeps a unipolar world, which is no longer really in existence.

So then you have underlying all of this, you have the immediate danger of a blowout of the financial system, where the most obvious case right now is Deutsche Bank.  Deutsche Bank is the largest so-called German bank — it’s not really German any more because it’s living in London and in Wall Street — but it has a derivatives exposure of $42 trillion, and every large bank in the world’s counterparty who needs derivatives also.   So if Deutsche Bank  would go under and stop having to [inaudible] like a stone in the last year — on Friday it was at one point even going below EU10.  So at that point, basically, people were really panicking.  All the financial media were saying that this is the potential new 2008, this is the “Lehman Brothers’ moment of Deutsche Bank” and the financial media started to lose all respect in regard to Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, by saying she bungled that crisis again, because she had said a couple of days ago she had said, “If there is a new crisis of Deutsche Bank, the German government is not going to bail it out,” and that led to a complete speculative attack which made everything worse.  And one financial analyst was reported in Bloomberg News today saying that these “zombie banks” soon will create a “zombie economy.”

Now, you have the coincidence of these two crises:  A strategic showdown, where Ash Carter was travelling around the U.S.  military bases in the last week, and in North Dakota at an Air Force base, inspecting the B-52 bomber which is nuclear capable, he said, “The Russians have mentioned the possibility of using nuclear weapons, but even if there would be a conventional attack the use of nuclear weapons is not unthinkable.  It has not been used since 1945, but one should not rely on the fact that it remains like that.

Obviously, if you take these two dynamics, the new Cold War which is already very, very close to turning into a hot war in the Syrian situation, and that could lead to a global showdown between the West and Russia, and China, naturally because Russia and China have now an extremely close strategic alliance, and the meltdown, much, much worse than 2008, because  all the central banks have used up their so-called “tools,” quantitative easing, negative interest rate, they’re talking about “helicopter money” and that is about as bad as it gets, so, is there any hope that civilization can pull itself out of this?

Well:  I think there is.  And for all those people who normally say, “oh, you can’t do anything anyway, because those powers up there, they’re too powerful,” I think a recent development really has proven these people to be utterly wrong. When a couple of days ago, both houses of Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives, both voted to override Obama’s veto in respect to the JASTA bill, this came as a big surprise, to I guess everybody, including ourselves.

Because there was 15-year-long battle, where the families of the victims of Sept. 11, had courageously fought to get the 28 pages published, and they were putting pressure on having the right to sue Saudi Arabia for their possible involvement in 9/11 — which, after the publication of the 28 pages, was pretty obvious.  But then, in the last four weeks, something additional has happened, and that has been completely overlooked by Obama for sure, it has for sure been overlooked by the Saudis and it has caught even the Congress and the Senate by surprise.

Because I think the fact that we organized four concerts of Mozart’s Requiem and four African-American Spirituals, which commemorated the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and that we had about 4,000 people who watched in person and listened to these performances and many more on the internet afterwards and via live transmission, and everybody who participated in these concerts, and you could see it if you would watch it, was completely transformed.  People were moved in the deepest soul, in their heart; and many of the family members and firemen and police officers who participated in these concerts, said that even if for 15 years every year they would commemorate this terrible catastrophe, never had something like that experienced with Mozart’s Requiem, had happened to them.

This is extremely important that we understand what has happened with these concerts.  Because, for those of you who know Friedrich Schiller and especially one of his later plays, called The Bride of Messina, he has a beautiful introduction with the title “On the Role of Chorus.”  And there he describes, and he doesn’t mean the musical chorus, he means the ancient Greek chorus which was always part of the ancient Classical dramas.  He says there:  The power of great art is that it creates a force in people which does not end when the performance when the great piece of music or drama ends, but it creates a lasting power in the person who participates in such an experience.  The reason is, he says, is that great Classical art is looking to set man free temporarily, but to set him free truly, and therefore this power is increased in man when he participates in that.

And it was exactly that which gave the additional, I would say, inspiration, spark of absolute sovereignty and absolute sublime power of will and courage which the family members could then transmit to even those hardened Congressmen and Senators, and I watched the debate live and I must say, some of these Senators did say things which were quite surprising.  And that power, of fight for justice inspired by Classical music was proven to be more powerful than all the millions of Saudi Arabia and their disgusting law firms and public relations firms which they had hired to put pressure on the Congress to not override the veto.

