Schiller Institute Weekly Dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Just Say No to Nuclear War,
Yes to LaRouchian Physical Economy

The following is an edited transcript of the Nov. 28, 2024, weekly Schiller Institute dialogue with Schiller Institute founder and leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Embedded links have been added. The full video is available here.

Harley Schlanger: Helga, it’s been a little while since we last spoke. But in that period there has been a sharp escalation of the conflict in Ukraine, as the Anglo-Americans have launched long-range missiles into Russia almost as soon as U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration gave the go-ahead to do such strikes. The response from Russia was to launch a new kind of hypersonic missile called the Oreshnik, which devastated both the munitions plant it hit, and the utopian fantasies of the NATO brain trust, so to speak. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said that the use of the new missiles sent a clear military-political signal. Yet, two days later, NATO forces shot more long-range missiles into Russia.

So, this situation provoked two questions. First, from a German who served in the military in Germany, who writes that he was shocked to hear that the Anglo-Americans have launched a new round of strikes into Russia, which confirmed for him that Scott Ritter is right: We are on the threshold of nuclear war. “Do the Western strategists not see that? Are they willing to risk everyone’s life to prove that they are right that Putin is bluffing?” And from Thomas, who often sends in questions, “NATO is running out of weapons to send. Why do they refuse to see that the war cannot be won?”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Russian President Vladimir Putin is doing his very best to penetrate the skulls of these people, because just today at the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, Putin basically went through a long description of how many missiles Russia has. It has about ten times the number of missiles of all NATO countries combined. Then he went through the different categories of the hypersonic missiles, and in each category he said that the Russian version is superior to the NATO one in terms of range and sophistication. So, it’s absolutely horrifying to see how the Western establishment—NATO, but also certain governments, the French, the British—absolutely refuse to recognize that if they continue like that they will get a nuclear war. And the idea that you can defeat Russia militarily is so completely out of the window that you can only say that this is all a sign of madness, of pure desperation. I try to explain it to myself and discuss it with some people as to what it is that prevents these people from recognizing that the game is lost.

I think it has to do with the fact that most of these people are not very skilled; they are not great figures like we used to have in the past: de Gaulle, Nehru, Gandhi, Adenauer, Kennedy and others. These are people who are very poorly trained. They have acquired certain privileges by being political leaders. They cling to their trans-Atlantic centered narrative and are incapable of recognizing that the world around them has changed in the most dramatic way, a kind of change not seen in 500 years. I have maintained many times in the past that the change we are seeing right now is as fundamental as the change from the Dark Age of the 14th Century to the Renaissance of Italy and the modern times which were introduced by that, leading to a completely different set of axioms in people’s understanding of man, nature, society, and so forth. They are just incapable of recognizing that.

It’s extremely dangerous. What Scott Ritter is calling for—an international mobilization—is absolutely called for. We are trying to likewise alert the world population as much as we can by convening a new international Schiller Institute conference on the 7th and 8th of December, where we will try to both portray the acute danger, but also portray a way out of it, because the solution does exist. Actually, it would be very easy: If the West would stop this mad confrontation, trying to suppress the Global South, and instead join them, it would be relatively easy to resolve it. But I think we are in for the worst five to six weeks in world history, because until President-elect Donald Trump comes in, there are many commentators warning that the Biden administration may try to create the situation for Trump which, according to their plans, would mean that Trump cannot resolve or walk back the situation of the war.

But we are de facto in a state of war between NATO and Russia, and that is not only what various Russian officials have said, but now also the former head of MI6, Richard Dearlove, said the same thing: that Donald Tusk, the Polish Prime Minister, is wrong; that we are not on the verge of a war, but that we are in a war already. People had better wake up to that fact before it is too late.

Schlanger: You mentioned some solutions that are out there. You’ve been emphasizing that this ongoing war is related to the collapse of the economy. The Schiller Institute just released a new report, “Development Drive Means Billions of New Jobs, No Refugees, No Wars.” And that’s available through the Schiller Institute website.

We have a question about the Oreshnik missile, “Do you know if the development of this system would have been banned if the U.S. had not withdrawn from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. The Oreshnik is, according to Putin, a hypersonic intermediate-range missile system that can reach every part of Europe. It flies at Mach 10. That’s a speed which is of such a nature that it cannot be intercepted. That missile system was fired against a weapons factory in Ukraine. Gilbert Doctorow, an American analyst, claims that it did hit—among other things—a Rheinmetall repair factory for the Leopard tank. Now, that should be a clear message to Germany. Doctorow’s intelligence is usually accurate. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, at this point, is sticking to his refusal to send the Taurus missile to the Ukrainians, but that is all hanging by a thread. So, it’s a very incredibly dangerous moment.

