Vi er kommet til punctum saliens – det springende punkt;
Vi må udøve lederskab nu! Hvornår kommer nedsmeltningen?
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 17. juni 2016.
Video, engelsk

Vi er kommet til punctum saliens – det springende punkt;
Vi må udøve lederskab nu! Hvornår kommer nedsmeltningen?
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 17. juni 2016.
Video, engelsk

 – Vi befinder os tydeligvis i en situation under hastig forandring, i hele verden. Vi har i løbet af de seneste dage haft uddybende diskussioner med både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche var meget kortfattet i sit råd, da han i går sagde: »Vær årvågne. Tingene kommer til at ændre sig meget hurtigt. Dette er en farlig periode.« Vi har stadig væk en trussel om global atomkrig, som er meget umiddelbar, men der er også en masse ting, der ændrer sig, som det meget tydeligt ses af de skiftende holdninger i Europa, Xi Jinpings besøg i Centraleuropa netop nu for at fremme Den Nye Silkevej, samt begivenhederne på det Internationale Økonomiske Forum i Skt. Petersborg.

Hr. LaRouche gik i dybden med nogle punkter tidligere på dagen, men jeg vil bede Jeff [Steinberg] foretage en hurtig gennemgang for at få en hurtig orientering om den globale situation, og vi vil dernæst i diskussionens forløb trække mange af punkterne frem og følge flere af de ledetråde, som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche fastslog i deres bemærkninger tidligere på dagen.  

Engelsk udskrift. Dansk oversættelse af uddrag af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen!


LaRouche Friday Webcast, June 17, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Afternoon! It is June 17, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast
here from, which we hold every Friday evening.
I'm joined via video by Dave Christie from our Policy Committee,
who's joining us from Seattle, Washington; and Megan Beets from
the LaRouche PAC Science team, who is currently joining us from
Houston, Texas, where she's engaged in some activities there with
Kesha Rogers. Here in the studio I'm joined by Jason Ross from
the LaRouche PAC Science team as well; and by Jeffrey Steinberg
from Executive Intelligence Review.
        We're obviously in a very fast-changing situation,
worldwide. We've had extensive discussions over the past few days
with both Lyndon LaRouche and Helga LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche was
very concise in his advice when he said yesterday, "Stay alert.
Things are going to change very rapidly. It's a dangerous
period." We still have a very proximate threat of global
thermonuclear war, but we also have a lot which is changing, as
can be seen very clearly by the changing attitudes in Europe, the
visit by Xi Jinping to Central Europe right now, to push the New
Silk Road, and the events at the St. Petersburg International
Economic Forum.
        Mr. LaRouche had some points to elaborate earlier today, but
I'm going to ask Jeff to go through a very quick sort of overview
briefing of the global situation, and then in the course of the
discussion we can draw out a lot of the points and follow a lot
of the threads that both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche made in their
remarks earlier today. So, Jeff.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: It's critical to bear in mind that
between now and when we sit down a week from today for another
LaRouche PAC discussion, that we will know the outcome of the
Brexit vote in Britain. People are terrified of the implications,
no matter which way that vote goes, and now we have the added
dimension of the assassination of a Labour Party member of the
British Parliament, Jo Cox, which may or may not have been
directly related to the issues of Brexit. We'll still wait
judgment on that.
        Mr. LaRouche had a much more fundamental point that he
wanted to make to us today, which is that regardless of these
short-term factors, the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is
really about to blow. We don't know exactly when it's going to
happen, but we know it's absolutely inevitable, and therefore the
critical question is: what kinds of plans will be in place; what
kinds of reasonable players here in the United States, in Europe,
are going to develop a strategy for replacing the current system?
It's hopelessly bankrupt. There is no way to manage that process.
        There was a commentary earlier this week by an economist
named Simon Black, who just pointed out that major U.S. banks,
led by Bank of America and Wells Fargo, have resumed the whole
liar loans, just absolute fraudulent mortgages, that was one of
the root factors at least involved in the 2008 blow-out. He joins
Mr. LaRouche in saying that we're headed for a far bigger
blow-out at some unknown point in the very near future.
        Mr. LaRouche's point was that what's needed under these
circumstances is a return to classic economic principles,
Hamiltonian economic principles, in which {physical} economic
factors, and not {money} factors, are the priority, and where you
have to start, is by wiping the slate clean and wiping out all of
the existing gambling debt on the books.
        You've got a clear recognition, on the part of some world
leaders, that this is the nature of the crisis-moment that we've
now reached. President Putin spoke yesterday during the opening
plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic
Forum. There were around 16,000 people there. Whatever Obama's
plans, or British plans [were] to isolate Russia, clearly the
isolation is broken. The Italian Prime Minister Renzi was there.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the EU Commission, spoke
there on the opening day. The Secretary-General of the United
Nations, Ban Ki Moon, was there.
        We're still awaiting the complete translation of Putin's
speech, but what from what we've seen so far, he's made it very
clear that the global financial situation, the system, is very
unsettled. The problems of 2008 have not been resolved. He
emphasized Russia's commitment to be the bridge between the Asia
developments centered around Xi Jinping's One Belt, One Road
policy, and the bringing of Europe into that equation as a
cooperative factor.
        So, there are alternative ideas out there, but there's a
desperate moment from the standpoint of the British. We see it in
these two incidents, almost back-to-back: of the brutal terrorist
attack in Orlando, Florida, followed a few days later by the
first time in {hundreds of years} that a British Member of
Parliament was assassinated in cold blood on the streets of