This is extremely important, because Mr. LaRouche yesterday added something by saying, we have to add that quality into the fight, because if you stay on the level pragmatic policy, this level cannot be won.  And what Mr. LaRouche yesterday said, is we have to add a completely new desire to find new scientific discoveries to really go for scientific breakthroughs in the knowledge of what is the true identity of man.  Why is the human species in existence?  What is our role in the Solar System? What is the role of mankind in the Galaxy?

It is very interesting, this demand that we have to go for a completely new definition of what science is, science not being some mathematical formula, or not some pragmatic gimmick, but a fundamental understanding about the role of the human mind in the Universe, this is exactly showing the direction of where the next scientific breakthroughs have to occur.  And that is exactly what Nikolaus of Cusa had said already in the 15th century, where he said that every human being which is newly born, recapitulates the entire history of the universe, practically in his own mind by learning the knowledge up to the level of the knowledge of mankind of his time; and then based on that knowledge, he can define the absolutely necessary next step of breakthrough.

That is a complete challenge to what people think how science is progressing.  Scientific progress in that science is not some kind of an awkward discovery somebody makes in their garage and then gets a patent for this discovery and that’s somehow how scientific progress occurs.  No.  Cusa, and in that same light, Lyndon LaRouche says, man can with absolute certainty determine where mankind must go if mankind is to continue to exist.

Where are these next steps?  We need a new paradigm and that new paradigm obviously, in light of what I said in the beginning about the two strategic crises which are facing the existence of civilization right now, must overcome geopolitics and the idea that a nation has a legitimate right to pursue its own national interests.  And what has to occur instead is that we have to proceed from the ideal of the one, unified mankind as that which informs our decisions first, and then the national interest comes after that.

That requires a shift in thinking, a new paradigm which is so fundamentally different from the paradigm which governs the world right now and the world of geopolitics, that it must be as big or bigger than the paradigm which separated the Middle Ages from modern times.   For those who have read about the Middle Ages, this was like the 14th century for example, a period which was absolutely horrible.  You had Black Death, you had witchcraft, you had people going crazy over the Black Death, you have universities dominated by Scholasticism, by Aristotelianism, the new Peripatetics, and this was a method which was a complete dead-end of thinking.  No new knowledge could come from this kind of geometry.

And therefore, it’s in a certain sense like the kind of stuff which is being taught in our universities today, which is based on mathematics, on health economics — which is really a way of defining triage in the health sector; deductionist thinking, reductionist kind of ways, and no new knowledge, no new qualitative knowledge can come from that.

So what was the beginning, the most important step in the new paradigm of the modern times was actually the thinking of such people like, especially Nikolaus of Cusa.  And he very consciously rejected all the axioms that went along with the Middle Ages and Scholasticism and Aristotle.  And he said, I’m thinking something which never has been thought by any human being before; and he developed a method of thinking which he called the “coincidence of opposites,” which was the idea that the One has a higher power and a higher magnitude than the Many. Naturally in the case of Nikolaus of Cusa, who was a Cardinal in the 15th century, he developed this idea through a theological argument by saying that the One is God and that the Many, being the universe and all created things, are unfolded out of this One.  And therefore you have to be able to think like a second god, you never will be like God, but you have to apply vis creativa of God, the creative power of God, and then you become a second god.

Now, in the Docta Ignorantia he developed these ideas in the most powerful way and if you haven’t read it yet, please go home and read this absolutely groundbreaking work, which was immediately attacked by the same Scholastic professors in the universities and the clergy, who felt completely threatened, and they accused Nikolaus of Cusa of being a pantheist, because if Cusa says God is in everything, and everything is in God, then that’s pantheism, which naturally it’s not.  Joseph Vaenk [ph] was one of those who completely attacked Cusa, and after some years chose to make a counterattack.  And he said: Obviously, this poor Mr. Vaenk has not understood what I’m talking about, that it is a completely different way of thinking; that if you are on the level of Aristotle, you are just seeing contradictions and you don’t see the higher level of reason.  He said:  My thinking, the thinking on the level of the coincidence of opposites, is like — and he used a very nice pedagogical way to describe it — he said, it’s like standing on a high tower, and you’re looking down, and what you see when you’re looking down is, you see the hunter, you see the hunted, and the process of hunting.  While the Aristotelian is either the hunter or the hunted, but he never sees the process.