Schlanger: An activist in Virginia writes, “Dear Helga, Happy Thanksgiving Day! I give thanks today to you, Harley, and The LaRouche Organization, and pray that more people listen to you. Here’s my question: “Why do you think Donald Trump has remained silent on the danger unleashed by the Biden administration allowing long-range missile strikes? What can we do to make sure the neocons don’t end up taking over the Trump Presidency, as they did in his first term?”

Zepp-LaRouche: That is a concern. I’m not in a position right now to give a definite judgment, because on the one side, Trump has said he would end the wars. He has appointed Keith Kellogg, a former military man, to be the Special Envoy to Ukraine and Russia. I tend to think that he definitely would want to bring this to a close. But that does not answer the question of what will be Trump’s policy on the Middle East, which is much more worrisome. The big one looming in the background is what will Trump’s policy be with respect to China?

So, given the fact that the trans-Atlantic financial system is absolutely on the verge of a blowout, there are so many factors, that I think the situation will not be remedied at all, even if Trump manages to bring down the flames on the Ukraine situation, which is the acute danger of nuclear war. Because the reasons for this conflict are much larger and deeper, namely, it is the systemic question. The fact is that the liberal model of economy, and the neoliberal values which go with it, are clearly failing. You have the rising states of the Global Majority; you have the incredible economic developments in China, and the BRICS countries forming a new economic system. And as long as the collective West—or some people in the collective West—are determined to suppress that development, we are on the verge of World War III.

This is why the only way we can get out of the situation is to really move the whole world into a new paradigm modeled on the Peace of Westphalia; that we have to have a new security and development architecture which takes into account the interests of every single country on the planet. Because if you don’t do that, if you leave out some outcast, “pariah state,” so-called, geopolitics will not end. And geopolitics is the biggest disease in international politics which we must get rid of.

So, that is why the kinds of topics which will be discussed at our upcoming conference are the most important for people to deal with, because if you just keep doing the same thing, a catastrophe is looming.

Schlanger: One viewer writes, “I lived in Germany for ten years and grew to love the country. I have friends there who are depressed by the political and economic situation there. Is there something I can tell them that would give them hope for a better future?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes! Tell them they should remind themselves of what Germany used to be, and help to return to that. Because it is so unbelievable! A few years ago, Germany was respected in the whole world for its science, its technology, its engineering know-how, the nation of the great poets and thinkers and inventors. When you would travel abroad, as a German, you would be always treated with respect and sympathy. And now, I was just travelling abroad, and when you meet people from other countries, they almost always look at you with pity, saying “Oh, what happened to Germany? It’s collapsing. They don’t have a government which defends its interests.” Everything is collapsing right now. The people in Germany in general are very desperate—those who are not part of the political establishment or the club of privileged people, but those who fear becoming unemployed. There is a big fear of the danger of war, and they don’t know what to do.

It’s a very critical moment in German history, and the best advice that you can tell them is to get in touch with us; help us to turn the situation around. But for Germany, if we do not go back to our great tradition of the German Classical period—the ideas of Leibniz, of Cusanus, of Lessing, Schiller, Beethoven, the whole tradition of Classical music—unless we reconnect with our roots, I don’t think we will have the strength to get out of this crisis.

We should do what the Asians are doing. The Asians are looking back at their history, which in part is 5,000 years old, but they take from that great tradition the power and the strength to define a positive way to the future. And in Germany we have lost our sovereignty so completely—not that it has to be—but if people don’t get their act together— And we are right now governed by a political class which has completely thrown sovereignty away to the Anglosphere, taking orders from Washington, from London—the population is left without a shepherd. It’s an incredible moment in German history. So, if you have any way of talking to your friends, encourage them to do these two things: Get in touch with us, and help us to restore the great Classical tradition of German culture, and then I’m certain that we can find a solution.

Schlanger: You just mentioned a moment ago that you were abroad recently. I understand you were at a major conference. Can you tell us something about that?

Zepp-LaRouche: Yes. I was the invited keynote speaker at a very important conference in Guangzhou, in southern China. That’s the famous Greater Bay Area, which is the motor of the world economy; it’s the motor of the Belt and Road Initiative. This was the annual conference of the Maritime Silk Road, and it was a big international conference. There was a lot of discussion about— I mean, it’s so different. In China, but also the countries of the Global South which were guests there and speakers—also from Europe some key speakers—they were all concentrated on problem solving, on how to make things better: how to construct railways, how to make ports function, how to improve agriculture. It’s a completely different mindset. It’s much more healthy, and if we want to get out of this crisis, we in the West—that is, European nations, but also the United States—should stop the confrontation with these countries, and just basically say, “Let’s join hands and solve problems together.”

