Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Links
LaRouche | Music | Join | Books | Concerts | Highlights  | Education | Health
Spanish Pages | Poetry | Dialogue of CulturesMaps
What's New

©EIRNS/Stuart Lewis
Helga Zepp-LaRouche                    

Helga Zepp-LaRouche Addresses
Philippine Radio Audience:

‘We Will Make Universal History Our Possession’

on December 21, 2004
hosted by Butch Valdes

Related Pages


Helga Zepp-LaRouche made her debut on Philippine radio, hosted by Butch Valdes, who was joined in the studio with the Philippines LaRouche Youth Movement, and by callers, for about an hour and a quarter of dialogue on Dec. 21, 2004.

Butch Valdes: [picked up mid-sentence] ... against oppressive austerity programs in Germany and most of Europe, a shining example of determination and true leadership; a constant inspiration to the worldwide organization of the LaRouche Youth Movement, from Wiesbaden, Germany, Ms. Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Good evening Helga.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Good evening....

Valdes: Is Ms. Helga Zepp-LaRouche there?

Helga: Yes, hello. How are you? Good evening.

Valdes: How are you, Helga?

Helga: I'm very fine.

Valdes: Well, everybody here from the LaRouche Youth Movement is also with us here tonight, and eagerly waiting for your—well, welcoming you to the Philippines, for the first time, in Philippines Radio.

Helga: Oh, I'm happy to be for the first time in Philippines radio. Do you want me to communicate to you what I'm thinking right now?

Valdes: Well, of course, much of the world is being driven into different modes of austerity programs, pushing human beings into accepting deteriorating levels of existence. But, what surprises most of us here, Helga, is Germany: a fully industrialized country going into major austerity. Could you explain this to our listeners, as a start, Helga?

Helga: Yes, it is actually very breathtaking, how quickly the German economy and the German society right now, is really undergoing a process of disintegration, almost.

But, actually, let me situate what happens in Germany, very briefly, in a larger picture, because it's not a German phenomenon.

We have, right now, an extraordinary moment in history. In a certain sense you can say that the entire universal history is coming to a point of decision, which will mean a branching point: Where will mankind go? Will we go into a New Dark Age, or will we be able to pull ourselves together, and create what we, the LaRouche movement, have been fighting for, for over 30 years: a just new world economic order, where every human being on this planet can live a human, dignified life.

What we're seeing right now is that, really, from the standpoint of European history, 2,500 years are coming to a point of decision, in that sense, that there has been a fight between two totally opposite systems, which the great German Poet of Freedom, Friedrich Schiller, describes in his paper about the laws of Solon and the laws of Lycurgus. And what he describes there, is that the idea of man and the idea of society which was demonstrated by the wise lawgiver of Athens, Solon; he determined the idea, that the purpose of the state was progression of all citizens: That all citizens should have a better life, that they should improve their cognitive abilities, and that this progression, this progress, was the reason why the state existed. And, on the other side, Schiller pointed to the case of the ancient Greek Sparta, the model of a state where a small elite was ruling over a mass of backward people, treating these backward people as "helots," which is just another word for slaves.

And in the entire 2,500 years of European civilization since, these two systems have been in a constant battle, where the imperial, oligarchical model, which was Rome, Byzantium, the British Empire, was on the one side; and the idea of a republican conception, based on the model of Solon's Athens was on the other side, which came to a new development during the Italian Renaissance, during the reign of Louis XI in France in the 15th Century, and which was then culminating in the American Revolution.

Now, the problem is, in a nutshell, that the present world crisis, which is throwing a majority of people into increasing poverty and despair, comes from the fact that the main institutions of the G-7 countries—the so-called industrialized countries—have been taken over step by step, especially during the last 40 years, with the oligarchical conception, and neo-liberal policies. This paradigm shift, which really is not a new one, but which was accelerated in the last 40 years, meant that the whole economy on a world scale went more and more away from production, into speculation; and more and more neo-liberal policies were dominant. And that process accelerated when the Soviet Union disintegrated in the period between '89 and '91. And the so-called globalization meant that there was no limit to the looting of the poorer countries, but also the poorer people, in the so-called advanced countries.

This system is now coming to an end. The global market economy is as bankrupt today, as the Communist economy was in October '89, shortly before the Wall came down. Now, for a very long time, Lyndon LaRouche was the only one who was talking about this, that there would come a systemic crisis of the system of free-market economy. But now, it's exactly as Lyn and we have been predicting, after the election in the United States on Nov. 2; now, basically, it becomes obvious to everybody that this system is collapsing. And for the last two weeks, you had very funny (or, not so funny), but very amazing statements coming out from financial experts, financial press, saying that the financial system is now facing—and they're using words such as "Armageddon"; that the world financial system will have an "Apocalypse"; that the end of the system has been reached; that there will be a "financial Hiroshima," and so forth and so on. Quite amazing characterizations.

