Se og del: Dokumentarfilm om at rense Lyndon LaRouches navn.

Skriv gerne under for at rense LaRouches navn: klik her.

Læs også afskriftet (på engelsk) nedenunder.


Den 21. juni offentligjorde LaRouchePAC en 80-minutters dokumentarfilm, som opfordrer til at rense Lyndon LaRouches navn, “Hvorfor Lyndon LaRouches navn skal renses” (primært med uddrag af de uafhængige høringer fra 1995 om justitsministeriets embedsmisbrug – med Lyndon LaRouche, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, USA’s fhv. justisminister Ramsey Clark, og LaRouches sagfører Odin Anderson).

Hjælp med at få denne nye video til at gå viralt.

I samarbejde med Helga LaRouche lancerer vi en international mobilisering for at få så mange som muligt (medlemmer, tilhængere, aktivister, kontakter osv.) til at dele, promovere og sprede videoen.

Kan du gøre en særlig indsats for at nå ud til kontakter med vigtige e-mail-lister, hjemmesider, blogs, Twitter, Facebook osv. og bede dem om at cirkulere dokumentaren. (Du kan naturligvis også hjælpe ved at promovere det via dine egne lister/sociale medier/eller hjemmeside)

Med den rette koordinerede indsats kan vi få videoen til at gå viralt.

Afskrift på engelsk:

The Case of LaRouche: Robert Mueller’s First Hit Job 

The Case for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche 

June 21, 2019 




HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  The most important in history is ideas, especially those ideas which move mankind forward; which are ideas which make the life of generations to come more human.   

For me, the biggest crime of what happened to my husband is not that he was innocently in jail.  I’m not saying it was not a hard time, because it was.  But the lack of the ability to have important ideas govern history; that is the biggest crime.  Lyn, while he was incredibly courageous of producing creative work while he was in prison — I mean, he did more in prison than any of us outside, and he put us to shame.   

But nevertheless, I will only give you one example.  In 1989, he was already in jail for nearly one year, when the borders of Europe opened.  He, from his prison cell, designed a great vision of how to integrate Eastern Europe, Western Europe, China, the whole Eurasian continent, which would have been a groundbreaking conception which would have put the entire history of the 20th century on a totally new basis.  Because economically, to integrate that economic space as one would have given opportunities and freedom to the states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and the Asian countries.  But because Lyn was in jail, this idea did not become as effective as if he would have been free. 

Now, I’m saying this because to put a man of great ideas into jail is a crime all by itself, because of the ideas.  The reason why we were able to mobilize hundreds of parliamentarians and thousands of VIPs from around the globe — why would people from Africa sign the parole request for Lyndon LaRouche?  Why would people from Latin America do this?  Why would people from around the world, from Russia; why would people come out of completely different cultural worlds to fight for this man?  Well, because we not only said this man must be free and his innocence must be proven, but they, many of them told me and others that they understand that the kind of change in global policy my husband is standing for, the kind of just new world economic order which allows the economic development of Africa; which allows the economic development of the developing countries, of Eastern Europe, they say is the only hope for them, for their nation, as far away as it may be. 

So, the reason why we must win is not because it’s a personal affair.  But as my husband was saying, we are going into a period of crisis, which most people are completely unaware of.  The kinds of changes have to be big, and they have to be done with the help of the United States, because the world cannot be saved against the United States.   

So, it is an historical necessity.  And I think in a certain sense, given the experience I have from eight years of fighting this, given the fact that more and more people around the globe are united around this and understand that mankind is sitting in one boat this time; that either we solve all our problems at once, or nobody will live.  I think we can win, and I think we must have that attitude. [applause] 


NARRATOR:  On August 31st and September 1st, 1995, a series of extraordinary hearings were convened in Tysons Corner, Virginia, to investigate gross misconduct by the U.S. Department of Justice.  The hearings were chaired by former U.S. Congressman James Mann of South Carolina and J.L. Chestnut of Alabama — the great lawyer and icon of the Civil Rights movement.  The hearings focussed on abuses by the U.S. Department of Justice, highlighting the onslaughts of targetted criminal cases against black elected officials in the United States — dubbed “Operation Fruehmenschen” according to FBI whistleblowers and Congressman Merv Dymally of California; as well as the case of Lyndon LaRouche. 


LYNDON LAROUCHE:  My case may be, as Ramsey Clark described it, the most extensive and the highest level of these cases, in terms of the duration and scope of the operation. 


NARRATOR:  Witnesses included:  LaRouche’s attorney, Odin Anderson; former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, who had been LaRouche’s defense attorney in his appeal; Lyndon LaRouche’s wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche — from whom you just heard; and Lyndon LaRouche himself.  The panel was comprised of leading national and international political figures, including the former Vice Premier of Slovakia, Jozef Miklosko; numerous state senators and other elected officials from across the United States; as well as Chor-Bishop of the Maronite Church, Monsignor Elias el-Hayek.  Numerous international observers were present, including legendary Civil Rights heroine Amelia Boynton Robinson of Selma, Alabama. 

As you will hear, these hearings demonstrated not just the injustice which was perpetrated against leading U.S. political officials by the Department of Justice because of their political views — exemplified by the case of Lyndon LaRouche — but the inherent danger at that time that such abuses, if left unchecked, could subsequently threaten the very existence of our Constitutional republic itself; a fight we see playing out today as we speak at the very highest level of our government, in the form of the attempted takedown of the U.S. Presidency. 


[from Oct. 6, 1986] 

NEWS REPORTER 1:  The raid command post, about three miles from town, was busy all night.  Just before dawn, Virginia State Police moved out.  It was a combined strike force, including FBI, Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and other Federal and state agents.  As FBI agents approached LaRouche’s estate in Leesburg, Virginia, 50 miles from Washington, police lined up outside. 


NEWS REPORTER 2:  Good evening.  Federal and state agents today raided the Leesburg, Virginia headquarters of political activist Lyndon LaRouche. 


NEWS REPORTER 3:  Today, it was a law enforcement assault here in Leesburg that set this town buzzing. 


NEWS REPORTER 4:  Scores of state and local police joined Federal agents in a coordinated, nationwide raid. 


NARRATOR:  On October 6, 1986, four hundred FBI, state police, IRS, ATF agents, and the national news media descended on Leesburg, Virginia, to search offices associated with the LaRouche political movement.  At a farm outside Leesburg, where Lyndon LaRouche and Helga Zepp-LaRouche were staying, heavily armed agents dressed in full tactical gear patrolled the perimeter as armored personnel carriers surrounded the property, and helicopters buzzed constantly overhead.   

In addition the materials specified in the Federal search warrant, according to later court testimony, the FBI case agent in charge was searching for evidence by which to obtain an arrest warrant for Lyndon LaRouche himself and a search warrant to allow armed entry to the farm.  A plan was in place to provoke a firefight with LaRouche’s security guards, to take out LaRouche, which was admitted years later. 

During the evening of October 6th, moves to implement that plan seemed to begin with news stations broadcasting that now an assault was about to occur on the farm.  A telegram was sent in LaRouche’s name to President Ronald Reagan, seeking his intervention to call off the raid.  Coincidentally, at exactly the same time, President Reagan was in Reykjavik, Iceland, refusing to back down in negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev on his commitment to the so-called SDI — the Strategic Defense Initiative.  The same SDI that Lyndon LaRouche had worked for years alongside top officials in the Reagan Administration to craft and support. 


LAROUCHE:  A first-generation of strategic ballistic missile defense … 


NARRATOR:  Only after this telegram to Ronald Reagan was sent did the forces surrounding the farm begin to dissipate and recede.  However, this was merely the opening chapter, in a concerted campaign involving elements within the Justice Department to target and dismantle the political operation of Lyndon LaRouche.  A campaign which astute observers of this case would readily compare to the operation underway, today, against none other than President Donald J. Trump.  There are striking similarities between the LaRouche case and the present attempt to prosecute or impeach Donald Trump. 