        OGDEN: Absolutely! Right in the midst of that, you have a
very important initiative from Congressman Walter Jones, who has
taken the next step beyond what he has already done, around the
campaign to release the 28 pages, which would expose the entire
Anglo-Saudi apparatus behind what led to 9/11 and what continues
to be the threat of terrorism, world-wide today.
        He had 70 co-sponsors on H-Res. 14, but this week he has
introduced a new resolution, which says, Look, we don't have to
wait for Obama at all. We're going to bypass the Obama
administration, and Congress itself needs to take the initiative
to de-classify these 28 pages. It's a very important bill. The
text of it should be read in full. It cites the precedent. The
Supreme Court decided in favor of (former) Senator Mike Gravel,
who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record; and
also cites the fact that this is Congress's prerogative indeed.
        That continues to be a very critical element in this fight
to dismantle what is in fact, as you were saying, the Anglo-Saudi
apparatus behind this entire campaign. Actually, just because
we've brought that up, I wanted to read, very quickly, our
"institutional question" for this evening, and then we can follow
the discussion out from there. It reads as follows:
        "Mr. LaRouche: Recently a scholar at the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies penned an article in the
{Asia Times} warning that the Saudi-sponsored Wah'habi terrorism
is coming to Southeast Asia, and the United States has been the
essential enabler of this spread by boosting the Saudis with
protection. Dr. Christina Lin described the Saudi
'religious-industrial complex' as the source of spreading
Wah'habi ideology. Hillary Clinton recently rebuked Saudi Arabia
and two other U.S. allies — Qatar and Kuwait — by name, for
their support of terrorist networks and ideology. Mr. LaRouche,
in your opinion, what types of religions reform must Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, and other Wah'habi-oriented nations,
need to enact, to deal with Salafi-inspired jihadi terrorism?"
        Jeff, I know that you wrote a sort of summary article
earlier, in the beginning of this week, that goes through the
entire Al-Yamamah case, and everything that is implied by the
fact that that's still an on-going apparatus. Maybe you want to
give a little bit of a background on that, in response to this