And this all reflects the fact, that, indeed, we have a new world depression, which in one sense has parallels to the 1930s. But, in many respects, it's also much worse, if you, for example, look at the condition of Africa or many other places in the world, this depression is already worse than then. And now, as then, there is a danger of a new global fascism. So, that's the very big danger. And what you see in Germany, answering to your question, is just the German version, or the German aspect, to this global financial breakdown crisis.

But, this crisis is also, if we do our job in the right way, a chance. And therefore, our movement right now, is trying to organize a new alliance of forces from all over the world, who say: "No, we learned the lesson of the '30s. We will not have a new fascism. We don't need a new Hitler, we don't need new austerity and cutbacks, and slashing budgets. But, we can put together a new combination of people who say that the United States under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt, did not go for fascism. And we can take the model of what Franklin D. Roosevelt did, with the old Bretton Woods system, and make a New Bretton Woods system; declare the present financial system as bankrupt, reorganize it; and then, create a new world economic order, based on the integration of the entire Eurasian continent." The idea of having a Eurasian Land-Bridge, bringing together the industrial centers of Europe with the industrial centers and the population centers of Asia; and especially because the new collaboration between Russia, India, and China, which was reconfirmed by the visit of President Putin, when he was in India, last week, is a very important component of that.

Now, I want to encourage all of you, the people who are listening, and those who could write to us, to read a new paper by Lyndon LaRouche, which is a fantastic vision on the 21st Centur, where he calls for a new dialogue of the cultures of Europe with the cultures of Asia. And he points to some of the very important differences between European culture and the Asian cultures, but it's a very long paper.

And I just want to emphasize one point, which I really think is very important. What Lyn says in this paper, is that we need a new treaty among sovereign nations of the world, modelled on the old Peace of Westphalia from 1648. This was the conclusion of the 30-year religious war in Europe, which had totally devastated Europe, for actually more than 150 years, but especially the 30 years of the Thirty Years' War. And it made a peace plan, which was based on the idea that peace and cooperation among nations, can only be based on if each is pursuing the interest of the other, and does what is the best for the other country, and vice versa, as the basis for peace.

Now, obviously, this goes with an image of man, which totally belongs to the model which I mentioned in the beginning, the idea of progression of mankind, the idea of the Athens of Solon, the idea that every human being is a cognitive being. And Lyn describes this very beautifully, with the idea that the basis of a new peace order in the world, must be an image of man where every human being is being treated as Promethean man, referring to the Greek mythology of Prometheus, the half-god who brought science to mankind in the form of controlling fire. Meaning that the potential of every human being on this planet to be creative, to be a genius, to contribute to the development of mankind as a whole, must be furthered and nourished as the basis for peace. Every human being must have access to knowledge, to science and technology, and be treated, because his identity is that of a cognitive being, and so forth.

And then, Lyn makes a very strong point, which sounds very simple, when you first hear it, but actually it's not so simple. He says: The proof that such a new world economic order and a new Peace of Westphalia is really serious, and really will mean a change in the order of the world, means that the governments must agree to eliminate poverty. Now, for me, this was a very moving point, because, you know—it sounds so simple: But, if you really look at it, the idea that you want to eliminate poverty for real—in the Philippines, in Africa, in Latin America; in Germany, where there is increasing poverty as well; in the United States—this would mean to completely change the world outlook. Because, people would really have to become serious, and say, "Yes, it is not a dignified life that so many, actually billions of people, are living in a condition where they don't have enough to eat, to drink, they don't have clean water, they don't have the most simple conditions so that they can develop as cognitive beings."

So, I just want to really whet your appetite, and also the listeners on the radio, to write to the radio get a copy of this very fantastic document. Because, I have somehow a feeling, that this paper will be a very important, decisive factor, in determining how the future of mankind will go, at this historical moment.

Valdes: Okay. We have a question from the LYM Ver.

Question: Hi Helga. You mentioned, you read an article about culture, and earlier you mentioned about Friedrich Schiller. The question refers to that. With the rotten culture the society seems in right now, how do we give or instill beauty to them, who was benighted and has been corrupted with ugliness and the degeneration of this culture? How do we inspire them to become a beautiful soul?

Helga: Well, I think, the only way how you can do it, is to give an example. Because, I mean, most people really have been deprived of access to beauty, as you are saying correctly. I have never been in the Philippines, but I have been in other Asian countries—in China, in Malaysia, in Thailand, and other places. And, what I noticed is that—you know, you have Britney Spears everywhere. You turn on the TV, you turn on MTV, and, you know, out comes an Asian version of Britney Spears, or pop music, and so forth.

So, what you have right now, is a flood of—one can say—the culture of globalization, you know, really poisoning the minds of millions of young people in the Asian world, transmitting what we could call "low culture." Because all of the culture associated with globalization, is a low culture, with only one aim: to increase the moronization of the population, to make them more stupid. Because, if everybody goes according to punk music, or pop music, or rap music, or hip-hop or whatever, it's so monotonous, that it totally destroys the cognitive facilities and capabilities of those who are listening to it.