So he then appeals to people to elevate their thinking and make the mental jump over what he calls the “wall of the coincidentia oppositorum” which is a kind of intuitive thinking.   It is basically that kind of thinking which we need to accomplish and what goes along with that, is the ability to think a completely new level of relations among men, among nations, to proceed from humanity as a whole.

And one country which has proposed very concretely based on that level of thinking is actually China:  They proposed a new level of relations among nations, based on the respect for complete sovereignty of the other, respect for the different social system of the other country, of non-interference, and basically that is the opposite of what Obama said recently in an article in the Washington Post, where he said “the United States sets the rules, and not China.”

For the United States this would mean to go back to the outlook of John Quincy Adams, who in his foreign policy had established exactly the same idea, that the United States was a republic and that it should have a perfect alliance of sovereign republics, with non-interference and respect for their respective sovereignty.

Obviously, our economic proposal, that the New Silk Road must become the World Land-Bridge is based exactly on that, that you work together on international projects for the development of every part of the world, but you do it with the full respect of sovereignty and not by trying to dominate the systems of economics and finance.  It would mean, for example, that the United States would cooperate in such a “win-win” perspective. Now, what would that mean?  Would it mean the United States would have a Silk Road? The United States which is now falling apart in terms of the infrastructure:  you would have a system of fast trains, like China does.  China wants to have by 2020 every major city connection through a fast train system which go at 450 kph. For the United States this would mean the construction of immediately 50-100,000 miles of fast train systems connecting all the major cities, creating some new cities, science cities and simply participating in a completely different economic system, like Franklin D. Roosevelt did with the New Deal, but geared towards the 21st century.

It would also mean to immediately address the bankrupt financial system, through a new financial architecture in the tradition of Roosevelt, have a global Glass-Steagall system, and that may be forced upon the world more quickly than anyone may think, because if Deutsche Bank goes bankrupt, the whole financial system comes down.  Mr. LaRouche and myself have proposed a couple of weeks ago, to go back to the model of Deutsche Bank as it was before Alfred Herrhausen was assassinated in 1989: which basically would mean to put Deutsche Bank under a bankruptcy/insolvency commission, in an orderly fashion, unwind the very complex derivatives, which are very interwoven with all the major banks internationally.  Most of these derivatives cannot be paid, therefore you have to write them down.

And then you have to protect the business model in Deutsche Bank, the part which is the commercial banking and enlarge that by making that the only business plan of Deutsche Bank, which would mean to apply a sort of local Glass-Steagall to Deutsche Bank.  Now, given the size of Deutsche Bank it would immediately make necessary a global Glass-Steagall, because the derivatives exposure is so involved with all the other banks, it simply is the only alternative to a complete breakdown into chaos.

It would also mean to cooperate on the basis of such a global Glass-Steagall system with national banking systems of each of these sovereign countries.  Now when we’re talking about the World Land-Bridge, we’re talking about projects which last, in terms of realization, 20, 30, 40 years, 50 years; even so, with the speed of construction the Chinese have demonstrated in the recent period, probably it’s not 50 years, but probably 25, but it still would require national banks in each participating country; it would mean to compensate for the fact that some of the countries are large, like Russia, with 11 time zones, very few people, very many raw materials; some countries are very small and landlocked like Slovakia, others are very, very poor, like Eritrea.  There are many, many differences, and you need to set up a new credit system which compensates for these differences, because the new credits given by these national banks cannot be paid back before the investment realizes what they were meant for, with producing the necessary productivity increase of the labor force and the industries of the countries participating.  So you need clearing houses which take care of these differences and long-term and short-term commitments.

That is then the new credit system, which would be a sort of New Bretton Woods system which would go along with the World Land-Bridge.  China has called for that, with the demand for a new financial architecture already and has created a parallel banking system with the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the Shanghai Cooperation Bank.  So the alternative system is already in place, and if the trans-Atlantic sector, Europe and the United States, would get rid of their casino economy, they could immediately be integrated into this already-existing financial system.  So it is absolutely possible and within reach.

Xi Jinping not only demanded that the world economy, after the G20 meeting in Hangzhou in the beginning of September, must be put on innovation.  Now, “innovation” is not just, as I said, some arbitrary innovation, but it must address the fundamental requirements of the world economy, which means in the physical economy terms of Lyndon LaRouche that the increase of the energy-flux density must give the basis for the increase in the relative potential relative population density of the planet, and that must be the scientific yardstick of whether an innovation is actually productive or not; because a lot of innovation takes place in areas which are not productive at all, and the new innovation must be geared towards increasing the real processes in the Universe.