The first one is that both cases with a British call for prosecution and criminal investigation.  In LaRouche’s case, British intelligence sent a letter to the FBI in 1982, demanding investigation because LaRouche, the British claimed, was an agent of Soviet disinformation.  At the same time, Henry Kissinger and the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board triggered a counterintelligence investigation of LaRouche under Executive Order 12333.  In the Trump case, the British government began demanding Trump’s head as early as 2015; and have bragged to the {Guardian} and other British newspapers that their spying was the origin of Russiagate. 

Both cases shared a legal hit man in the form of prosecutor Robert Mueller.  And, both cases involved the employment of the criminal law enforcement and intelligence capacities of the United States to defeat and silence a political opponent for political reasons; something which violates the very core principles of the U.S. Constitution.  In LaRouche’s case, the effort was to permanently demonize him, in order to bury his ideas, precisely as Helga LaRouche stated in her testimony. 

As can be seen, the failure to challenge the gross abuses of justice, perpetrated by the Justice Department in the case of Lyndon LaRouche, has now brought us to the point, where the very Constitutional system on which our republic depends is being threatened. 



REP. JAMES MANN:  All right, the session will come to order. 


NARRATOR:  Let’s hear from Lyndon LaRouche’s lawyer, Mr. Odin Anderson of Boston, Massachusetts. 


MANN:  As we attempt to study the broad subject of misconduct by the Department of Justice … we cannot overlook the case that is perhaps the most pervasive (and I’m stealing the words from Ramsey Clark, I think), most pervasive course of misconduct by the Department of Justice, in the history of this country: broader-based, longstanding, abuse of power beyond expression, abuse of power through the use of Federal agencies, including, even, a Bankruptcy Court. 

Throughout the days of the LaRouche ordeal of criminal charges, Odin Anderson, a lawyer from Boston, has been the solid rock of criminal defense and counsel, far and above any other person. He can, therefore, speak to the subject of misconduct, or such facets of that as he may choose to discuss, better than anybody, with the possible exception of Lyndon and Helga. He has, literally, devoted a major portion of his life in the last 7 or 8 years, 8 or 9 years, to that task.  And we appreciate him taking the time to be here from Boston, to make some such statement as he wishes to make, and be responsive to questions. 

Thank you. 


ODIN ANDERSON:  Thank you, Congressman, honorable panel. It’s I who thank you for this opportunity to speak about the LaRouche case. 

I’m thankful, as I looked up and counted names, there are only 11 of you. If there had been a 12th, I would have been tempted to re-try this case in front of you, assured, I think, that Mr. LaRouche would finally get a fair trial…. 

I have represented Lyndon LaRouche since 1984, at which time he was directly targetted by the Department of Justice, through its U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, although there is a history of many years of harassment prior to that…. 

Back in the late ’60s, you probably all remember a student organization called the Students for a Democratic Society, (SDS); very active on campuses, particularly around the Vietnam War, but on many other issues of political importance to the United States; economic, social, a broad range of issues. 

Mr. LaRouche, and a number of political associates of his, became involved in those very same issues. But they had a difficulty with SDS, and essentially founded their own group, which became known, originally as a faction of SDS, the Labor Committees. They ultimately became known as the National Caucus of Labor Committees, which was and remains a political association … of people who share like political views. 

Probably the best way to demonstrate the government’s venal behavior, and the unconstitutional activities undertaken, directed out of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, is to show you their own documents, and read to you their own words. And, by way of history, I’d like to have No. 1 put up on the screen. 

What you see before you, is an FBI memorandum from the SAC, the Special Agent-in-Charge, of the New York Field Office of the FBI, to the Director. It’s dated March 1969. And, it requests authorization of the Director to issue a false leaflet, to stir up antagonisms between these various aspects of SDS. Now, I’m sure that’s a tactic familiar to all of you, if in slightly different form. They want to disseminate this leaflet under false cover, to various of these groups, and stir up as much controversy between them, hopefully, undermining their ability to act in concert, and getting them into faction fights, which would destroy their efficiency and cohesion. 

Well, if you put up No. 2, you’ll see that they got that authority from the Director of the FBI, and his blessing: “Authority is granted to anonymously mail copies of the leaflet submitted.” Now, I’m not going to bother to show you the leaflet, because it’s a piece of scurrilous garbage. It’s available for anyone who would like to see it. It was called “The Mouse Crap Revolution,” but its intent and purpose was exactly as defined in the letters. {This} is the Department of Justice, {this} is the FBI at work in the 1960s, under — if you look at the bottom —  what was called “Cointelpro,” or “Counterintelligence Program.”… 

So in 1969 and the 1970s, this was the kind of activity which was going on against the LaRouche political movement, and many others, including people you’re well acquainted with personally. 

If we could move on to the next overlay [No. 3]. This is to the Director, again from the SAC in New York, regarding the named subject, Lyndon Hermyle LaRouche, Jr., also known as Lynn Marcus, as they suggest. This is one of the most incredible pieces of FBI material that I have ever seen…. 

What this suggests, is that the Communist Party has let the FBI know, that they want to eliminate Lyndon LaRouche, for their political reasons. They consider him to be a “politically dangerous person,” and the Communist Party wants to eliminate him. 

If you look at the bottom, “New York proposes submitting a blind memorandum to the {Daily World},” to foster these efforts. Here’s the FBI climbing in bed with the Communist Party, in order to effect the elimination of Lyndon LaRouche from the political scene. I think we all know what that means. And they go on to say, that it’s believed, that once LaRouche is eliminated, the political effectiveness of the National Caucus of Labor Committees will, thereby, be diminished, and it will cease to be of any political significance. Here, again, is the FBI, in the ’70s, in operation. 

Years went by, and the members of the National Caucus of Labor Committees continued their political efforts. Now, they are considered, Mr. LaRouche is considered, extremely controversial by many. Those he’s considered controversial by, tend to be those whose policies are inconsistent with his, or those that he has named as operating against the best interests of the society and peoples of the United States. And we all know, that those people tend to be very powerful people…. 

Henry Kissinger, who we all know by name, and some probably remember by reputation and actions, was a very powerful man. Mr. LaRouche took exception with his policies, which he considered to be genocidal, particularly in the context of the financial policies, and the conditionalities imposed on the Third World in order to get money from the World Bank, and got into a serious row with Mr. Kissinger. 

And Mr. Kissinger writes to (on his letterhead) William Webster, the Director of the FBI [Exhibit No. 4]. They had recently had a lovely social occasion together at the place called the Grove, where these powers associate, and frolic around, in various curious ways. And after that, he [Kissinger] appreciates having seen him there, and asks for the assistance of Bill Webster in dealing with “the LaRouche menace.”… 

Here is [Exhibit No. 5]– within the short period thereafter, “Buck” Revell, who was the head of counterintelligence for the FBI, at the time, is sent this memorandum by William Webster, who had been contacted by David Abshire of PFIAB, that’s the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. And these same parties, Henry Kissinger and his colleagues, are now raising before PFIAB, the question as to whether LaRouche, because he seems to have funding from sources that they don’t understand, is operating as a foreign intelligence agent, and they want them to look into this. 

Now, what that does, and the words are bad enough, but the reality is terrifying. This triggers the Executive Order I referred to earlier, Executive Order 12333, which allows virtually {any form of conduct, any activity}, to be undertaken, as long as it’s under this national security cover. So, this was the beginning of a national security-covered operation against Mr. LaRouche and his colleagues…. 

The common denominator between all of these cases is twofold. It’s, as I said, political targetting, and it’s the Criminal Division of the Justice Department. 