This new pamphlet which you just mentioned, which will be an item at the upcoming Schiller conference as well, basically says, what are the common interests between Europe and the United States, and the countries of the Global South? We have to solve the migrant question. Trump, whatever else he will do, intends to build a wall between Mexico and the United States to keep the migrants out. Now, that is not a very smart solution, because all you do with that is to impose a lot of suffering on the refugees, and you leave them to their own destinies. So, what does that do to remedy the situation? Likewise in Europe, the EU is trying to keep the refugees out, by beefing up Frontex—this paramilitary organization, which is accused of pushing back refugees, who are then drowning in the Mediterranean. It’s an ugly story.

No! What we should do is join hands. Why not make a crash program of industrializing Africa, Latin America, and those countries of Asia which still need industrialization, like the Middle East, for example? In Africa, 600 million people do not have electricity. So, why not make a crash program to electrify the entire African continent? Do this as a precondition for industrial development, starting with various kinds of existing fossil fuels, but start immediately with building nuclear plants, which take six years or so to get going. But then on top of it, start to build some so-called “game-changer” projects like the Grand Inga Dam in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or the Transaqua project, which is supposed to take about 3% of the water from the Congo River and bring it through a system of canals and rivers up to Lake Chad. And in that way, give electricity and hydropower to about 12 countries along the way, which will be the beginning of the industrialization of the heart of Africa.

And likewise in Latin America, where the Chancay Port, the first deep sea water port in Latin America, has just been initiated by President Xi Jinping of China and President Dina Boluarte of Peru. This is supposed to be connected to the Bi-Oceanic Railway, which will be the beginning of infrastructure development for the entire Latin American continent. Once you make such programs, then it gives hope to people. And you can involve those people who are now fleeing to get to the United States or Europe; make them part of the buildup of their own countries. That would be the human way of solving the refugee crisis.

So, in this pamphlet, we have made an outline of the kinds of steps that must be taken. We will try to intervene in this present crisis, because not letting the refugees in, that does not solve the refugee crisis. It just means a lot of ugliness will be happening at the borders. We have to cure the reasons people are running away from war and poverty in their own nations. For the Middle East, we have proposed the Oasis Plan. This would be a way of really making peace in the entire region. Naturally, you need a two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. You need an immediate ceasefire; you need humanitarian aid. But then, even if you have a two-state solution, if you don’t improve the economic conditions, the danger is that this will not hold. So, it has to be seen as an entire package.

But, as I said earlier, the problems of the world are so deep and so manifold, that we have reached a point in history where you have to do something which changes everything: You need a new paradigm; you have to move to a system where all nations go by the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, which is embedded also in the UN Charter. Then we have to build the world together. We are human beings. We are not troglodytes; we are not beasts. We are the human species, gifted with creative reason, and therefore, I am absolutely optimistic that if we put our minds and hearts together, we can solve this crisis.

Schlanger: Here’s a question from a fairly prominent podcaster in the United Kingdom. He’s been following, he says, with great interest the world of the International Peace Coalition (IPC). He says he’s especially appreciative of the emphasis that we have on the role of the British, because he’s been watching with great dismay how the British keep pushing and pushing—not the British people, but the British City of London. He asks this question: “Why is there no LaRouche Organization in the United Kingdom? I think there are many people in England who are fed up with the monarchy and the role the UK has played in instigating the endless wars who would sign up to join you. Is there any possibility you can set up an organization here?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, if you know people who agree with the philosophy and the world outlook of our movement, then create one yourself. We have our hands full with what we are doing on the continent, and trying to create a peace movement internationally, which is the topic of the weekly IPC conference. But if you are interested, then why don’t you start a reading group? Start some activity. You can have a local meeting once a month or once a week or whatever your temperament and ability tell you.

Schlanger: Clearly there’s a lot of concern about the Trump Cabinet. People are worried about whether it’s going to be different than the last time. A viewer writes, “Why do you think Trump chose Scott Bessent, a Soros man, to be Treasury Secretary? Doesn’t he know that Soros is Enemy No. 1 for many people in the MAGA movement?”