        STEINBERG: Well, let me just start by saying that I think
the idea of any kind of near-term reform of Saudi Arabia or these
other countries that subscribe to Wah'habism, is a very unlikely
phenomenon. We've got to take the approach that this whole
apparatus has to be exposed, top down, and completely dismantled.
It's going to have to come from the outside.
        A very, very interesting discussion took place earlier this
week [on June 14] on the John Batchelor [radio] show in New York,
where Dr. Stephen F. Cohen, a Russia specialist, professor
emeritus of Russian studies, history and politics at New York
University, for the first time touched on the issue of Obama's
removal from office. He said one of the greatest crimes that
Obama has committed, has been the breaking of the cooperation
with Russia, that basically the U.S. has no understanding or no
capacity for dealing with this threat of Salafist terrorism, but
Russia does. Therefore Obama's demonization of Putin, refusal to
cooperate with Russia, is piling up the body-count around the
        In a very real sense, the Obama question and the British
Al-Yamamah question goes to the heart of what Dr. Lin said in
that [{Asia Times}] article, namely, who are the enablers? Who
makes it possible? Because Saudi Arabia on its own could do very
little, were it not for the sponsorship by Washington, by London,
and we can't leave out Paris in this equation, of the whole
development of the strategy of playing the Islamic fundamentalist
card for regime change. It started with the Soviet Union. It
extended to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now this is really
what's playing out in Syria.
        Unless you're willing to force the severing of the British
and U.S. support for this jihadist spread of terrorism, then
you're really not going to address the problem. If you single out
Saudi Arabia and leave out Britain, then you're leaving
Al-Yamamah and everything that that implies off the hook. This
was an arrangement that was made in 1985 between [then-Saudi
Ambassador to the U.S.] Prince Bandar [bin Sultan] and [then
British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher, to set up what was
ostensibly an oil-for-weapons deal. But under the cover of that,
they amassed hundreds of billions of dollars in offshore
slush-funds, and those funds have been really what's been behind
the terrorism.
        The 28 pages make it clear that Prince Bandar was a source
of funding to the 9/11 hijackers at a time that he was getting
upwards of $2 billion wired into that account from the Bank of
England, as the result of his sponsorship of Al-Yamamah.  If you
talk about the Saudis without talking about the British and
without talking about Bush, and now Obama, then you're never
going to solve the problem.

        OGDEN: You mentioned what Stephen Cohen had to say. I think
this is obviously a very big step for him to make these remarks,
but he said, "The major single largest cost of this unnecessary
cold war with Russia, is Washington's refusal to cooperate with
Russia against international terrorism, whether in Syria or in
homeland security. That, I think, is an indictment of our
political class, the Obama administration and Congress in
particular, that we all should judge very, very harshly, because
they're endangering each and every one of us and our families.
Russia knows how to do counter-terrorism. We know we don't know
how to do it very well."
        And then he said, "I would call this anti national security.
These are impeachable offenses by our government, that they are
not doing things, out of this political, ideological Cold War
against Russia, that could help protect us. Whether we talk about
Syria or talk about homeland security, it's a pattern, and it
needs to end right away."
        One thing that just developed out of this yesterday, is
front-page coverage in the {New York Times} of a "dissent
channel," [a draft copy of an internal memo] by 50 mid-level
State Department officials, "urging the United States to carry
out military strikes against the government of President Bashar
al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the
country's five-year-old civil war," which is obviously a direct
declaration of war against what Russia is doing in Syria right

        STEINBERG: Absolutely!

        DAVE CHRISTIE: This is occurring in the middle of where the
Syrian government has just unleashed leaflets into Rakka, saying,
"We're coming!" The Russians have been very clear on this, that
they're not going to sit around and play games, or allow Obama
and his gang to play games, around this idea that we need more
time to separate out the moderate terrorists, which don't exist
anyway. This is a move to shut them down.
        Coming back to this point that what has been raised on the
nature of the terrorism, going back to the Al-Yamamah deal, this
was effectively the geo-political enforcement wing of what was
ushered in at that time. We had some discussions earlier this
week where this was coincident at the same time that Thatcher
brought in the whole "Big Bang" program to have London be the
center of global finance and this speculative offshore financial
system, which was sort of the consolidation of what had come in
in 1971, as Mr. LaRouche forecast, that when they broke with the
Bretton Woods system, they turned their back on the real economic
progress that we saw under Kennedy and, of course, Roosevelt
before then.
        There was an explicit destruction of the American System
that could have swept the planet, were it not for that
intervention by the British in '71. Mr. LaRouche was clear at
that point, that this would result in fascism. We've now seen
that come to fruition.  But the point is, that's the bankrupt
system that is now collapsing; and what Mr. LaRouche said today I
think is very important on the Obama question, and more
importantly what Obama represents.  Because he represents the
British Empire, he represents this integrated financial apparatus
which is funding itself through the dope trade, enforcing it
through terrorism, the whole migrant crisis; all of this is part
of the integrated policy of the British Empire.  And what
LaRouche said about Obama and that system is that they can't win;
Obama is going to lose, period.  The question is, will others
win?  And what Lyn also said today I think is very important, he
says that Putin has shown this leadership; he's straight on this,
he's the best leadership we have so far.  And I think that's part
of this growing recognition that the BRICS nations and
specifically Russia, China, India, are now the world leadership;
the British are having to react.  And I think what we're seeing
in terms of their reaction is, of course, increasingly dangerous;
because they see what the writing on the wall is in terms of the
imminent collapse of their financial system while this New
Paradigm is being consolidated.  Helga made the point on this
question of the German bonds; their 10-year bonds are trading at
negative interest rates, so that is a huge psychological shock to
the German people.  Anybody in business knows the implications of
        So you can really see that the political turmoil here in
terms of the potential of Europe to begin to shift towards this
new emerging leadership; similarly in Japan that we see.  The
fact that the situation in Korea is similarly potentially
shifting; and of course, Ban Ki Moon just spoke in front of the
St. Petersburg Economic Forum.  So, you just really get a sense
of what the potential is to shift this thing.  And I think what
we have to do is recognize that that global leadership is now
being established; but it's up to the American people to
recognize that Obama will lose.  People think that he's
all-powerful and they look at this crazy political election,
which is frankly designed around Obama.  The whole circling of
the wagons around Hillary wasn't so much circling the wagons
around Hillary in terms of her campaign; it was really circling
it around Obama.  And of course, Trump, what is this?  It's
nothing but a clown show to allow Obama to continue with this
agenda.  But as Mr. LaRouche said, he will lose.  The question
is, will we take up the leadership and responsibility to win?