You probably also know, from your own experiences with colleagues who have run afoul of the situations that have been discussed, that the first place they try you, is in the press. Only {then} do they try you in the courts, once they’ve set the stage, once they’ve poisoned all the minds in the community against you, then, they haul you into court, where you can’t get a fair trial, because the jurors who are sitting there, have been told for days, months, years, or millennia, what a bad person you are, and what horrible offenses you’ve committed against the moral or social fabric of the community. 

Well, that’s precisely what happened in the LaRouche case, probably more so than in any other case…. In the LaRouche case, the press began, not by accident, because we all know who owns the press:  It’s not owned by individuals, and as a matter of fact, there’s an awful lot of ownership of the press which represents certain political and financial interests.   

So, the fact is that beginning in the same period of the 80s, a private financier in New York City, John Train, with reach into the media community, by virtue of his social and financial circumstances, convened a group of media types in a salon that he hosted in his apartment, to plan a press campaign against LaRouche, and his political movement. Their objective was threefold: to tar and feather Lyndon LaRouche and his colleagues as best they could; to advocate and press for prosecutions of any kind, in any place; and, ultimately, to destroy and jail LaRouche, and destroy the political movement which he headed. 

Among those who attended this meeting — and there were several of them, that we have evidence of, collected over a period of years, and admissions by people under oath —  were members of and persons associated with the intelligence community, as well as people with political axes to grind against Mr. LaRouche, such as the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, who has, historically, done everything it could, financially and editorially, to label Mr. LaRouche as an anti-Semite, as a fascist, as a racist, as a “Hitler,” a “little Hitler,” and some of the most scurrilous names we can imagine hurling in another person’s face without basis. 

All of these parties, collectively,  — and unfortunately, this is the way these things operate; they don’t operate above board, they operate under the table where you can’t see them, because they don’t flourish well in the light of day, but the grow well in darkness.  They get together, and in fact, this has been referred to by others as part of the “secret government”: The powers that be that operate in conjunction with official agencies but are never seen or heard of. … 

I want to move on briefly and specifically to the LaRouche cases, which are, in fact, a series of cases, that began in 1984. 

In 1984, Mr. LaRouche, under his name, sued NBC and the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, in Federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, on libel charges, on the basis of the accusations which I’ve already told you about. 

We tried that case. NBC lied through their teeth, in terms of what information we had. In fact, we had FBI documents that indicated that the NBC reporter had received proprietary and non-public information from four agencies of the federal government, with reference to Mr. LaRouche. 

So they make the stories up, and then they leak them to people who want to use them against you. … 

We sued NBC in Alexandria, Va. As soon as that case was over, NBC in Boston, on the very day — I had finished our presentation and was packing up to go back to Boston, published a so-called “investigative series” of theirs, alleging that certain persons associated with the LaRouche political campaign, had made false credit charges against certain contributors. And they [NBC] had a couple of contributors who got up and said, “you know, I met these people, and I gave them 35 bucks, and the next thing I knew, there was 100 bucks charged to my credit card.” 

Well, I’ll say one thing. Mr. LaRouche is very controversial. And people who contributed to them, frequently came under various types of criticism for that contribution. It could be their wife who says, “what’re you giving $100 away? We need to buy new shoes for the kids.” Or, it could be a neighbor, or a child.  And many times, the amounts of money were larger, so the reasons for opposing the contribution were even greater. 

But, if you know anything about credit cards, the only way a person can re-capture money charged to his credit card, which has been charged to the account, is to say “it was unauthorized.” Those are the magic words. If you don’t use the magic words, you can’t collect the $100. So, in order to reverse a credit card charge, one must say, “I never authorized it.” 

Therefore, what you’re alleging in that case — although the intent was probably not to make the allegation — but in fact you’re alleging that the person did it without your authority, which could be a criminal act. 

Now, they started an investigation around this, which they conducted for two years. It ultimately culminated in a trial in Boston. 

Of course, another thing you’ll all recognize from your personal experiences, is that when they want to charge you and they don’t have anything, they charge you with conspiracy; because then, they don’t have to prove anything! They just go around, tell a bunch of stories, and hope that the jury is poisoned against you, is going to link it all up somehow, and convict you. So “conspiracy” is the vehicle, and that’s precisely what happened in Boston: LaRouche and his colleagues were charged with conspiracy, with a few other specific charges linked on as an afterthought. 

We tried the case for seven months. We weren’t even through with the government’s case, when the case mis-tried. The reason it mistried, is that the jury had been led to believe that the case would have been over long before, which it would have, had we been able to concentrate on the evidence. But, because of the hearings that the judge was forced to conduct for literally months and months, on governmental misconduct, the case dragged on, and the jury sat in the jury box. 

The jury ultimately got frustrated and … wanted to go home, and the case mistried. 

This is an article from the {Boston Herald} that printed that day. [Exhibit No. 6] I’m only showing it to you for one reason, not because of the highlight, “LaRouche Jury Would Have Voted `Not Guilty'”  — although that’s true, and those come out of the words of the jury foreman, who was interviewed  — but, in the first line of text, there are some very important words, from the foreman: 

“`We would have acquitted everybody at this point, and that’s based on prosecution evidence’, said foreman Dashawetz. “There was too much question of government misconduct in what was happening to the LaRouche campaign.'” 

“Government misconduct.” Very seldom do you get a jury to see it, because the government fights you {nail and tooth}. They lie, they cover up evidence, they, in fact, deny information to their own agents, so that the agent won’t be in a position to have to intentionally not disclose it. These are common tactics, and that’s what happened here. Fortunately, in our case, we were able to show enough of it to the jury, so that the jury got the smell. 

However, the government wasn’t about to quit, particularly having taken what was a serious public relations beating at that point in time. So, they decided to switch forums, come down to a much more favorable forum,  — {the} most favorable forum —  the Eastern District of Virginia: the so-called “rocket docket,” the home of almost every government agency, and government contractor in the country, with a few other pockets here and there. 

They brought the case down to there, indicted the case, and brought us to trial. New charges, new defendants. LaRouche was also indicted, so he was one of the few who was also charged the second time — and forced the case from indictment to trial in 28 days. 

There’s a great book, and it’s not a novel, it’s a factual book. It is the history of the case shown by the documents of the case; it’s called {Railroad!} and I commend it to your attention. If you’re to see how that system worked in this particular case, it’s all there, and it’s not somebody else’s words, it’s the words from the court documents. 

In any event, LaRouche was convicted, as were all of his co-defendants, {again}, on conspiracy charges. That was the seminal charge, the rest were just tacked on. This time it wasn’t credit cards. It was allegations of wire fraud, the allegation being that loans were taken from contributors, without intent to repay, or with reckless disregard of that fact that payment wouldn’t take place. 

Now, these were political loans, made in the political context, by political people, to a political candidate, and his political candidacy. Everybody knew that…. 

Back in Boston, the grand jury that was investigating the case, held certain businesses associated with Mr. LaRouche in contempt of court, for not producing documents which were under subpoena, which were being fought during a period of time based on various privacy grounds. 

Twenty million dollars’ worth of contempt sanctions were imposed. The government then sought to collect that $20 million, by filing an involuntary bankruptcy against these organizations in Alexandria, Virginia, just prior to — not just prior —  but at some point prior to the Alexandria indictments. 

They also did this, {ex parte}. The government was the {only} creditor —  in violation of federal law. But, by virtue of their {ex parte} petition to the judge, they were able to effect the closing of these four businesses, all of which were engaged in First Amendment advocacy and publication. These businesses were closed. They were seized by Federal marshals. They never reopened. The publications were never reprinted. 

The $20 million the government sought, was a ruse. In fact, what they intended to do, and what they did do, was close the conspiracy that they alleged in the Alexandria indictments, on the very day that they filed the bankruptcy. The point of the bankruptcy being that from the moment a bankruptcy is filed, an order issued, that no one can pay any debts without order of the court. So it was physically impossible for any debts to be repaid after that, thereby creating a pool of persons who were owed money, who couldn’t be repaid. They [the government] got five or six of these people to come forward and say, “I was promised repayment and didn’t get it,” and that was the basis of the conviction for loan fraud. 