Zepp-LaRouche: I would think that he should know that. For his choice of posts, obviously Trump is following some logic: people who have done him favors or are loyal or claiming to be loyal. I think this is a problematic choice, but let’s see what happens. Someone who would follow the logic of the New York Stock Exchange and Wall Street will not be able to handle the financial and economic crisis now coming on. Given that we are sitting on this incredible overindebted bubble, that issue will sooner or later put itself on the agenda. And the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche remain the only suitable approach, which is the idea that, first, you have to have a Glass-Steagall law exactly as President Franklin D. Roosevelt imposed it in 1933: You have to separate the banks; put the commercial banks under protection of the state, so that business and trade and production can continue. The investment banks have to deal with their own problems without state support and without taxpayer money. Then you have to have a new credit system; a national bank. The power of credit generation has to go back to the sovereign power of the country. Then you have to have an agreement among national banks for a New Bretton Woods system which corrects the mistakes of the first one, namely, not to allow the development of the Global South. And then you have to have a massive injection into qualitatively new technologies such as thermonuclear fusion, space cooperation.

If that is not done, then Trump will fail. So, I think this question will put itself on the table fairly soon.

Schlanger: A supporter from Ireland writes that he prefers the street with signs and leaflets, as opposed to social media. On social media, you meet people who have been propagandized. It’s sort of an echo chamber. It’s better to do personal organizing in the street.

And we have another question, “More power to The LaRouche Organization and to your resource people. My question is, what is your forecast for the next move if the UK continues to have Ukraine fire more of the Storm Shadow missiles into Russia? Will Russia actually fire missiles at the United Kingdom?”

Zepp-LaRouche: That is indeed a question which could be answered with a “yes.” Various Russian officials—including Putin himself—have made a clear warning that they will eventually not only hit the missile launch sites, but the command centers from which the orders to fire the missiles are being sent. Now, I don’t know if that will immediately mean that missiles will hit Great Britain. I would rather think it is going to be U.S. bases, maybe in Poland, Romania. It could be ports; it could be logistical supply routes. There have been statements made by Russian officials to this effect.

I think if this keeps up—and especially if the British keep saying that the Ukrainians should be supplied with more Storm Shadow missiles, more ATACMS, more SCALP missiles from France—if this is not stopped, there will be a reaction more than what we have seen with the strikes of the Oreshnik missile. We are playing with fire. I can only say that I agree with the person speaking before, that we should have mass demonstrations. People should be in the streets. We need leaflets; we need social media as well. But if you have any way of talking to all your friends and colleagues and networks, mobilize them against this, because the biggest problem is that we are sleepwalking into a catastrophe—or at least the majority of the population are doing that—led by absolutely irresponsible politicians who are preparing a war of aggression; who should be eventually put before a tribunal.

Schlanger: I have a final question I think you’re going to like. It’s someone who writes: “I love what the Schiller Institute stands for: peace and cooperation. But why do you place so much emphasis on Classical culture? There are some Classical pieces I like—like the Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven—but many others just go right by me. I’m 55 years old, and I still like country music. I know Lyndon LaRouche used to make fun of country music. What am I missing?”

Zepp-LaRouche: I think the reason why you don’t like Classical music probably has to do with the fact that you don’t really know it. The reason why it is important is because it is composed in such a way that it speaks to the creative faculties of your mind. If you follow the composition by not just passively listening, but actually trying to understand the musical idea of the piece, how it is developed: Is there a fugal development? Is there polyphony? How do the harmonies play out? All of these are led in a certain sense like singing voices. You have to study it more deeply, and then you will find that Classical music is, indeed, encouraging those parts of your mind where new ideas are being developed. While I hate to say it, country music and other forms of so-called popular music are just sentimental. They speak to the senses. They speak to the emotions; they are sort of letting go. You can indulge in it, it’s rhythmic, you can dance to it. But it doesn’t really do what Classical music does for your creativity.

It’s unfortunate that adults have never been exposed to a rigorous studying of Classical music songs. You can also go to African-American spirituals, and you have a similar poetic musical composition. If they don’t have that experience, then it’s very difficult. But I can only encourage you to spend some time; be patient; listen to it again and again. Try to understand the composition; try to get an understanding of the notes; try to see if you can learn to read notes. Try to learn to sing; maybe join a Classical chorus. I’m absolutely convinced that if you do it for a while, the more you get into it, the more you will discover the sweetness of the beauty you find there. Which is not the kind of “letting it go” with country music, which is more in the opposite direction. With country music and popular music, you let it sink in, you indulge, you can even enjoy it, but it’s a kind of joy which is not creative.

Now, I will probably make a lot of people angry, and that on Thanksgiving, so I know I’m taking a big risk here. But I can only promise you that if you take the effort and study Classical music for a while, since you like the Moonlight Sonata already, there are many other Beethoven compositions which are equally pleasing to the ear. So, do a little bit more, and after some time, you will be overjoyed with the treasures you will discover.

Schlanger: Lyn once said his favorite country song was “If You Want To Keep the Beer Real Cold, Put It Next to My Ex-Wife’s Heart.” So, I think that’s what you’re talking about when you say it’s sinking down.