        OGDEN:  And the point that Jeff made about the attempts to
isolate Russia clearly have failed.  I think that the St.
Petersburg Economic Forum is a testament to that fact.  And then
you have the very strong collaboration between Putin and Xi
Jinping right now, which is being acknowledged on all fronts.  I
think that it was very poetically at the St. Petersburg Economic
Forum by one of the visiting ministers from Ecuador, who said "We
view with envy the great projects that change the history of
civilization."  That's where we are. I think Helga LaRouche was
calling it an "epical moment"; it's a change in epic, both with
the emergence of this new world system, but also the fact that
we're experiencing for the first time in history the negative
interest rates within the European system and so forth.  But this
Ecuadoran minister said, these projects that change the history
of civilization, with the New Silk Road that China has proposed,
the creation of the AIIB, the BRICS bank, the Eurasian project
which Russia has defended.  I don't know if people saw the full
speech that Indian Prime Minister Modi made when he came to
Washington last week; but when he spoke in front of the joint
session of Congress, what he concluded his remarks with was
beautiful.  He said, "The foundations of the future are now
firmly in place."  And then he quoted from a poem by Walt Whitman
from {The Leaves of Grass}; a poem called "To Think of Time." And
Modi said, "The orchestra have sufficiently tuned their
instruments.  The baton has given the signal"; and then Modi
said, "Let me add to that if I might, there is a new symphony in
play."  And I think that's a perfect way of describing the new
world system which is now breaking onto the horizon.  And it
really has, despite the attempts by Obama and his allies, to
isolate this and to try to beat this back.  It is continuing to
take hold.

        ROSS:  That's true; it's undeniably taking hold in the world
in such a way that it's clear to everybody, too, that that's a
real standard of value.  You're not looking at the U.S., you're
not looking at the European Central Bank; you're looking at where
the growth is coming from; anyone can see that who is looking at
it. And the obligation that we have to prevent the U.S. from
being the stumbling block in this; because it's astonishing to
read the contrast between the speech that Modi made, or the
remarks of this Ecuadoran who you mentioned, with these kinds of
think-tanks or institutions in the U.S..  They're talking about
threats to American power; how are we going to secure American
power in the coming world with all of its difficulties.  It's
such a bizarre outlook to even try to have.  It's so outdated, so
European oligarchical, it sounds like it's something from
centuries ago; it hardly sounds like anything that represents
what the U.S. was founded to be under the economic leadership of
Hamilton, under the direction that we have taken at our best
times.  So, the great opportunity that we have to join in this in
the U.S., can make all the difference in the world; and it's
unfortunate that it comes to us from such a negative direction.
If we don't do something, the U.S. is blocking this and Obama is
going to create a war to prevent it.