So, what you have to do, is, you have to find a way of communicating principles of Classical culture, and I can only really talk with competence about European culture, in terms of what is Classical culture in Europe; but I think the big challenge is going to be, to find in Asian culture, those high cultures, those traditions in music, painting, and literature, which represent the equivalent of what is Friedrich Schiller for Germany, or Beethoven, or Dante, or Petrarca. Because, I think, that in the future, the dialogue among cultures will only be successful if people recognize what was the best in the traditions of Europe, of Asia, of Africa; and then, basically, understand that the universal principles which you find in that high culture, indeed, is what makes us one human race, no matter if you're coming from Europe or Asia or whatever.

So, I think that you need to do a lot more research, and in the meantime, you are welcome to use Schiller, to use Beethoven, because these people have stopped being European or German—they have long become universal in terms of their contribution. So, I think that the best thing you can do, is what the LYM has been doing internationally: Learn to sing beautifully, learn the bel canto method of singing; study FurtwâÄ°ngler; study the great compositions and conducting of Beethoven through FurtwâÄ°ngler. And also great bel canto singing from great singers; study the American Spiritual, especially, in the form of what was done to it in terms of a Classical approach.

And that way, I think you will shock the people, and tell them that there is something that they didn't even know before existed.

Valdes: Helga, you have visited China on several occasions, I think, and had conferred with key officials on matters touching on economics, science, and culture. What conclusions have you made on your studies? And specifically, what is China's role, do you think, in the future?

Helga: Well, I think it's a very interesting question, because, on the one side China has one of the oldest cultures, in an uninterrupted tradition since 6,000 years or so, or even more. I think that China has a very strong point, which is the Confucian tradition, which is the idea that the state is organized according to the common good, to the idea of harmonious development of society, and in a certain sense, that tradition is still very much alive in China. But, on the other side, you also have a problem, which is typical for all of Asian cultures, which is the fact that you have a large amount of the people living in great poverty. In China, it's about, I think something like 80%.

And, there it is really big challenge for the immediate future, because China—in a certain sense, from my experience—has somehow lived in an illusion: Meaning, that they thought that the world financial system would not collapse; that all they had to do, was to be on friendly terms with the United States; and somehow they could manage through exports of their products, to keep an economic growth rate, especially in the southern and coastal regions of China. But, that will come to a very shocking end: Because, when the dollar will collapse, and the U.S. economy will not be able to absorb Chinese exports, in the way they have been doing before, this will create a big challenge and a big crisis for Chinese society: to either go in the direction of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, in order to develop those populations in the western and inner regions of China, or they will face a real explosion inside the country.

So, I think—on the one side, I have found that the Chinese officials are very responsible for the development of their people, because I have talked to officials, who have said, "Well, look, China has a big problem. We have one-fourth of the human population. Every fourth human being is a Chinese, but we only have 7% of the agriculturally usable land, and that means that there are enormous constraints." So, China does need to have a perspective of cooperating with other regions of the world, which eventually can provide them with more food and more resources. So, that means that they really have to have a re-thinking.

On the other side, that also means that they have to find a Chinese way to integrate more the right of the individual. Because, what, in a certain sense is better in China, is the concern for the common good of all. But sometimes this happens a little bit at the expense of the rights of the individual. I'm not preaching here the typical Westerners' human rights complaints—that's not what I mean. I think this human rights question has been misused a lot, by people who really have not the interests of China in their minds. What I'm talking about is something very different. I'm talking to the question, that the image of man has to be really more—let's say—in Christian terms, you would say the image of man as being in the image of God, but that doesn't mean much to the majority of the Chinese. But, the equivalent would be, the absolutely agapic idea, that every human has the right for their maximum development. And that is something which, one really has to struggle how to find those elements in the Asian traditions and in the Chinese tradition, which express that in the most way.

Valdes: We have a question.

Question: Hello Miss Helga.

Helga: Hello!

Question: Okay. There is a growing crisis right now in Southwest Asia, and some parts of North Africa, especially in the Caucasus region, especially what is happening right now in Ukraine. What do you think is a major solution for this growing crisis, which affects the development of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, or the growth from Asia to Europe, and also parts of U.S.?

Helga: Well, I think since a very long time, I believed that the great European philosopher, Nikolaus of Cusa who lived in the 15th Century and who is the father of modern science and the idea of the sovereign nation-state, is absolutely right. Because he said, that eventually, the world will reach a situation where you can not find a solution on side order; you can not find regional solutions for Southwest Asia, North Africa, Caucasus, and Ukraine, but you can only find a solution on the highest level for the world as a whole. And right now, that means concretely, that unless we change the dynamic coming from inside the United States, there is not going to be a solution to all of these regional problems.