In any event, I want to say that we have fought as vigorously as anyone can through the appeals process, without success and through the {mandamus} process, 2255s in federal court.  And are now at a stage, where, Ramsey Clark, former Attorney General of the United States, who has been with me on all of the appeals,  — he joined the effort just after the sentencing of Mr. LaRouche and his colleagues in 1990.  Recently, he wrote a letter to the Attorney General, asking for a departmental review of the LaRouche case. I’d like to read you some portions of his letter.  He’ll be here tomorrow to speak to you personally.  I’d like to leave you with the following words of Ramsey Clark: 

“Dear Attorney General Reno, 

I have been an attorney in this case since shortly after the defendants were sentenced in January 1989 and appeared as co-counsel on appeal and on the subsequent motions and appeals in proceedings under 28 U.S.C. sec. 2255 and F.R. Cr.P. Rule 33. I bring this matter to you directly, because I believe it involves a broader range of deliberate and systematic misconduct and abuse of power over a longer period of time in an effort to destroy a political movement and leader, than any other federal prosecution in my time or to my knowledge. Three courts have now condemned the Department’s conduct in this prosecutorial campaign. The result has been a tragic miscarriage of justice which at this time can only be corrected by an objective review and courageous action by the Department of Justice.” 


MANN:  The session will come to order.  The session will come to order. 

We are pleased and honored to have with us today, the former Attorney General of the United States Ramsey Clark, who will make such presentation as he may choose.  Attorney General. 


RAMSEY CLARK: Thank you very much. It’s a good feeling to be here with you again this year. I wish I could say it’s been a good year for freedom and justice under law, but I can’t say that. But at least, in this company, you know that the struggle goes on, and that we shall overcome. 

I will, probably, unless my mind wanders, which it does, talk about three cases primarily.  And I’ll start and end, with the case of Lyndon LaRouche and his co-defendants. not because it’s the Alpha and Omega, although it’s about as close as a case gets to the potential perfidy of justice, but because it shows how bad it can be, and yet, it has, as so very, very few of these cases ever do, a positive side that we have to consider. 

I came into the case after the trial. As a person who lives in the country and pays attention to these things, I followed it carefully. I knew something about the ways of the judicial district in which the case was filed and the meaning of filing a case there. To call it the “rocket docket” is a disservice, unless you identify the rocket, because if there’s a rocket in present use that would be similar, it would be the so-called depleted uranium-tipped missile, the silver bullet used in Iraq. 

In other words, it’s a lethal rocket. It’s not a rocket that sought truth or intended justice. … 

I was prepared, therefore, for what might happen. I had followed the earlier case in Boston, which, by any measure, was an extremely peculiar case, both in its charges and its prosecution, and in its history. I knew the judge there as a fellow Texan. His brother, Page Keeton, had been dean of the law school where I started out, down at the University of Texas. And he’s one of the old school, that doesn’t like tricks, falsity, or injustice. He became outraged with the prosecution, and did a lot. I can’t tell you he did all that a judge could have done. I believe Odin would agree, though, he did a lot. And not many judges, who come through a political conditioning process, who have the courage to stand up to the power of the Executive Branch, to the FBI and others, and say the things that he did. And, that was almost an early end to a malicious prosecution. 

But, in what was a complex and pervasive a utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focussed on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one. There are some, where the government itself may have done more and more wrongfully over a period of time. But the very networking and combination of federal, state, and local agencies, of executive and even some legislative and judicial branches, of major media and minor local media, and of influential lobbyist types  — the ADL preeminently —  this case takes the prize. 

The purpose can only be seen as destroying–it’s more than a political movement, it’s more than a political figure. It {is} those two. But it’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the {status quo}, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost. … 

And yet, all this law enforcement was coming down on them. We didn’t have that kind of violence, that physical violence, in the LaRouche case. But the potential from one side was entirely there. The day they went out to seize 2 million documents, as I recall (I may be off a million or 2 million), a big warehouse! These people produce a lot of paper, and it’s not trash; it’s not bureaucratic paper-keeping; you may not agree with it, but it’s all saying things. They had several times more agents, armed, than the ATF force that initially attacked the Mount Carmel Church outside Waco on Feb. 28, 1993. They just didn’t have people on the other side, who were shooters…. 

I guess I’m really still caught with the idea, the old idea of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, that is ingrained in a lot of Americans, in particular, young lawyers, who are kind of idealistic and believe in the idea of freedom and the power of the word and the truth. I believe the truth can set us free. I think that’s the struggle. The real struggle, is whether we can see the truth in time…. The truth can set us free. 

In the LaRouche case, they’re book people. (I have to confess to an intellectual weakness: I find reading easier than thinking, so I read constantly, nearly blinded myself from too much reading. I’ve got 15,000 books at home, read most them, unfortunately. As you can tell, I haven’t learned much, but I haven’t stopped yet.) These are book people. They had publishing houses going on. Important publications. Non-profit stuff…. And the government comes in a completely — these are just some of the peripheral things, that Odin and others might not have explained to you, but these are what they were about:  {ideas}, information, social change! Meeting the needs of human people all over the world, humanity all over the world. 

We’re going to have a billion more people before the end of this millennium, century, decade, and the vast majority, 80% of them are going to have beautiful, darker skin. And they’re going to live short lives, {short lives} of sickness, hunger, pain, ignorance, and violence, {unless we act radically}. And these books have ideas! Some will work, some won’t work, but they’re ideas. They can be “tested in the marketplace,” as we used to say. 

And they [the government] come in with a {false} bankruptcy claim, against a non-profit publishing houses, and {shut ’em down!} What’s the First Amendment worth, you know? “We’ll silence you, you’ll have no books out there.” 

And not only that: then they take people who were contributing and supposed to be paid back their loans to the publisher, and try to prosecute, falsely, on it. They put on witnesses, to give false testimony. From the tens and tens of thousands of contributors, and thousands of people who gave loans, they came up with a baker’s dozen, roughly — 13, 14, 15 people — who got their feelings hurt, perhaps.  And some who were mean-spirited enough to lie about it, and who didn’t get their money back, although they were being paid back. Because anybody can have financial crunch, where you can’t pay back. 

Imagine what would happen to political campaigns in this country, if you enforced law strictly against those who are raising money like this, by inquiring about all the people who gave money; whether they got what they wanted, what they expected, and whether they were misled about it. Nobody could run for office.   

We know in this society that we are plutocracy, that money dominates politics, absolutely dominates it:  Read this new book {The Golden Rule} by Thomas Ferguson, University of Chicago Press, about the role of money in our democratic society, how it absolutely controls not just the elections, and not just the politicians, but the whole shebang!  The media, the military, the industry, everything.  And we call it “democracy.” 

We need some ideas, we need the good words out there. And that’s why it had to be stopped, and that’s why they came after him. 

I read the record — in addition to reading books, I read lots of records of trials.  Absolutely no evidence to support a conviction there, if you take it all, if you exclude the parts that were false or venomous, there’s not even a shell. But they had to say that this noble enterprise, agree or not with it, was corrupt. Corrupt — have nothing to do with it! It’s corrupt! Nobody respects financial or other corruption. Destroy ’em that way. 

They were put to trial, without any chance to prepare their case, and they made a valiant effort. And got consecutive sentences — unbelievable…. 

We’ve been trying in every way we can, others much more than I, to make the LaRouche case known. I personally have appeared at meetings in Europe and North America. There have been books and pamphlets and there’s a constant flow of literature and verbal communication. 

We’ve tried, for I can’t tell you how many years right now, but several years, maybe four even, to explore the possibility of fair hearings in the Congress. 