        STEINBERG:  Putin made a point in St. Petersburg that
clearly there is now a profound strategic partnership between
Russia and through Russia the Eurasian Economic Union, with
China. And he said, this is not a closed partnership; we welcome
European participation with open arms.  And then he went after
the TTIP, this U.S.-British free trade agreement that is, in
fact, an exclusive arrangement that would cut off Europe from any
cooperation across Eurasia with Russia, the Eurasian Economic
Union, China.  And he just said, look, we're past the point where
we create alliances that are exclusionary; and he pointed out
that there are now 40 countries that are seeking trade agreements
with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.  So, I think that
this idea of this openness and a common future and destiny, is
something that is not only at the core of what Xi Jinping is now
in Poland, and he's on a five-day tour of eastern and central
Europe; and then he's going back through central Asia.  So, he's
clearly got this idea of moving forward with the extension of
these policies into Europe; and in effect, there's a major split
beginning to develop in Europe.  It comes down to this
fundamental question of, do you focus on physical economy, or are
you stuck in the British system purely money game.  It's a point
now of clash where the two systems are so irreconcilable that
they can't both survive.  That's also why the war danger is so
pronounced at this point.

        BEETS:  Well, let me just add something in on this point
about this newly forming world system being led by China and
Russia.  I was remembering that a couple of years ago, around the
time of the BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, Mr. LaRouche said
that this is the beginning of a world system; but it's not the
final form.  There has to be now a discovery process undertaken
by peoples of the world to uncover and come to a point of
discovery of what the human species ought to be.  And I think is
really the point that is missing from 99% of the discussion that
goes on; most especially in the trans-Atlantic.  But even — and
I would put this out as a question — how self-conscious of a
discussion is this in other parts of the world as well?  And I
think it's important, because Mr. LaRouche's emphatic point this
morning was that the entire system has to be scrapped; we are at
the point of blow-out.  Any moves that are taken to try to save
it are complete foolishness; because anything you try to save in
the system is about to become completely worthless.
        So, you have to re-found a new system upon a newly
discovered notion of physical value.  And that gets exactly to
the principle that is the most fundamental; but is also the least
known, and the most contradicted in the United States today.  The
most fundamental principle of economics; which is that man is not
an animal.  And that there is a scientifically knowable principle
which separates mankind as a species from all other species known
to us today.  And that's expressed in the fact that as a species,
mankind is the only species that is not fixed.  We're the only
species for whom the new generation can be fundamentally
different than the previous generation; as expressed in the
powers wielded by the individual.  The scientific powers, the
powers in and over processes in the Universe, which is expressed
in the productive powers of labor of the individual; which
reflect knowledge of principle which is completely new to that
generation.  Which is both more perfect and higher than the
knowledge of principles of the Universe possessed by the previous
        I think if we go back and look back to the United States and
to our tradition, we see this expressed most recently — aside
from the leadership taken by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche in the recent
decades — we see this expressed by the leadership of Krafft
Ehricke and his role in establishing and fighting for the United
States space program.  Krafft Ehricke was completely committed to
the idea, and it was a discovery in his own mind, that for human
beings there are no limits to growth.  There's no such thing as a
fixed set of resources, for exactly the reason I cited, of man's
potential to always discover a higher principle.  Krafft Ehricke
fought for the idea that man must always progress; and therefore,
man cannot be limited merely to the Earth.  Man cannot be a
species of a single globe.  We have to move out into conquering
space; becoming a species which is exerting power in an over the
Solar System.  Reorganizing, shaping, perfecting other planets in
the Solar System, beginning with the Moon.  Just to put it
forward, that's the only legitimate basis for an economic system,
is to organize the social activity of man to effect and promote
that kind of activity; and to protect and promote that kind of
capability which exists in potential in each and every human
being.  I think that we in the United States especially, have a
responsibility to wake up, and to have a renaissance in the
United States.  Where we once again demand our space program, and
demand that it represent the kind of principle expressed by
Krafft Ehricke; and expressed by Mr. LaRouche's insights into the
science of economics.