And this is why the struggle of Lyndon LaRouche inside the United States to turn the Democratic Party back to their tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and to recruit those patriots also among the Republicans, who do not want the United States to become an empire, that that is the crucial question. But that doesn't mean that we, in Europe, or you, in Asia, should sit on our hands. I think we have to organize people so that they understand that very soon, there will come a moment of great earthquakes, of tremendous turmoil, and of tremendous moments people have not expected.

And that is, essentially, when it becomes totally clear that this financial system is reaching its end. And this end could come in many ways. It can come in the form of a derivatives accident—there was just now a movie in the BBC, which was fiction, but nevertheless, it showed how a derivatives accident occurred: How a large terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia destroys the oil fields, and how the oil price goes over $75 a barrel, and then how basically the whole system comes to an end. And then, the London Times wrote an article saying: Oh, this sounds very much like fiction—except that the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, just were running simulations where they assumed very similar things, namely, that the whole system is coming down.

And I think the best we can do, in order to help that these crises don't go out of control, is to talk about what are the positive solutions which are available today: which is the idea that you can have a combination of countries getting together in an emergency conference to form a New Bretton Woods system; and, to make economic agreements, in especially Eurasia, where basically the Eurasian Land-Bridge, the idea of an infrastructural integration of all of Eurasia is being discussed.

So, I think that the best way to address the question of Iraq, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Caucasus, Ukraine—is to basically say: "Look, we can not continue the world on this path it is going right now. We need a complete change of the entire world system." And that may sound unrealistic right now, but very soon, people will yell, and say, "Hey! Wait a second! Where is another way? Where is another alternative?" And I think the best you can do in the Philippines is to study the proposals by Lyn. Then go and talk to your parliamentarians, trade unionists, business leaders, and organize people to know that such an alternative exists. Because, very soon, this will be on the table. Either that, or chaos.

Question: [followup] But, Miss Helga, it seems that the rulers of the world are in the state of hysterical denial, denying the existence of the present crisis. What do you think—how are we going to help in making these rulers realize that we are in a very fast collapsing world; that it's going to collapse very, very soon. And maybe you could share with us, the ideas of Schiller on the rulers' ideas to be adopted in each country?

Helga: Well, I think that you should not always believe what hysterical rulers are telling you. Because, what they are telling to the public, and what they are telling behind closed doors, is many times something very different. And I happen to know, for sure, that in Europe right now, and in the United States, and in Russia, for that matter, and in India, and in many other countries, the top leadership—in the ministries, in the top banks behind closed doors they are totally, totally, 100% agreeing with our analysis: That the system is finished.

Now, they are not prepared to go with our solution quite yet, because most politicians in Europe, for example, they are not concerned about the people, they're just concerned to be re-elected, because they like the diet they get for it, the money they get for it, the pensions they get for it. And they're not willing to really step out.

But, what we have to do, is to simply try to find those people who are more responsible, who are less concerned with their own little interest, and little pension, and little money they get every month, but who are willing to "look across the limit of the plate they have in front of them" (that's the German idiom, I don't know if you understand this), but who are willing to take a vision for the future of their country and the world at large; and I think that the best you can do, is to make sure that you distribute our literature.

For example, I was quite amazed, that there is a complete shift right now in the coverage—for example, what I mentioned earlier: if you have financial experts from top banks, JP Morgan, saying, "Armageddon is coming"; others are talking about the "financial Hiroshima"; others talking about a "meltdown of the system"; "the Apocalypse coming"—so, these people would not be saying that, if they would not be really completely aware that this crisis is coming about. And I think the best thing you can do, is just write leaflets, get the newspaper out, write e-mails, just make sure that you organize a growing group of people who are willing to listen to that. Because, you have to always assume that the top-level people absolutely know what is at stake.

Valdes: Okay, a question.

Question: Yes, hi. Actually I have two questions for you, Helga. My first question would be: Can you give us some updates on the demonstrations that you're doing against the German government's fiscal austerity measures? And my other question is, I read your article "Beauty Is a Necessary Condition of Man." So, for the benefit of our listeners, can you please tell us more about this idea?

Helga: Well, on the first question, there was, as you know, a big peak of these demonstrations in the month of September, where the size of the Monday demonstrations had actually reached over 100,000 people, and at a certain peak, 230 cities. And, there are still people who are absolutely determined to keep this process alive and expanding. But, it is also very clear that there were absolutely top-level counterintelligence operations run, to demoralize the participants, to cause confusion, to have many groups deployed to cause disunity, and so forth. And, especially one group, which played a very significant role in causing such demoralization, it now turns out, that their sister-organization in Holland, was run by the Dutch secret service, top-down. So, we are looking into this right now, to see what was actually the role of the counterintelligence, in trying to demoralize these Monday demonstrations.