It is highly interesting that Xi Jinping demanded actually four areas for Chinese scientists to make fundamental breakthroughs:  The evolution of the Universe; what are the laws of the development of the Universe? Secondly, the laws of the human mind; thirdly, the laws of life, what is life?  How does it originate, how does it occur?  And these are all touching upon the kind of fundamental questions, what Lyndon LaRouche has called for yesterday, and obviously, this is the direction we have to go.

You have heard a lot from Kesha and others about the absolute fantastic world outlook of Krafft Ehricke, who called for the extraterrestrial imperative, as the necessary next phase of the development of mankind.  Krafft Ehricke was a close friend of ours, and especially in the last years of his life, I had many conversations with him about the relationship between science and culture.  And he was absolutely convinced that the efforts of the Schiller Institute were absolutely crucial, because he said, we have to add the aesthetical education of man to scientific progress, because technology is never good or bad; it is man which brings it to a good or an evil use.  Therefore, he said, the crucial question is that we ennoble the human species, which is exactly the question of the aesthetical education.

This is why we put such a big emphasis on beauty, and that art must be beautiful, because only then does it accomplish this ennobling of the human soul.  Beauty, Schiller says, is very important because it is both a quality of the senses, because the senses are perceptive to beauty, but it is also in the realm of reason, because what is beauty is not a question of experience, but it is a question of the definition of the mind, of reason. Therefore, Schiller says, we have to educate the emotions, which are related to the senses, but not identical with the senses, we have to educate these emotions up to the level of reason, so that man can blindly follow what the emotions are saying, without ever losing control or going to a lower level.

So therefore, he said, we have to educate every human being to become a beautiful soul, so that people can blindly follow their instincts because their instincts would never tell them anything which is not guided by reason, and therefore, freedom and necessity, passion and duty must become the same.

And I think that that is an emotional development which is the only way how man will master the requirements of the extraterrestrial imperative.  Because if man does not become more noble and better, I don’t think we are going to make it.  So therefore, Schiller added to the question of beauty, the question of the Sublime: the Sublime being that quality which in a certain sense makes man great even if he is confronted with tragedy and catastrophe, because he has bound his identity to a higher cause and higher principles than those which can threaten his mortal life.  And I think it is that Sublime quality which is evoked by great Classical art and what we have seen by the power unleashed in the concerts leading to the absolute breakthrough in the fight in the Congress.

This kind of thinking is necessary to make the kinds of breakthroughs Lyn is demanding.  Nikolaus of Cusa said the only people who are capable of making the kind of necessary breakthrough are people who are thinking on the level of the coincidentia oppositorum, the coincidence of opposites. Because only if you are thinking on that level, do you have something which Lyndon LaRouche called “prescience.”  Nikolaus says, the person who makes a discovery has to know already ahead of time what he is looking for, because if you just discover something and do not know what you were looking for, you do not even know if what you have found is the right thing.  So, it is that kind of creative intuition, which is what is really at stake, and that quality happens to be the same emotional mental quality as you need to write Classical poetry, to write classical drama, to make a scientific discovery, it all comes from the same faculty of your mind.  And we have to educate the entire population, that they reject the present pragmatic, or even Satanic joy in the here and now, lust for the senses, or just degraded kind of entertainment, and we have to get people to taste the sweetness of the thinking of a creative person, because that is the only way how mankind will become truly human.

And I have a beautiful idea what the new paradigm can be: Just imagine if we get the best minds of each culture in each nation, relating to each other in love and admiration for the creative powers of the other one, like the great space scientists are working together, or the astronauts who all report what the viewpoint is when you look at our planet from space.  That people will relate to each other like the relationship between Einstein and Max Planck, or between Schiller, Humboldt, Körner, in other words, or the Humboldt brothers; in a certain sense, we have to fight for that kind of humanity, where people respect and love each other for their creative powers, and have no greater passion than to further the creative abilities of their contemporary citizens and fellow human beings.

And I think we are on the verge of that, and I think that with the recent victory, the power for the good has been demonstrated, and I think we have to absolutely carry that forward: And then victory is within reach.  [applause]