        CHRISTIE:  Just to follow up on that, I think that is
probably also the place where geopolitics is — it's the symbol
of the absolute end of geopolitics.  And Mr. LaRouche has been
discussing the idea of moving beyond nation-states.  That doesn't
mean a homogenized global McDonald's or something like that kind
of approach to economy.  What it means is, you're still going to
celebrate the cultural differences, you're going to still
celebrate the fact that people have histories and shared
languages and so on and so forth; but you're going to see that
the core of what it is to be human.  We're all human; there's
only one species.  And that's no better expressed than in space
        I also think that what you're beginning to see is how that's
operating now in terms of breaking up — or nations now
collaborating and not allowing themselves to be manipulated
around the British strategies of divide and conquer.  For
example, you just recently had Xi Jinping make a trip to the
Baltic nations; to work out the Baltic nations' entry into the
Silk Road program.  And that is one way to defuse the tensions
that the Baltic nations would have with Russia.  India is working
with Iran on the Chabahar port; where you get access to some of
the central Asian nations, which of course, could be pitted
against China.  And of course, China's working with Pakistan
around the Gwadar port; and defusing potential confrontations
that Pakistan and India might have.  You being to see that they
are all collaborating around this common mission; and seeing that
all these nations' relationships and integration is important.
And I think that, in terms of what has to happen in the United
States, we should also recognize that what is going on in these
nations, that is determining the global dynamic; and that is also
what is going to determine the internal political situation.
        So, all the Americans who are depressed about this crazy
election process, should just flush it down the toilet where it
belongs; because it has no real bearing on what is actually
occurring internationally.  It is being defined by this new
concept of thinking beyond nation-states; or at least beyond the
manipulation that can occur under geopolitics where these nations
are beginning to collaborate.  That's the point of space
exploration; that's also the point of Mr. LaRouche's Strategic
Defense Initiative, which he raised today in discussions.  This
present war drive, which is why the British are trying to tear
down this emerging New Paradigm, really began with the Bush crowd
sabotaging the Strategic Defense Initiative of Mr. LaRouche.  Had
that gone through, we wouldn't be on the edge of thermonuclear
warfare; we would have already begun that collaboration back
then.  So now is really our last opportunity to take up that
initiative; but we've got to bring this New Paradigm into the
United States.

        STEINBERG:  I was at an event in Washington when Prime
Minister Modi was here, and one of the speakers was a former
Indian ambassador to the United States.  I thought he made some
very important and pretty frank points.  He said, first of all,
the most important thing that came out of the meeting, other than
the speech that Prime Minister Modi gave before the joint session
of Congress, was the nuclear deal.  The fact that Westinghouse
had been contracted to build six nuclear power plants in India.
So, he's viewing what remains of the actual technology base of
the United States; of course, it's now a company that's working
very closely with the Japanese in order to even meet the
construction requirements.  But the other thing that he said was
that the United States has been blocking India from playing any
kind of constructive role in Middle East peace.  He said India
has a very important role to play; we have close relations with
all of the Arab countries.  But, he said, India views Iran as a
crucial ally; not only economically because of the Chabahar port
and the prospects of India, Iran, Afghanistan economic
integration.  But, he said, the threat to India and to Asia of
Islamic terrorism, is coming from Wah'habism; and that they've
never had any experience of terrorism coming out of the Shi'a
branch of Islam.  Therefore, India views Iran as a buffer against
the spread of this kind of Saudi-sponsored terrorism into South
Asia and the subcontinent. So, these are areas where there's an
enormous amount of room for a change in policy being forced in
Washington; where the kinds of problems that are right now
seemingly intractable, can be solved through that kind of new
        On the question that Megan raised; Jason, you may want to
say something about this.  There was a very high-level dialogue
that was going on 300 years ago between Western and Chinese
scholars on this question of the nature of man.  Leibniz was
engaged in a tremendous exchange with China, via some of the
Jesuit missionaries who were there in China for a period of more
than 100 years.  So, this common concept of the nature of man is
not something that is alien to leading thinkers in Asia; and I
think what China and even Russia are doing now, is really
reflective of at least an intuitive, if not completely
self-conscious idea of this unique character of human beings as
the only creative species.

        ROSS:  Xi Jinping — I forget the occasion of his making his
speech — but in some recent remarks that he made, he had traced
through the history of mankind.  He was detailing all the big
discoveries that made modern humanity possible; but he went all
the way back.  Fire, metallurgy; he talked about in the past 200
years, the incredible revolutions of steam power, of chemistry,
electricity.  So, there's definitely a recognition that something
very special happened in a scientific way coming out of Europe
from the period of the Renaissance; that's undeniable.  The
aspect of it that was universal, you bring up the work that
Leibniz was doing about 300 years ago to try to maintain and have
a dialogue with China; to have an opportunity for European
science to make inroads into China, to uplift people's living
standard there and to find more collaborators to work on things
with.  And also at the same time, his view that Chinese natural
philosophy, or natural theology, or an outlook on the world and
on social relations, that there was a potential for the rest of
the world to learn a great deal about that from China.  His view
was that if one were to ignore Christianity, which he saw as
given as a revealed religion based on — in other words, it
wasn't a discovery that anybody could have made.  It occurred
through a personality who was in the Western world.  That leaving
that aside, China was superior in its moral and cultural outlook.
        The attacks on it today are pretty astonishing.  People
saying, "Oh, look at China's economy; it's faltering.  Look their
growth rate is only 10 times ours; it used to be 20 times ours.
They're going down."  Meanwhile, it's just negative interest
rates; it's obvious where the growth is coming from.  Also, the
way they have to play up the idea of China being a threat; it
sort of seems like a psychological case of projection almost.