But, I don't think that that is the end of it. Because we have, right now, a very good network of people from different cities, who are very serious people and who really want to educate themselves to be able to be more efficient when the next round comes. And that next round will come: Because, just now, at the beginning of the next year, the first victims of this so-called Hartz IV austerity reform, will be targetted, by basically losing a lot of unemployment money; becoming poor very, very quickly, receiving maybe 500 euro less, or 200 euro less per month; and people will be really hungry. One welfare organization in Germany just came out and said that the minimum which is now being paid to some of these unemployed people, will not be enough to prevent them from having hunger and real scarcity.

So, I can foresee an explosion of this, coming in the next period. And the good thing is, that the German Constitution has a very important protection of the common good of the people. It is true, that we in Europe were never able to make an American Revolution, like in the United States. We never fought for a sovereign republic; we never had a Declaration of Independence; we never had an American Constitution in this profound way. But, nevertheless, the German Constitution is a relatively good one. It has such beautiful paragraphs: For example, Article 1 says: The dignity of man is untouchable. Then it has another principle which says: Property obliges people to use it for the common good.

Now that's pretty tough. And it reflects a situation, that when the Second World War was over, the authors of the Constitution, wanted to give Germany a Constitution which would make sure that never again, some horror-show like the Nazi regime could occur. And therefore, they tried to make the German Constitution based on natural law. And, for example, Article 20 says, that the Federal Republic of Germany is a social state, and that if forces are trying to change that, the German population has the right to resistance.

Now, that's pretty remarkable: Because, that is exactly the idea which was in the American Declaration of Independence, which is this beautiful document which you all know, that the people have the right to topple a government if it is not serving the common good of the people. Now, the German Constitution doesn't say "topple," but it says the people have the right to "resist," if somebody tries to change this character as a social state.

Now we are discussing this right now, with many of the organizers of the Monday demonstrations, and trying to educate them. Because the beautiful thing about that is, that we are actually defending the Constitution, and those people who are trying to cut and impose brutal austerity, they are actually enemies of the Constitutions. And, many people actually felt very happy, when they said, "Hey, wait a second! We are really defending the Constitution, and those people are really opposing it, and they should really not be allowed to do that." So, it's a very interesting situation, which—I think we will see a lot more of such Monday demonstrations in the coming period.

And we are determined to continue it, because, the people need representation of somebody who defends them, who defends the common good. And if neither the government nor the opposition does that—well, then maybe the Monday demonstrations have a very important function, in conveying to the people that there is somebody who cares. Because, the biggest problem is that if people sink into hopelessness, and think there is no other option, then they despair and give up. So hope is very, very important, and that has to be expressed in a visible way.

Now, concerning your second question, well, I think that—well, what is beauty? Beauty, in the Greek tradition coming from Plato, truth, beauty, and the good, are one. And you can not have truth without beauty, and you can not have the good without truth, and so forth. So, in the modern society, all of this has been basically lost, and replaced by arbitrariness, by so-called "democracy" where every opinion is worth as much as the other one, and so forth and so on. So, the idea that beauty is something that is as scientifically recognizable as a physical principle, that can only come from Classical art. As a matter of fact, if you look at the great compositions from Bach, and Beethoven, to the great effort between Schiller and Goethe, who worked for ten years together to define in the realm of Classical art those laws which are universal and which are scientifically, absolutely valid, on the question of what determines beauty.

And you can only understand that, if you understand what is Classical art. That you have, in Classical art, for example, a poetical idea, or a musical idea. And that idea has to be universal. It has to be an idea which addresses all of mankind, which says something which is of universal importance for all of mankind. And then, you develop that idea, and you exhaust all possibilities which are either in the musical or in the poetical idea, and in music this is called "thorough-composition": You exhaust the idea to the hilt. And then, you conclude that poetical idea, on a higher level, which you can also call "a metaphor," or you can call it "the stretto"; or you can call it, that which imposes or which comes with a new idea, which in poetry, for example, is not possible to express in prose. This is why you need lyrical poetry. You need a way of addressing that faculty in the human mind, which is where the cognition takes place.

So, the question of how to develop your cognitive powers, is something you can train, not only through scientific principles, but you can train it through Classical art, by recreating the Classical composition of the great artist, in poetry, in music, in painting, in architecture. And when you do this, again and again, eventually you will have that ability to compose in a Classical way, or to write poetry in a Classical way.

Now, Schiller for example, was very demanding. He said, the artist has such a tremendous responsibility, that before he dares to talk to his audience, he must—at least for the moment, where he is writing the poetry, or writing the great historical drama, he must idealize himself to be the ideal man, at least for that moment of the composition. And then, he can be sure that he reaches the audience in a lawful way. Now, the only person who can do that, according to Schiller, is a beautiful soul. And he has a very clear idea, that a beautiful soul, is a person who has educated not only his mind, his reason, but who has educated his emotions to be on the same level. So that a person who is a beautiful soul, can blindly trust their instincts, because the instincts will never say anything different than what reason commands. Most people have the problem, even those who are educated and who are good engineers or scientists, many people still have problems with their emotions, so, you have a good scientist who goes home and beats his wife, which obviously means he has not educated his emotions very much.