Hearings are risky in a highly political environment like that. … 

There’s a continuing effort. I think it will bear fruit. We’ve asked the Department of Justice for a comprehensive review. Lyndon LaRouche has always asked for a review, not only of his case, but of all cases where there are allegations of serious misconduct, and usually names a bunch of ’em. And so, we’ve always done that. That’s his vision. It happens to be my vision, too, of how you correct things. 

But the capacity of the Department of Justice for self-criticism, is of a very low order. It has two offices that are charged with the responsibility. One’s called the Office of Professional Responsibility, and one’s called the Office of the Inspector General, and neither have ever done anything very serious that I’m aware of. Maybe someone was caught stealing pencils, or something, taking home for the kids.  That’s about the dimension of their address. 

So our efforts to secure a review of injustice; we’ve tried in the courts.  We sought {habeas corpus}, which is the grand English — it’s the Writ of Amparo; in the Dominican Republic, it’s the grand old way of reviewing injustice and wrongful conviction — and we got short shrift. We had to go back to the same judge who gave us the fast shrift the first time! 

The [inaudible 54:09] rocket docket. 

So, we have to find solid means. The media’s a great problem. The media’s controlled by wealth and power that prefers the {status quo}, and it’s very sophisticated in how it manages these matters. I can take a cause that they’re interested in, that’s virtually meaningless, and be on prime time evening news. And I can take on a cause of what I consider to be international importance of the highest magnitude, that they oppose, and shout from the rooftops, and you’d never know I existed. That’s the way it works. 

That’s one reason that publications — the books and magazines and newspapers that spread the word — even though they’re minor compared with the huge international media conglomerates that we’re confronted with, but they reach thinking people, and they spread the word. 

I think we’ll get our hearing in time, and I think it’ll be a reasonably short time, but I think to be meaningful, it’s going to take a regeneration of moral force in the American people. 

I’m both an optimist and an idealist, so you have to take what I say with a grain of salt. But I believe that the civil rights movement was the noblest quest of the American people in my time. I think it was real, and vital, and passionate. And I think it consumed the energies and faith of some few millions of people. I mean, we really believed in it! We were marching and singing and doing!  And then it kind of dribbled out. So that now we have this vicious fights that divide us.   

We have to have a moral regeneration and energy and commitment and faith and belief, that we can overcome; that equality is desirable; that justice is essential; that a life of principle is only worth living; then we’ll get our hearings. Then we won’t need our hearings, but we’ll have to keep on. 


MANN:  The session will come to order. 

If anyone needs an introduction to the next presenter, I suggest you see him after the meeting. [laughter] We’re delighted to have Lyndon LaRouche. 

LYNDON H. LAROUCHE, JR: Just for the record, I’ll state a few facts which bear upon the circumstances in which certain events befell me. 

I was born in Sept. 8, 1922, in Rochester, New Hampshire, lived there for the first 10 years of my life, lived for the next 22 years of my life in Lynn, Massachusetts, except for service overseas. I moved to New York City, where I lived until July of 1983, and, since that time, except for a period of incarceration, I have been a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

I attended university a couple of times, before the war or at the beginning of the war, and after it; and then had a career in management consulting, which lasted until about 1972, tapered off, sort of. 

My most notable professional achievement was developed during the years 1948-1952, in certain discoveries of a fundamental scientific nature in respect to economics, and my professional qualifications are essentially derived from that. 

In the course of time, in 1964, approximately, I was persuaded that things were being done to change the United States, which, from my view, were the worst possible disaster which could befall this nation. And thus, while I had given up any hope of political improvement in this country before then, to speak of, I felt I had to do something. So I became involved part time, from 1966 through 1973, in teaching a one-semester course in economics, largely on the graduate level, at a number of campus locations, chiefly in New York City, but also in Pennsylvania. 

In the course of this, a number of these students who participated in these classes, became associated with me, and, out of this association, came the birth of a nascent political organization, as much a philosophical organization as political. Our central commitment was Third World issues and related issues, that is, that economic justice for what is called the Third World is essential for a just society for all nations. I became particularly attached to this, during military service overseas in India, where I saw what colonialism does to people. And I was persuaded at the time, as I believe a majority of the people who were in service with me, was that we were coming to the end of a war, which we had not foreseen, but which we had been obliged to fight. And that if we allowed the circumstances to prevail that I saw in the Third World, we would bring upon ourselves some kind of disaster, either war or something comparable down the line. 

And that was essentially our commitment as an association. 

We became rather unpopular with a number of institutions, including McGeorge Bundy’s Ford Foundation. About 1969, we made a mess of a few projects he was funding, by exposing them. And we also became unpopular with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, perhaps on the behest of McGeorge Bundy. 

In 1973, according to a document later issued under the Freedom of Information Act by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, acting at all times under supervision of Washington headquarters, hatched a plot to have me eliminated, or to induce the Communist Party U.S.A., that my elimination would solve a number of their problems. There actually was an abortive attempt on me during that period. I knew the FBI had been involved. I couldn’t prove it then, but I knew it, and, later, a document appeared showing that. 

From that point on, during the 1970s, until the end of COINTELPRO, we were constantly beset by the FBI. Our main weapon against the FBI was jokes. We used to make some jokes about the FBI, which we would pass around, to try to persuade them to keep off our tail, but they kept coming, and all kinds of harassment. 

Then, in 1982, there was a new development. I sensed it happening, but I received the documents later: The events which led to my, what I would call, a fraudulently obtained indictment and conviction and incarceration. 

It started, according to the record — of which I had some sensibility this was going on at the time — of Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State (with whom no love was lost between us), went to William Webster and others, soliciting an FBI or other government operation against me and my associates. This led, as the record later showed, to a decision by Henry Kissinger’s friends on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, recommending an operation against me and my associates. This was adopted during the same month of January by Judge Webster, the Director of the FBI, who passed the implementation of this instruction along to his subordinate, Oliver “Buck” Revell, recently retired from the FBI, I believe. 

The first inkling I had of this, was in about April of 1983, at which time a New York banker, John Train, who is very intelligence-witting, shall we say, of the private bank of Smith and Train in New York City, held a salon at which various government agents, private individuals, the Anti-Defamation League, for example, and also NBC-TV News, the {Reader’s Digest,} the {Wall Street Journal}, and others, were represented. 

The purpose was to coordinate an array of libels, a menu of libels, which would be commonly used by the news media, in an attempt to defame me, and hopefully, from their standpoint, to lead to criminal action against me and my associates. 

In January of 1984, this attack came into the open, launched by NBC-TV, which had been a participant in this salon of Train’s, which launched the pattern, which was the pattern of coverage by all U.S. news media — major news media, and many minor news media. From the period of the end of January 1984, through the end of 1988, I saw no case of any significant coverage of me or mention of me, in the U.S. print media, particularly the major print media, the Associated Press, in particular, which was an active part of the prosecution, in fact, or in the national television media, network media, especially; not a single mention of me which did not conform to the menu of libels concocted by this salon, which had been established under John Train, as part of this operation. 

This salon, including the Anti-Defamation League, NBC-TV, others, the Associated Press, actively collaborated, beginning sometime in 1984, with forces inside the government, which were determined to have a criminal prosecution against me and my associates. The criminal prosecution was launched at about the time of the 1984 presidential election, in October-November 1984. And from that point on, it was a continued escalation, until a Federal case in Boston led to a mistrial, occasioned largely by government misconduct in the case, in May of 1988. 

Following that, on or about October 14 in Virginia, a new prosecution was opened up, and that led to my conviction in December of 1988, and my sentencing, for 15 years, in January 1989. I believe Mr. Anderson has described the nature of the case. And that resulted in five years of service in Federal prison, from which I’m now released on parole. 

The motivations of the case against us, I think, are, in part, obvious, perhaps partly not. 