        STEINBERG:  Sure, yeah.  I think it was pointed out that in
the case of Russia that the U.S. defense budget, when you count
in all of the defense expenditures, is over $1 trillion a year.
There's a $1 trillion program to completely overhaul and
modernize our nuclear weapons arsenal; and that's in the
Department of Energy budget.  That doesn't even show up in the
$600 billion Pentagon budget.  That's $1 trillion that's going
into preparation for the insanity of being able to launch, fight,
and win a nuclear war.  Russia's entire defense budget is $84
billion; so it's literally less than 10% of the U.S.'s.  And
China similarly; it's a fraction of what the U.S. is spending.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, as Stephen Cohen said, Russia knows how to do
counter-terrorism; we don't know how to do it very well.

        ROSS:  We're certainly not acting on it if we do have that

        OGDEN:  And I think there is an element, as Mr. LaRouche was
emphasizing, of President Putin's own unique insight as a world
leader.  Going back to the very beginnings of his Presidency,
with what he did in Chechnya to defeat the threat of Islamic
terrorism there; he said the threat here is that Russia is
Balkanized.  That we become the new Yugoslavia.  And what would
that imply for the civilization of the world?  But even going
back to the fact that Putin's background is as an intelligence
officer, he very well knows that the source of this whole Islamic
terrorism threat has its roots in the Al-Yamamah deal and the
efforts that were made by Prince Bandar and Margaret Thatcher at
that time to deploy the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the
Soviet Union.  The Al-Yamamah deal was a Cold War deal; and the
fact that this has not been dismantled, means that this is still
an active threat.

        STEINBERG:  The other thing that sort of begs that same
question is, is it that we're not good at it?  Or really on the
other side?  I think you've got to look at the case of this
shooter down in Orlando — Omar Mateen; and consider the fact
that he was employed for 7-8 years by a British company called
G4S, which is the third-largest private corporation in the world,
behind Walmart and some Asian supermarket chain.  It's a
mercenary company; it's a "private security company".  They're
involved in mercenary activities all over the world.  They were
in Iraq as part of the so-called "contractors" involved in the
occupation.  In Israel, they man the checkpoints; they provide
the technology.  They are the security for the illegal Jewish
settlements in the West Bank.  Here in the United States, they
have the contracts to provide the security for 90% of the nuclear
power plants in the U.S..  They're a major contractor for the
Department of Homeland Security.  And they had this ticking time
bomb on the payroll; even when he was under investigation by the
FBI for a period of a year, his job was never in jeopardy.  You
almost get the sense that these British companies maintain a
small army of people who are severely mentally disturbed; who can
be triggered at any time that there's a necessity for a pretext.
        Remember that in January of 2001, Mr. LaRouche gave
testimony in opposition to John Ashcroft's confirmation as
Attorney General; because he said the character of the Bush
administration was that they would look to create a Reichstag
Fire incident to go for dictatorship.  That was seven months
before the 9/11 attacks that that warning was issued; and it was
absolutely prescient.  So, I think what Dr. Lin said in her
article, that the U.S. and the British — although she focussed
on the United States — have used these jihadists as tools in a
policy of regime change that has destabilized the Middle East and
a lot of other parts of the world.  We are part of this jihadist
structure; the British — pivotally so through things like
Al-Yamamah — but for the last 15 years with the Bush
administration and now Obama, we've been part of that same
equation.  So, this is something that we've got to face the cold
hard truth of if we're ever going to deal with this problem.

        OGDEN:  And you see this rabid opposition to even the
declassification of the 28 pages and the 9/11 Report.  What
Brennan is doing right now to run cover for the Saudis, is

        STEINBERG:  And who did Obama meet with today?

