Schiller Institute Weekly Dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

The Power of Humankind:
The Power To Stop Nuclear War

The following is an edited transcript of the Dec. 26, 2024, weekly Schiller Institute dialogue with Schiller Institute founder and leader Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Embedded links and subheads have been added. The video is available here.

Harley Schlanger: Hello and welcome to our weekly dialogue with Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder of the Schiller Institute. Helga, the Christmas truce proposed by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was rejected by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. As a result, the war is continuing in Ukraine, while the Israeli army is continuing an offensive, which looks like they’re in a bloody rush to consolidate a Greater Israel. Yet there have been some positive diplomatic developments which we’ll discuss today; for example, between China and Japan, and Russia and Pakistan. But I’d like to start with the existential danger from the Anglo-American war drive. I’ve received several questions asking if you really think the neocons are crazy enough to try to provoke or to launch a nuclear war.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Let me first wish all of you a Merry Christmas, because here in Europe, we still have the second day of Christmas, unlike in the United States. But one should have the Christmas spirit still, because Pope Francis, in his annual Christmas Urbi et Orbi blessing, emphasized very much the question of peace, dialogue, conflict resolution—but only through dialogue and negotiations. And he announced that 2025 is going to be a Jubilee Year, which, according to the Christian faith, should mean that a lot of wrongs should be corrected, debt should be forgiven, other conflicts should be resolved. And while that seems like the chance of a snowflake in hell under the present circumstances, I’m sort of in-between—on the one side, it is no question that what we have been saying in the last several broadcasts, that the weeks until Trump gets into the White House, in my view and the views of other people, will be the most dangerous period in history ever—and that includes the Cuban Missile Crisis—for the very simple reason that despite the fact that Trump has surrounded himself with a lot of neocons who all will have posts in his administration, nevertheless, from the standpoint of Wall Street and the City of London military-industrial complex, Trump has this quality of relative unpredictability. And he has made so many contradictory statements that one cannot be sure of what he means. Does he mean the United States and China together can solve all problems? Or, does he think that the nice Chinese working on the Panama Canal should be kicked out, because that’s America’s property? Also, the announcement that he wants to buy up or gobble up Greenland—I mean, the Panama Canal, Greenland, tariffs against BRICS countries—I think there are so many warning signals, that one cannot be sure of what this administration will be.

On the other side, he has also stated that he does want to end the wars. It’s very difficult to judge. But I think, nevertheless, that this slight margin of uncertainty is too much for the oligarchy, who see that their system is clearly crumbling. And while the new system in the form of the BRICS-Plus, the SCO, the Eurasian Economic Union, ASEAN—these countries are all trying to build a system, and if that new system is against the United States or cooperates with the United States, this is not determined by these countries. It is entirely the attitude of the United States and European nations, because if they would stretch out their hand and say, “Let’s cooperate,” the whole world would be full of relief and do so.

Nuclear War Cannot Be Won

So anyway, we will go into this extremely dangerous period, where something could happen. And, unfortunately, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, at his Christmas press conference, again reiterated that it is not Russia which is threatening nuclear war; that Russia at no point started this debate; that, indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in 2021, had reiterated the famous saying between U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, from 1987, that a nuclear war cannot be won and therefore should never be started. This is what Putin insisted that the permanent UN Security Council members reiterate, and they did. But, naturally, other statements were made, and the American doctrine has been all along, U.S. primacy and the leadership role of the United States.

Rear Adm. Thomas Buchanan had said in this CSIS [Center for Strategic and International Studies] meeting in November in Washington, that the United States regards it as legitimate to use nuclear weapons to maintain that hegemonic position. And that puts us in immediate danger, because of the escalation we have seen in the recent period, the ever-more powerful weapons being delivered to Ukraine, at their disposal, ATACMS missiles, which can strike deep into the Russian territory. And even after the Russians used the Oreshnik missile, which is a game changer, all the Western propaganda to try to say, “Oh, there is really nothing new about this missile,” is just not true! The Russians have made a strategic surprise with the development of this medium-range missile, which can go at Mach 10 or even Mach 11, and is not interceptable. It can reach every part of Europe; it can reach Guam; it can reach the West Coast of the United States. And given that we are at all in these areas shows you that the Western establishments—it is hair-raising that they seem to be completely unable to review their policies, realize that they’re not functioning, and start a discussion expressing a willingness to correct them. But we don’t see any sign of that, and that is the reason why we have never been in such a mortal danger as now. That’s why people really must express their absolute determination to fight for peace, as they have never done before.