In 1982-83, there were two things which greatly excited my enemies. Number one, I had been involved, in 1982, in presenting a proposal which was based on my forecast in the spring of 1982, that a major debt crisis would break out in South America, Central America, and the expectation that Mexico would be the nation that would have a debt crisis. I’d been involved with many of these countries and personalities in them, in projecting alternatives to this kind of inequitable system, where the “colonial nation” had been replaced by the term “debtor nation.” And the debt of South America, Central America was largely illegitimate, that is, it was a debt which had not been incurred for value received, but had been done under special monetary conditions, under the so-called floating exchange rate system, where bankers would come to a country, the IMF in particular, would say, “We just wrote down the value of the currency; we’re now going to re-fund your financing of your foreign debt, which you can no longer pay on the same basis as before.” 

So I proposed, that the debt crisis be used as the occasion for united action, by a number of governments of South and Central American countries, to force a reform in the international debt relations, and to force a reform within international monetary relations. This report was entitled {Operation Juárez}, largely because of the relationship of President Lincoln to Mexico during the time that Lincoln was President; with the idea that it was in the interest of the United States to accept and sponsor such a reform, to assist these countries in the freedom to resume development of the type which they had desired. 

This report was published in August of 1982, ironically a few weeks before the eruption of the great Mexico debt crisis of ’82, and was presented also to the U.S. government and the National Security Council, for the President’s information at that time. There was some effort, on the part of the President of Mexico, to implement my proposal in the initial period of the debt crisis. He had, at that time, some support from the President of Brazil and the government of Argentina. But under pressure from the United States, the government of Brazil and Argentina capitulated, and President José López Portillo, the President of Mexico, was left, shall we say, “hanging out to dry.” 

As a result, in October of 1982, he capitulated to the terms which were delivered to his government and people around him, by people such as Henry A. Kissinger, who made a trip to Mexico at that time, to attempt to intimidate the Mexicans to submitting to these new terms. This was one issue between me and Kissinger, and his friends. 

The second issue was, that sometime about December of 1981, a representative of the U.S. government approached me, and had asked me if I would be willing to set up an exploratory back-channel discussion with the Soviet government, because the Soviet government wanted, according to them, an additional channel to discuss things. And I said I didn’t reject the idea, I said, but I have an idea on this question of nuclear missiles. It was becoming increasingly dangerous, forward-basing, more precise missiles, electromagnetic pulse, we’re getting toward a first strike. It would be very useful to discuss what I proposed in my 1980 election campaign, with the Soviet government, to see if they’d be interested in discussing such a proposal. This might prove a profitable exploratory discussion. 

And so, from February of 1982, through February of 1983, I did conduct such back-channel discussions with representatives of the Soviet government in Washington, D.C. Those were somewhat fruitful, but ultimately abortive. Kissinger and others became aware of this discussion, during the summer of 1982, and their circles were very much opposed to that. The general view was expressed, that I was getting “too big for my britches,” and I had to be dealt with: on the question of debt, which some of these people were concerned about, and on this question of strategic missile defense, where I had this proposal, which the President adopted, at least initially, in the form of what became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative. And when the Strategic Defense Initiative was announced by the President on March 23, 1983, there were a lot of people out for my scalp. 

Those are the at least contributing factors, in what happened to me. But they may not be all. There probably are others, as well…. 

We have, in my view, a system of injustice whose center is within the Department of Justice, especially the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. The problem lies not with one administration or another, though one administration or another may act more positively or more negatively. You have permanent civil service employees, like Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jack Keeney and Mark Richard, who are coordinators of a nest of institutions in the Criminal Division, which show up, repeatedly, as leading or key associates of every legal atrocity which I’ve seen. 

This is the case with the so-called Frühmenschen operation, which is largely an FBI operation, but which cannot run without cooperation from these people. … 

We have an out-of-control Justice Department, in my view, where the rot is not in the appointees, as much as it is in the permanent bureaucracy. We have a permanent sickness, in the permanent bureaucracy of part of our government. 

In my case, when the time came that somebody wanted me out of the way, they were able to rely upon that permanent injustice in the permanent bureaucracy of government, to do the job. As in the Frühmenschen case, the Weaver case, the Waco case, the case of Waldheim, the case of Demjanjuk, and other cases. Always there’s that agency inside the Justice Department, which works for contract, like a hitman, when somebody with the right credentials and passwords walks in, and says, “we want to get this group of people,” or “we want to get this person.” 

My case may be, as Ramsey Clark described it, the most extensive and the highest level of these cases, in terms of the duration and scope of the operation. … 

So my case is important, in the sense it’s more extensive, it’s more deep-going, long-going. But when it came to getting me, it was the same apparatus, that, I find, in my opinion, was used in these other cases. And that until we remove, from our system of government, a rotten, permanent bureaucracy which acts like contract assassins, using the authority of the justice system to perpetrate assassination, this country is not free, nor is anyone in it. … That’s my view of the matter. Thank you. [applause] 


MANN:  Thank you. 


J.L. CHESTNUT:  You and I had a little chat in Selma, Alabama. … I guess you can understand, that even somebody like me, sometimes, feels {overwhelmed}, and wonders whether or not America is just a lost cause. I hate to sound that way, but after 40 years, I’ve got {serious} reservations about whether we can save this country, about whether this country even {wants} to be saved. 

LAROUCHE:  Well, I take an evangelical view of this. I’ve been associated with many lost causes in my life — as you have — and, once in a while, we win them. [laughter] … 

The problem of people, as I see it, is people don’t trust the leadership; and I don’t blame them for not trusting their leadership. I blame them for being too pessimistic. And it’s up to us and others, to get enough people moving, to create a movement. 

Like the case, just, of Martin Luther King. Now, I never personally met Martin Luther King, but I watched him closely. And I know something about Martin Luther King, from people who knew him, and his circumstances. And here was a man, he was a good man, he was a preacher, a Baptist preacher, I don’t know. They run to this way and that way. 

But one day, somebody appointed him, nominated him, to be a leader of the civil rights movement; out of a crowd, so to speak. He took the job, as an appointee, like a federal appointee! Only this was a civil rights movement. He went from crisis to crisis, in a few years, from the time that he received that appointment, until he went to his death, knowing he was facing death. 

And in that period of time, he made a number of public speeches of great power and pith. Each of those speeches corresponded to a point of crisis in the history of the civil rights movement. And I saw, on television, and I read in the recorded speeches, I read a man who had gone into private, into his own Gethsemane, probably inspired by reading the New Testament, and said: “I will drink of this cup.” And he came out with an {idea}, with a lot of people swarming around him. But he came out with the {idea}, and he presented a concept, which took a whole people who were looking to him and the civil rights movement; and he {ennobled} them. 

He said, “You’re not fighting for African-American rights. You’re fighting for everybody’s rights! You’re fighting to make the Constitution real!” And it was a new idea, a different idea. And, as he did with his “Mountaintop” speech that he gave just before he went — again, a man who had walked into Gethsemane and said, “Yes, Lord, I will drink of this cup, as my Savior before me.” And he went out, and he drank of the cup; and he inspired people. 

Now, we don’t know who among us is going to be the great leader of this period. But we know, as the civil rights people of the 1960s, who had been at the civil rights business for many centuries, in point of fact, many of them with a conscious family tradition. They assembled together. They picked people from their midst as leaders; and among these leaders, was a Martin Luther King. 

And I think, if enough of us assemble today around these kinds of issues, and show the nation that there {is} something moving, something which is of concern to the average citizen, that from among those we gather, together for that purpose, we will find the leaders we need. 

[closing music] 


Foredrag #4 (18. maj): Italiensk Videnskab og Kultur

Talere: Liliana Gorini, John Sigerson

Lyndon LaRouches ideer afspejler i Italien et fremskridt for den videnskabelige og kunstneriske revolution i det 15. århundredes florentinske renæssance. Dette fremskridt omfatter en tilbagevenden til en naturlig musikalsk stemning, hvilket Giuseppe Verdi krævede for mere end et århundrede siden; Italiens nylige skridt til at gennemføre LaRouches forslag om en Glass/Steagall-banklovgivning, en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons principper om økonomisk politik; og Italiens dristige beslutning om at tilslutte sig Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ for verdens udvikling.