        OGDEN:  Prince Salman; exactly.  Well, I think with the
activation of this Walter Jones bill, this is definitely going
one step further; and I think a lot of people have begun to
recognize that you have to call out Obama for what he's done on
this front.  We've celebrated the courage that Senator Mike
Gravel had on this when he exposed the Pentagon Papers in the
1970s; and I think that this continues to inspire people.
Obviously, it has inspired Walter Jones.  The depth of the
resolution is, I think, beyond your average fare for
Congressional "Whereas" clauses.  What it says in terms of citing
George Washington, in terms of citing the Supreme Court case in
support of Mike Grave; and just generally making the point.  And
also not pulling your punches on the Saudi aspect of this; it
names explicitly the Saudi government and the role that this has
played.  And Bob Graham has repeatedly warned — and I think this
every single time there is an attack of this nature, it has to be
repeated — the fact that the 28 pages were not declassified,
means that the logistical support network that was in place
before 9/11, which enabled the 9/11 attackers to do what they
did, was not dismantled.  And for all we know, is very well still
in place; and a lot of the connections.  The Sarasota aspect of
the cover-up by the FBI of the 80,000 pages, this speaks to the
fact that this attack happened in Orlando.  Then, there's the
entire southern California aspect, which was documented in the
investigations that went into putting together the 28 pages.  I
know you've said a lot about this already, Jeff, but all of these
points have to continually be touched upon.

        CHRISTIE:  I would just add, I think that that as a flank is
very crucial; because it goes right to the gut — not just of
Obama and the cover-up — but more simply of the Bush crowd and
their illegal wars that we've launched since under the guise of
so-called terrorism after 9/11.  Targetting nations that had
nothing to do with it, but really had to do with the geopolitical
games against Russia, China, and India.  But as Mr. LaRouche
mentioned on the occasion of the Orlando incident with this
Mateen shooting up the club; Mr. LaRouche brought it back to
Al-Yamamah.  That you have to see it in a much larger context;
these are not isolated cases.  So, I think the flank of the 28
pages goes right to that whole structure that has been brought in
since the Al-Yamamah deal, which has been connected to the
various aspects of the financial system and so forth.  What Mrs.
LaRouche said is, if you look at everything, we are at an
absolute {punctum saliens} moment; where you have — as we
discussed at the opening of the show — the question of vote on
the Brexit on the 23rd, which is already having huge
implications.  Obviously, we don't know all the details, but it's
highly likely that this assassination of the British Member of
Parliament was related to this.  You have the Brexit vote, you
have the financial collapse; now admitted that they're going back
to the crazy mortgage fraud that had threatened to bring down the
system in 2007-2008.  You have the German bonds trading at
negative interest rates; Japan's central bank putting out
negative interest rates.  You just have all of this coming
together.  The war games and the desperation by the British.  And
what Mr. LaRouche said is that we have a situation that is
unpredictable.  And I think what that means for all of us and our
fellow Americans, is to say that this really is open for what we
decide to do.
        In other words, there may be various players who might have
all their different ideas of what to do in this moment of crisis;
but we have to have the sense that we know what to do because of
what Lyn and Helga have done over these decades.  And this is an
opportunity now to take the leadership and demand that our
program and policies be implemented.  But even more importantly
perhaps, is a way of thinking about it; and a way of creativity
being at the forefront of what we think of economics, of what we
think of human relations in general.  So, we just seize on this
moment of the {punctum saliens}; that this is the time to exert

        OGDEN:  I think that's a very well-stated point to close our
show on.  Again, the {punctum saliens} — the pregnant moment;
the moment of decision.  As Jeff mentioned, by the time we meet
here next week, the Brexit vote will have occurred; a lot is
changing very rapidly.  We have a lot to watch from that.
        I would like to thank everybody for joining me here today.
Thanks, Jeff and Jason both; and also Dave and Megan for joining
us via video.  And thank you all for tuning in; please stay tuned
to for critical daily updates.  If you have not
yet subscribed to the LaRouche PAC Daily email, you may do that
through our website.  And if you have not yet subscribed to our
YouTube channel, please subscribe to our YouTube channels to be
sure that you do not miss any of our regularly scheduled shows
here on  So, thank you very much and good night.

0 Kommentarer

Skriv en kommentar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret. Krævede felter er markeret med *