So, Schiller basically says, that you can train to educate your emotions, through great Classical art, through creative work, so that eventually, necessity and freedom, passion and beauty, will be the same thing. So that you will be passionately doing what is necessary, and be free, because you don't feel any contradiction inside yourself, which otherwise would disturb you.

So, beauty is—it's not a question of taste. Beauty in that sense, is to enlarge the laws of creation in a lawful way, and find your freedom in accepting necessity. So that's my answer to that.

Valdes: For the benefit of our listeners, Helga, I just wanted to mention, too, that Mr. Friedrich Schiller was precisely the German philosopher and poet, who inspired our own national hero José Rizal, in his great work, El Filibusterismo. And, as a matter of fact, José Rizal has translated in total, one of Schiller's great works William Tell, and he calls Guillermo Tell; so it's in our National Library, and for all of our listeners who want to pick it up, they might be able to get it there. He translated it into our Tagalog language.

Helga: That's very, very important. So maybe, people can use the Christmas period to read this.

Valdes: That's right. We're trying to make copies of it, so we make it available to our members, and our listeners.

We have a caller from outside, Helga, and she would like to ask a question.

Question: Hello there! Is it guten morgen over there, Miss Helga?

Helga: Guten morgen, guten morgen. [laughing]

Question: I think Mr. Schiller respresented two beautiful souls, you and Lyndon LaRouche. The world is so blessed by the presence of you both, not only articulate, bold, and cerebral, and your wisdom can only come from the Lord. But, it is you who who pays for the world, both you and Lyndon. And we're so blessed. You're so intelligent and so knowledgeable, both of you.

My question is, regarding the paper, the new paper that you mentioned, written by Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, about his dream of eliminating poverty—from the world. It seems an impossible dream. It seems utopia, heaven. Is it attainable? And I'm sure you're privy to a every solution. Thank you very much, guten morgen.

Helga: Guten morgen. Well, thank you. I think it is the task, because, I think that mankind is really faced with an unbelievable challenge. And the fact is, that the idea of accepting poverty, which, for example, in European history—and Lyn makes the distinction in his paper, that the idea that every human being is equipped with the identical, inalienable rights of man. And since Wilhelm Tell was mentioned, that is what the famous Rütli Oath by Wilhelm Tell is all about, which happens to be exactly the same idea of the American Declaration of Independence: That every human being on this planet is equipped with inalienable rights, and that these rights, according to Schiller, are in the stars, they're in the order of the Creation. And nobody can take them away—not a bad government, not a ruler, not a dictator—because these rights are eternal and inalienable.

Now, that idea has been in European civilization, especially since Christianity occurred, but obviously it was never politically realized for a very long time. Because, when Christianity appeared, the Roman Empire was the opposite by having the idea of a small oligarchical elite, ruling over a mass of slaves, which could be killed, Christians could be thrown to the lions in the circus, and so forth. But, eventually, that idea became more and more dominant. And in the great Italian Renaissance, that idea became for the first time, politically more realized, through the writings of Nicolaus of Cusa, through the Italian Renaissance, through the first French nation-state under the rule of Louis XI; and eventually, with all back and forth of the period after that, in the American Revolution, this was politically realized for the first time. And, in Europe, you had governments which came more close to this. For example, in the post-war period, the government of Charles de Gaulle was going in this direction; the government of Adenauer, in Germany represented a move in this direction.

But, even if this principle and this idea was never fully realized, it is the basis of Christian society, and the very idea of Christianity is that it applies to all people, of all colors, of all different nationalities, of all sexes. And it is the very basic axiom of Christian/European identity. However, in reality, naturally, we did have the Inquisition of Spain from the 16th Century. We had the Nazis, which were in the tradition of the Inquisition. And obviously, we have today such phenomena as the neo-cons, which are exactly the opposite.

So, the big struggle for European civilization will be, to which side of the European history will become dominant?

I think the big challenge for Asia, and I think this is a very challenging idea which is in Lyn's new paper, is, that in the Asian cultures, you do not have that same idea of the inalienable rights of all people. Maybe you have it somehow, because you had very excellent thinkers and fantastic minds in every culture. But, you also have an unspoken reality: And that is, that the people who are better-off, in India, in other countries in Asia—I have seen it with my own eyes—that the rich people somehow completely ignore the existence of the poor. That the more wealthy people, they have managed to organize their lives in such a way, as if the poor would not exist. And that is reflecting the fact, that, ideologically or philosophically, this question that every human being has the same right, is not really an accepted axiom.

And if we want to come out of this, that has to be changed. I think we need a youth movement to do it. I think we need young people, who in the same way as the young people in Germany or in the United States are saying, "Look, the kind of world which has been given to us by the present adult generation is giving us a no-future society." And therefore, we will change it. And we will overcome, like what in India is the caste system; what in other cultures is simply the acceptance that you have this total, de facto wall between the well-to-do and the poor, and that that has to be changed.