Grundlæggende er der imidlertid ikke noget specifikt italiensk knyttet til disse fremskridt; Italien er den gode muldjord, som bærer de nuværende frugter af de platoniske ideer, der opstod i det gamle Grækenland, videreført af Nicolaus Cusanus, Johannes Kepler, den tyske matematiker og fysiker Bernhard Riemann, og det musikalske geni Wilhelm Furtwängler. Furtwängler var omtrent ene om at redde den europæiske musikkultur fra at blive destrueret af den britiske golem Adolf Hitler. Senere blev han den ledende inspiration for LaRouches insisteren på at musik ikke udfoldes i lyd, men i det riemannske komplekse domæne.

Jordens næste 50 år – Foredrag # 2 (4. maj):
LaRouches ufuldendte krig for en ny økonomisk verdensorden
Udvalgt taler: Dennis Small

Historien om kampen for en retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden (NWEO), baseret på nord-syd-samarbejde og udvikling, er et perfekt eksempel på hvordan ideer, og faktisk udelukkende ideer, skaber historien. De ideer, omkring hvilke de første kampe for en NWEO blev udkæmpet, især i perioden 1979-1983, og begrebet om hvordan man fører denne krig, blev udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche. Hans tilgang var ikke blot at foreslå ideen, og at påvise at denne politik ville være til gavn for både nord og syd. Hans metode var faktisk at fremlægge de underliggende filosofiske begreber og det videnskabelige fysisk-økonomiske grundlag for at bevise, at en sådan tilgang rent faktisk kan fungere. De politiske relationer mellem de store hovedpersoner i denne kamp, Mexicos José López Portillo og Indiens Indira Gandhi, blev også bevidst fremmet af LaRouche. Og da en flanke opstod, da Ronald Reagan overtog præsidentskabet i USA i januar 1981, kastede LaRouche sig over den for at bringe de kræfter, der rent faktisk kunne besejre fjenden og vinde den strategiske krig, ind i kampen. Dette er genstand for en lektion i uafsluttet krig.


Schiller Instituttes foretræde for Erhvervsudvalget den 22. november 2018

Kun Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling og et Nyt Bretton Woods kreditsystem kan forhindre finanssammenbrud

Jeg er Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark. Tak fordi vi måtte komme.

Den danske offentlighed har haft en brat opvågning til den sande tilstand i den danske finansverden. Danske Bank har i årevis været dybt involveret i hvidvask af enorme pengebeløb og både bankens ledelse og Finanstilsynet svigtede totalt, når de gennem mange år blev gjort opmærksom på problemet. Andre af de store SIFI-banker i Danmark er samtidigt blevet afsløret i medhjælp til skatteunddragelse og svigt i deres bekæmpelse af svindel og hvidvask. Endelig har mange af de danske banker, i lighed med deres internationale kolleger, været medvirkende til at den danske og udenlandske statskasser er blevet plyndret gennem svigagtige udbytteskatrefusioner. Alt dette viser, at det ikke drejer sig om enkelte problemer eller enkelte brodne kar, men er et systemisk problem, hvor hele bank- og finansverdenen er gennemsyret af ukontrolleret grådighed, hvor man sætter sin egen finansielle vinding over loven og det almene vel. Politikken med afregulering, og med at lade finansverdenen styre sig selv, har spillet fallit.

Dette var egentlig allerede tydeligt i forbindelse med nedsmeltningen af det internationale finansielle system i 2007-2008. Jeg, og andre aktivister fra Schiller Instituttet, advarede om dette allerede i 2007, da jeg stillede op til Folketinget med sloganet: Efter finanskrakket – Magnettog over Kattegat. Men man sad vore advarsler overhørigt. Da vi så efter krakket i 2008 – hvor kun en dansk statsgaranti, der dækkede alle finansielle institutioner, forhindrede en nedsmeltning i den danske bankverden – kom med forslag til, hvordan vi kunne rense op i finansverdenen gennem en gennemførelse af Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, hvor man i processen vil skille skidt fra kanel – udskille samfundsvigtig normal bankaktivitet fra kasinoøkonomi – så nægtede man på institutionelt hold i Danmark og resten af den vestlige verden atter at lytte. Man ville ikke gøre op med den usunde adfærd i finansverdenen, der havde skabt sammenbruddet i 2008. Havde man nemlig ikke afreguleret hele den finansielle sektor, og i 1999 afskaffet Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingen i USA, så havde vi nemlig undgået finanskrisen.

Men nu blev fokusset at redde bankerne – og alle andre aktører i finansverdenen – med bankpakker og kvantitative lempelser; på bekostning af realøkonomien og almindelige menneskers levestandard. Derfor står vi i dag over for en kommende finanskrise, der er potentielt langt værre end den, som vi oplevede i 2008. De danske tiltag med at lade banker og realkreditselskaber polstre sig (med kundernes penge) vil ikke forhindre en ny krise. Uden en opdeling af aktiviteterne i de finansielle supermarkeder har vi stadig, som i 2007-2008, ingen branddøre, der kan forhindre, at ildebrand i en del af finansverdenen spreder sig til hele det finansielle hus.


Det forestående finanssammenbrud

Der er mange tikkende bomber under det internationale finanssystem. I kølvandet på den amerikanske føderalbanks rentestigninger er der stadigt flere advarsler om en kommende nedsmeltning af det 3.500 mia. dollars store marked for amerikansk virksomhedsgæld, hvor stadig mere usikre lån bliver pakket om og gensolgt i mange forskellige forklædninger – i lighed med dårlige amerikanske boliglån i 2007-2008. Dette har fået følgeskab af nedgang på børserne og et kraftigt fald i den økonomiske vækst i USA og Europa. Bank for International Settlements advarede om denne farlige udvikling i sin årlige rapport i juli og noget lignende gjorde Bank of England i oktober. Så kom IMF’s udtrykkelige advarsel om faldende virksomhedsobligationsmarkeder i IMF-bloggen den 12. november.

Et kollaps af markedet for virsomhedsgæld vil have større konsekvenser end kollapset af den amerikanske subprimelån-boble i 2008. Når først krisen er udløst, vil det ramme bankerne verden rundt, og bag den blankpolerede overflade er de blevet endnu større og endnu mere bankerotte, end de var i 2008. I lighed med optakten til krisen i 2007-2008 har der også været et kollaps og en kapitalflugt fra de såkaldte ”emerging markets” og det gigantiske uregulerede marked for finansielle derivater kan implodere når som helst.



Der er ingen lille lappeløsning, der kan rette op på dette, men Schiller Instituttet og den internationale LaRouche-bevægelse har fremlagt en sammenhængende løsning for, hvordan vi kan bortoperere den spekulative kræftsvulst og skabe kreditter til produktive investeringer – både på internationalt plan og her i Danmark.


  1. Vi skal med i Den Nye Silkevej

Mens størstedelen af økonomien i den vestlige verden har ligget underdrejet i de seneste 10 år – hvor de fleste har oplevet en faldende levestandard – så har man i Kina oplevet fortsat kraftig økonomisk vækst og været i stand til at løfte stadig flere mennesker ud af fattigdom. Man brugte krisen i 2008 til at påbegynde massive infrastrukturprojekter, så Kina har nu flere kilometer højhastighedstog end resten af verden tilsammen. Man har bygget nye byer, vandprojekter, kraftværker og anden infrastruktur, der gør det muligt at tage sig af en voksende befolkning med en stigende levestandard.

I 2013 lancerede Kinas præsident Xi Jinping så denne udviklingspolitik på internationalt plan med Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, også kaldet Den Nye Silkevej, der i dag er 12 gange større end USA’s Marshallplan efter 2. verdenskrig og som over 60 lande nu deltager i. Danmark burde være en fremtrædende del af denne udviklingsdagsorden, specielt i Afrika og Sydvestasien.