Schlanger: Helga, in our last webcast, there was a question about the political crises in Japan and South Korea. And the question was, were these related to a backlash against Global NATO. Well, the same questioner today asks if the Japan-China meeting in Beijing on Christmas Day means the Japanese recognize the danger they face, if they become part of a Global NATO. And he also asks: Isn’t trade with China important for Japan?

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I think it is a very promising sign, because the two foreign ministers met over Christmas in Beijing, as you said, and concluded very far-ranging agreements: student exchange, education exchange, such extremely important topics like preserving and furthering the classic tradition of the other—and they all come essentially from a Confucian background. But, nevertheless, Japan and China have quite a different policy and tradition.

If they start to communicate on that level, it is clearly a sign of hope; it is definitely one of the better pieces of news, because Global NATO is just an abomination—with the continuous insistence of the United States that they can sell weapons to Taiwan, then an attempted coup in South Korea. So, I think it’s an extremely important development, and I can only hope that this will be the beginning of other nations in the Pacific going in the same direction likewise.

Schlanger: Since our last webcast, there have been dramatic developments in Germany: The government of Olaf Scholz’s chancellorship was ended in a vote of no-confidence, and there’s a date for an election on Feb. 23, 2025. Now, there’s a question that came in: “Given growing concern about German complicity in the NATO war against Russia, do you think the people would elect a war-hawk like Friedrich Merz? Haven’t they learned that wars are not very helpful to Germany?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, in the polls right now, the election result is open. It’s almost two months ahead, and in that period a lot can happen. Remember that the election in Germany is on Feb. 23, but on Jan. 20, Trump moves into the White House, and he will do some dramatic things—one doesn’t know exactly what it will be, but it will be dramatic, and that will have an impact on the German election.

A Groundswell for Change in Germany

Now, I think that there is—you wouldn’t notice it, if you looked at the mainstream media—but I have come to the conclusion that there is an underground current right now in Germany developing, which I have never seen in my political life, ever: And that is that more and more people are speaking out, saying that the United States and Germany do not have the same security or economic interests, but also not Germany and the EU. That the EU, by following blindly whatever Washington and London dictate, is trampling on the interests of Germany. Then the unbelievable statements by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, that U.S. LNG [liquid natural gas] would be so much cheaper than Russian gas! I mean, this woman obviously thinks that all the people in Europe are complete morons and can’t read or write! And the arrogance of the establishment is so unbelievable: For example, the background discussions about the Foreign Minister of Germany, Frau Baerbock. People are talking about this woman as the worst abomination which ever happened, and there is a groundswell.

There are now many blogs, platforms emerging on YouTube, and other social media, and there is a general recognition that we are near a break. I don’t think that these channels have come to the necessary strategic comprehension yet of understanding the deeper reasons: the collapse of the financial system, the absolute need to establish a new system based on physical principles. This whole drama is the result of the paradigm-shift in the West, which started in August 1971, when Nixon went to the flexible exchange rates, and started the process of money-makes-money, profit maximization—no matter what—which was recognized by my late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, as an absolute game-changer at the time. And now we are at the moment where more than 50 years after that paradigm-shift occurred—neglecting physical production, favoring speculation, maximization of profit—that rope has come to an end, because now the West is sitting on $2 quadrillion in outstanding derivatives.