Now, I think we need two things: We need, from the top, we need to mobilize the kind of coalition on the level of governments, to intervene in the crisis, with the necessary alternative, the New Bretton Woods/Eurasian Land-Bridge conception. But you also need a movement of young people who say, "Hey, wait a second. We will make a new global Renaissance, where we will not accept these differences any more. And each of us — each young woman and young man — we will take universal history as our possession, and we will not accept such a division because it is not human. It is not human to divide the world into rich and poor."

So, I think the two things need to come together: The economic reform from the top, but the in-depth cultural change, in my view, can only come from masses of young people around the world, who say, "We will not accept this condition of mankind any longer." So, I think the real historical mission of the youth, is to get that idea across and to have inspiring motion throughout the young people of the world, opposing the present set of values, and saying, "We will fight for a human world." And then it will function.

Valdes: Helga, you mentioned this idea of the inalienable rights of man. And there is this Declaration of the Inalienable Rights of Man which came out in the Fidelio—which, I believe this Declaration, you had actually drafted. It's a beautiful document. And it's one which encompasses the interests of all human beings, most especially the oppressed. The Declaration also mentions here, that "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to the rights of human beings, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish that government, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

Now, that's just one of the statements, but it is very powerful, obviously. Would you like to expound on this, Helga?

Helga: That is actually very interesting, because, when I founded the Schiller Institute, actually 20 years ago (actually, I started 21 years ago), I thought that it would be necessary to write a new charter for this institution, a new Constitution, new principles. So I was looking through all the different charters, the UN Charter, other founding documents, because I wanted to get an idea, how to really make it in the best possible way. And then, the document which was really the most powerful, was the Declaration of Independence of the United States. And, what I did was, I changed maybe ten words, where it says "American colony," I say, "all countries of the world"; where it says "British Empire," I changed it into "international financial institutions." And so forth and so on. So by changing maybe only ten words or so, I transformed this document to be usable for the whole world.

Because, the American Declaration of Independence pertains to the best tradition of America, and I thought that if you take this document and you make it applicable for every country, that the same rights which the Americans correctly demand in their high point of their tradition, namely, the American Revolution, that the same rights should exist for every other country: That that way, nobody in America could be against it, because—you know, that's just their own tradition. And, on the other side, it would also, for all the other countries in the world, basically say that the principle which was presented by President John Quincy Adams, that the American foreign policy must be based on alliance of perfectly sovereign nation-states, working together for a community of principle. That nobody could oppose that, because that is really the best tradition of American history; and at the same time, by expanding that same right which the Americans take for themselves, for every other country in the world, it would also give the other countries a way to appeal and relate to the United States from the standpoint—not the "ugly American" not the "ugly Yankee," not "ugly war-monger"—but to talk to the Americans on the highest level, by basically addressing their most noble spirit of the past.

So, I think that the American Declaration of Independence, in that sense, is, on the one side, the basic document of why America really has made a breakthrough in the fight for the inalienable rights of man, but at the same time, it does not only belong to America, because what is expressed in the Declaration of Independence is equally attractive and valid and justified for every other country in the world. And that's why I made that Declaration with the ten changes, the founding document of the Schiller Institute: Because that is the idea we have of a just new world economic order.

Valdes: Okay, we have a last question.

Question: Miss Helga, I'm so touched by what you said, that you rephrase or you add something to what former President Franklin Roosevelt and Miss Amelia Robinson said about, "there is nothing to fear, than fear itself"; and you say that fear is what prevents the Sublime: "If you have nothing to fear than fear, get rid of it. And in this period, I count on you." Could you please add something to this to address the Filipino people?

Helga: Well, I think that fear is something which is understandable, because there are real dangers, and Schiller describes that in two beautiful papers. One is called "About the Sublime," and the other one is called "On the Sublime." And I can only encourage the listeners to take the time to study both of these documents. They're relatively short, but they can really be an eye-opener: How you deal with your own emotional reaction to this terrible, unjust world.

What Schiller develops there, is the fact that fear is something very useful, because it warns you of a danger. And pain even amplifies that, by saying, "Hey, wait a second! You are hurting yourself, if you keep marching in this direction." But, obviously, this only pertains to the sense of self-preservation, to maintain your own physical existence.

And Schiller says: If man would only be that, if man would only be a being of the senses, then it would be very, very easy to terrify people into fear: And once they're terrified, then they become slaves, because then their sense of self-preservation immediately takes over in such a way, that they don't think about anything else, but to follow this.

Now, that is the condition of the majority of mankind: Because the oligarchs, the people who believe that only a small privileged elite should have all the benefits, and the masses of the people should just go to Hell and die, they many times use what is called "the politics of fear." For example, a lot of international terrorism is actually not so much the genuine, sociological occurrence of some local groups or so; but as the very traditional Swiss financial paper Neue Zürcher Zeitung just wrote a week ago, many of the terrorisms which occur in the world, are organized actually by states, in order to subject the people, to make them fearful, and to make them accept authoritarian regimes. And I can only advise you to read one of the great ideologues of the Restoration of Europe in the 19th Century: His name is Joseph de Maistre, who is one of the authors who is very much liked by the neo-cons in the United States; who praises the role of the Inquisition in Spain in the 16th Century, using the torture and the methods of the Inquisition to suppress the people, and to establish law and order. And the use of torture, the use of terrorism, all of these are means of the "politics of fear." And whenever you see that, you actually realize you are dealing with a dictatorial oligarchy, trying to impose their means.

So, how do you deal with that? Well, I think that the answer that Schiller gives is a very beautiful one. Namely, that he says: Human beings are not just physical human beings, they're not just people of the senses. But, they are people who are actually capable of basing their identity in universal principles. For example, in the idea of mankind as a whole, because your life is a short one—you are born, you die, and the question is, what do you do with this very short interval? Are you just trying to have as much fun as you possibly can, in the here and now? Are you just trying to eat as many as McDonalds, go to many discos, go to many things to stuff yourself, to have things, to possess things, to be concerned about me, me, me, mine, mine, mine?

Or: Are you actually aware of the fact, that you, in your relatively limited physical existence—where young people naturally are not so much aware of, but eventually it will dawn on you, that youth is a very temporary thing, and it will eventually go away—and then, the question is: Can you identify with the generations before you? Do you understand that you, as you exist today, can only be, because all these people, your parents, your grandparents, and all the many generations all over the world before, contributed with their life-work, to make possible what you today have? And that that, once you become aware of that, fulfills you with the noble obligation to use the life you have, to develop? In Christianity, you would say, that you have to develop the talents you got; you have no right to bury them in the garden. But you have to use them, multiply them, make them contribute to improving the living conditions of mankind around you. And that way, by contributing something to the present, and the future, you become much more than your own mortal existence, and you participate in immortality.

And that is essentially what really uplifts you, and what makes you fearless: Because, in a certain sense, once you start to really think what could happen to mankind—either in a positive way; or, you know, what would happen if you don't act?—well, then you don't think so much about you personally, how much pleasure you get out of the day. But you start to identify with the larger purposes of mankind, and you start to have a fulfilled life; by wanting to be a great scientist; by wanting to be somebody who can make people happy around you, because you can sing beautifully; because you can make their lives more rich; because you can really end an unjust world system, which right now is not giving the majority of the population in the world a decent existence. And you start to identify with things that are far beyond your own personal life, and that way, you become Sublime. And then you are not afraid of what will happen to you, but you will be afraid of what happens to mankind if you are not acting on that level.

And you start to get used to this, and eventually, you will be totally free: Because, you will overcome the fear which normally would make you a small-minded person, and you will really grow. And once you grow, you will be more happy, you will have more fun, your genius will develop, and then you will discover what Nicolaus of Cusa describes as "the sweetness of truth." And then you will like the sweetness of truth so much more than any McDonald would taste to you in the future.

Valdes: Well, Helga, despite the very bleak Christmas season we're all having here in the Philippines, you have just given us a great Christmas present. And all of the listeners, I'm sure, are appreciating everything that you have shared with us. And we hope so much that you'll be around for some more interviews that we can have: Because the Filipino people, I am sure, have gotten this initial taste of what you are saying, and they will be looking for you.

Helga: Well, I will happy to be back. Happy Christmas!

Valdes: Okay, Merry Christmas, Helga and thank you very much. And everybody's applauding here. And we hope that next year is going to be much brighter than the previous one.

Helga: I am sure of it: We will make it happen.

Related Articles

What is the Schiller Institute?

Meet Lyndon H. LaRouche

Strategic Method and Studies

Revolution in Music

Education, Science and Poetry

New Bretton Woods

Eurasian Landbridge and Economy

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1992-1996

Fidelio Table of Contents from 1997-2001

Fidelio Table of Contents from 2002-present

Beautiful Front Covers of Fidelio Magazine

Dialogue of Cultures

Writings of Other Great Thinkers

Biography of Friedrich Schiller

Books and Videos


The Schiller Institute
PO BOX 20244
Washington, DC 20041-0244

Thank you for supporting the Schiller Institute. Your membership and contributions enable us to publish FIDELIO Magazine, and to sponsor concerts, conferences, and other activities which represent critical interventions into the policy making and cultural life of the nation and the world.

Contributions and memberships are not tax-deductible.


Home | Search | About | Fidelio | Economy | Strategy | Justice | Conferences | Links
LaRouche | Music | Join | Books | Concerts | Highlights  | Education | Health
Spanish Pages | Poetry | Dialogue of CulturesMaps
What's New

© Copyright Schiller Institute, Inc. 2004. All Rights Reserved.