The United States’ own—I think they have by now $33 or $34 trillion government debt, unpayable. And since they are not doing anything to counter that, you don’t see all of a sudden in the EU or in America a massive investment program in infrastructure, in city building, in new industries, new cities—nothing of that sort. What you see, instead, is more military production, more weapons, and, naturally, that brings a lot of profit in the short term for those who have the shares in these weapons firms. But, from an economic standpoint, investment in military production is an utter, complete waste. And even the famous spillover effect of military inventions into the civilian economy is absolutely negligible, because there is no such effort being made to transfer the technologies. The research and development is also not doing so well, as we can see in the new arms race between the United States and Russia, and, by that, also China and other countries allied with Russia.

People Must Recognize the War Danger

So, we are in a situation where everything depends on the people recognizing the war danger and coming out in full force, voting against any party that is for Taurus, that is for ATACMS, that is for continuation of these conflicts. And in Germany, there are at least three parties—one is the AfD [Alternative for Germany], one is the BSW, the Wagenknecht party, and, naturally, the “Solidarity Movement,” the BüSo party, which I’m head of—and we have a very clear position against the war.

Now, people say that nobody wants to make a coalition with the AfD. However, Alice Weidel of the AfD is now ahead in the polls compared to Merz (CDU). If there would be a direct election for the Chancellor, I think Merz is several points behind Weidel, and under very dramatic conditions this could even become bigger. Also, it is not unthinkable that the attitude of not ever making a coalition with the AfD, under dramatic conditions, could also change.

So, the fact is that the so-called established parties, everything from the “streetlight coalition” parties [SPD, FDP and Greens], to the potential now for a coalition of the CDU/CSU plus FDP or plus Greens, would be a worsening of the policies we had under Scholz! So, I would say any vote which votes out these people is a vote for peace and a vote for the existence of Germany.

Schlanger: You mentioned the comments about Baerbock. My personal favorite, as the worst candidate ever, is Robert Habeck, the Green candidate for Chancellor, who made an idiotic comment that by moving to solar and wind, Germany is protecting its energy infrastructure.

Now, you did bring up the economy, and especially the post-1971 period work of your husband. We have a question from a blogger, referring to the fight over the continuing resolution in the U.S. Congress to have a budget which deals with the growing deficit. He writes: “It seems that the U.S. establishment has only two approaches to dealing with the growing government debt. The first is the continuing resolution, which includes more funny money as bailouts; or secondly, committing drastic cuts in spending. Neither, in my opinion, is sustainable. What is the LaRouche approach?”

Zepp-LaRouche: The LaRouche approach is to go for a global Glass-Steagall. That is, you cannot resolve the problem by simply making certain measures in one country, because the international financial system is so interwoven. So, ideally, there would be a weekend, a decision prepared, maybe carefully through diplomatic channels, and in all major countries of the trans-Atlantic system, you would have a banking holiday. A Glass-Steagall would be implemented, which means the commercial banks would be under government protection, because they have to continue lending to industry, agriculture, and trade. But the investment banks would be told that they have to put their books in order on their own, without payment from the taxpayer or some other bailout scheme. And if their books are in the red and they can’t remedy it, then maybe they have to close down, because they’re really not needed. That’s one of the big illusions about modern monetary theory.

And then, naturally, the next step would be that each country must immediately create a national bank; that the power of credit generation has to go back under the sovereign control of the people, that is, in the United States the Congress. The national banks in every country, they would have agreements among themselves for long-term financing and for clearing houses to balance differences in economic strength of the different countries and different properties.

Then you would create a new credit system according to the same principles as Franklin Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corporation, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau in postwar Germany, the Meiji Restoration in Japan, the Gaullist policy form of dirigist economics—so you have traditions in many of these countries to which one could refer back, so that people would not get all hysterical and say “this is a revolution,” because it’s not! It’s basically clearing the financial system of this unbelievable speculative bubble, which is suffocating real production.

Cooperation, Not Confrontation

And then, if there would be, at the same time, communication with the BRICS, there could be an immediate cooperation with the New Development Bank (NDB), with the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), with the New Silk Road Fund, and with similar institutions. Maybe there would be a short period of uncertainty, but if it would be combined with a clear declaration along the lines that I have proposed in my Ten Principles for a New Security and Development Architecture, where the Four Laws of LaRouche are one essential element, it would be easy to remedy.

And it would naturally mean to go into a new paradigm to stop the confrontation and move to a system of cooperation, a new security and development architecture, which takes into account the interest of every country—indivisible security—because if you don’t have that, it doesn’t function. So, it may look like a tall order, but, is it really a tall order as compared to a nuclear war and the annihilation of the human species? I don’t think so.

Schlanger: Helga, I just got a text message saying, “Wait a second! Did she say there are three parties? The BüSo Solidarity Party? Does that mean Helga is a candidate? And I live in Berlin: Will I be able to vote for you?”

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, I hope I will be a candidate. It is right now an enormous struggle, because the shortness of the time, basically from Dec. 16, the number of signatures which have to be gathered by parties which are not yet in the parliament is enormous; it’s more than 2,000 for the slate and more than 200 more for each direct candidate. But, in reality, one always has to collect a significant amount more because of possible invalid signatures. So, we are right now engaged in a tremendous battle to gather these signatures.

The weather doesn’t help; the holiday period doesn’t help. But we are determined to do everything in our power to reach these signatures by Jan. 20. So, if you are sitting in Berlin, then the most obvious thing is to join our efforts to collect signatures, and also then you will do the best thing you can do for Germany under these conditions. Because, both in the AfD and the BSW, there are definitely many good people and they have good points, but the reason why the BüSo is campaigning nevertheless, despite the fact that we are naturally small, is because we are a factory of ideas—which is absolutely necessary in terms of where are the strategic solutions, what issues must be taken. And I can only again say, please look at the Ten Principles I suggested already more than two years ago. They are still absolutely valid as the starting point of such a transformation. So, please, join us in Berlin.

Schlanger: Well, I know the person who sent that, and I’ll make sure that he does.

Now, you mentioned the “factory of ideas.” People can go to The LaRouche Organization website or the Schiller Institute website: On the Schiller Institute site you will find the Ten Principles of Helga, and I think that’s a fine document as a campaign statement.

Now, also Helga, the International Peace Coalition, can you say something about that?

Zepp-LaRouche: We expect to have speakers from Southwest Asia, where I didn’t talk about it now, but the situation is absolutely horrendous. The genocide in Gaza is fully escalating. It is unbelievable that the world seems to be unable to stop this, which is beyond heartbreaking—it’s mind-boggling. The West will never recover from this! It’s not just that the Palestinians are being slaughtered and the children are dying. There was a poll which said that 95% of the children expect to die soon, and 50% think it should happen as quickly as possible, because they can’t bear it any more.

Indifference of the West

It’s not just what is happening now in Syria, and the West Bank and Lebanon and the whole region—but the West’s indifference; the West’s tolerance of what is happening there without intervening to stop it. I think this is a stain. I cannot imagine that the West will be in a position to get rid of that in the foreseeable future, unless they completely change the leadership of the countries that are responsible for condoning this genocide. And I think in the future world order, if you think how people were thinking of what happened in Germany in the 12 years of National Socialism and how long it took for Germany to, sort of, be respected again, I think something similar is happening, because if the West tolerates what is going on right now, this will not be forgotten in the eyes of the rest of the world.

Naturally there is the immediate war danger, because Southwest Asia also has the potential to expand to a regional and even global war. And for sure, we will talk about the post-Oreshnik situation in Ukraine and beyond.

The International Peace Coalition is a growing movement. We have to strengthen it, to make its voice heard, loud and clear, until the peace movement is stronger than the warmongers.

Schlanger: The IPC meets at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time, every Friday.

Helga, thanks very much for taking the time on the second day of Christmas to join us, and hopefully we’ll see you tomorrow. And probably, the next time we talk on the webcast will be next year. So, Happy New Year as well.

Zepp-LaRouche: Well, have a good Christmas and a good New Year—and have a good whole year!