  1. Et Nyt Bretton Woods kreditsystem

Den 30. november er der G20-topmøde i Argentina, og Schiller instituttet har foreslået, at topmøderne mellem præsident Trump, Xi Jinping og Putin bruges til at etablere et nyt Bretton Woods kreditsystem, i samarbejde med Indiens premierminister Modi. En ny version af det gamle fastkurssystem, der blev etableret efter 2. verdenskrig, men nu for at skabe langfristede kreditter til udvikling af alle nationer. Dette er det eneste, som kan forhindre, at den igangværende disintegration af det nuværende City of London- og Wall Street-baserede finanssystem fører til kaos og mulig krig.


  1. LaRouches fire love

I Danmark kan vi i mellemtiden forberede tiltag, der kan beskytte vores økonomi imod den kommende finansielle tsunami. Schiller Instituttet har fremlagt Lyndon LaRouches fire love, der er en konceptuel drejebog for at få vores økonomi drejet væk fra finansiel spekulation og tilbage til fysisk økonomi og videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt:


  • Gennemførelsen af en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling af den danske finanssektor, hvor vi sanerer banksystemet og adskiller normal bankaktivitet fra finansiel spekulation. De finansielle supermarkeder skal opdeles i normale banker, investeringsbanker, realkreditaktivitet og forsikringsvirksomhed. Bankerne og andre finansielle institutioner skal opdeles og reduceres i størrelse, så de ikke længere udgør en systemisk risiko, og den statslige indskudsgaranti vil kun gælde for normale banker.
  • Vi må skabe statskreditter til produktive investeringer i økonomien;
  • Vi må kanalisere en del af disse kreditter ind i store infrastrukturprojekter og andet, der kan øge produktiviteten og energigennemstrømningstætheden i økonomien og skabe den næste højere økonomiske platform for Danmark, som f.eks. en Kattegatbro og et nationalt magnettognet, og faste forbindelser mellem Helsingør og Helsingborg og under Femern Bælt.
  • Vi må investere massivt i forskning og udvikling af de områder, som skaber fremtidens teknologier som f.eks. kernekraft, fusionsenergi, rumforskning etc.

Den største fejl, som vi kan begå, er at tro, at vi kan overlade disse spørgsmål til den finansielle verden. Den har bevist, at den hverken har det moralske kompas eller de nødvendige løsninger, til at sikre vores fremtid. Derfor må staten nu påtage sig sit ansvar, og etablere de nødvendige love og regler, der kan sikre det almene vel og Danmarks og danskernes fremtid. Det er der, i lyset af de seneste bankskandaler, en bred offentlig opbakning til.

Tak for ordet.

Slides fra mødet:

Opdel Danske Bank: Hvad er Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling? Fra arkivet.

Schiller Instituttet har kørt en kampagne i mange år for at indføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling i alle nationer. F. eks. stillede aktivister fra Schiller Instituttets Venner op til folketingsvalg i 2013 udenfor partierne med det berømte slogan: “Glass-Steagall — eller kaos”.

“En Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling vil fritage staten og skatteyderne for at skulle dække insolvente bankers spillegæld. Vi vil opdele bankerne i banker, der kun laver normal ind- og udlånsaktiviteter, og som vil have et statsligt sikkerhedsnet, og investeringsbanker a la Saxo-bank, der må leve på egen risiko. Realkreditten skal igen adskilles fra bankerne og yde billige realkreditlån til kunderne i stedet for være en malkemaskine for bankerne. Der skal ikke længere være »banker, der er for store til at gå ned«, som får bail-out, i form af statslige bankhjælpepakker, eller bliver hjulpet af bail-in-aktioner, som den på Cypern, hvor bankerne får lov til at stjæle bankkundernes penge….”

Klik her for at læse mere om Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling fra Schiller Instituttets kampagneavis 16 fra 2013 (html-versionen), eller læs pdf-versionen nedenfor.


Download (PDF, Unknown)

Bemærkninger af Dennis Speed til Schiller Instituttets mindekoncert
med instituttets kor den 11. september i St. Antonius af Padua Kirke i New York

Vi er samlet her, ikke for at mindes en tragedie, men for at afværge den. Selv når vi samles her i aften, som det var tilfældet for 17 år siden, slås der på krigstrommerne af en gruppe af mennesker i verden, som spænder over forskellige nationer og agenturer, der søger at presse USA til et angreb på Syrien. Et Syrien, som sammen med Rusland og også med bistand fra USA, har reduceret og inddæmmet de kræfter betydeligt, som nogle gange kaldes Al-Nusra, andre gange kaldes al-Qaeda, men altid passende kaldes onde, der var en del af udførelsen af angrebene her for 17 år siden. Angreb, hvor denne kirke og flere andre områder i dette kvarter fungerede som fristed, som nødhjælps-hospitaler, og i nogle tilfælde som stedet, hvor den sidste olie blev givet.
Og det er vores situation i aften. Det er vigtigt at {sige} det, fordi vi er forledt til at tro, i vores verden, at tragedien er en nødvendighed. Det er den ikke. En amerikansk statsmand, en 
senator ved navn Richard Black, er for nylig i sidste uge vendt tilbage fra Syrien. Han talte direkte med præsident Assad, og han forsøger, ikke egenhændigt, men meget modigt, at afværge krig. Han er ansat på livstids ved militæret, tidligere kampsoldat og veteran fra Vietnam-krigen, fløj over 200 luftmissioner der, og han har været involveret i den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste i mange årtier. Og som han sagde i et interview, som han gav for nylig, kunne han som kampsoldat ikke vende ryggen til sit flag, marineinfanteriets flag, for at tillade at USA endnu en gang forsøger at udføre en blind, forkert intervention. Og i dette tilfælde, ville skæbnens ironi være, at i en sådan intervention ville det være USA som yder luftstøtten til samme al-Nusra og Al-Qaeda-styrker, der deltog i 9/11 angrebet.
Hvornår vil krigen ophøre? Krigen vil ophøre, når menneskeheden vokser op. Beethoven, som vi nogle gange har nævnt, sagde: Hvis folk tog min musik seriøst, ville der ikke være krig. Og i det program, vi har sammensat for denne aften, forsøger vi at trække på, egentlig ikke forskellige genrer af musik, men på det Klassiske princip i musik. Det klassiske princip accepterer ikke, at tragedien er uundgåelig. Ja, der er græske tragedier, og de er klassiske stykker; men så er der værkerne af digteren Friedrich Schiller. For eksempel i den græske tragedie, som citeret af Robert Kennedy, der, i anledning af mordet på Martin Luther King, sagde: “Selv i vores søvn, vil smerter, som ikke glemmes, falde dråbe efter dråbe på hjertet, indtil til sidst, i vores fortvivlelse, mod vores vilje, visdom kommer, gennem den forfærdende nåde af Gud,” og ja, det var synspunktet hos Aeschylus. Men der er en anden indsigt, og det er anskuelsen hos digteren Friedrich Schillers, der sagde:
+++”Et formål, som højere Fornuft, har undfanget, at mænds trængsler trang, ti tusind gange besejret, kan aldrig være forladt.”+++
 Formålet med oprettelsen af USA var at skabe frihed, og frihed til tænkning, som forudsætning for statsborgerskab. Og krig, specielt krig der anvendes af finansielle og andre kræfter mod menneskeheden, er en gift for denne frihed. Formålet med USA, og formålet som denne idé blev udbredt og vedtaget over hele verden, betyder, at Amerika ikke er et sted, det er en idé. Denne idé er hvad vi ønsker at styrke i aften, fordi når vi bringer mennesker sammen, og vi bruger musik for at komme ud over det hverdagsagtige, det banale, det bogstavelige, det didaktiske, ideologiske,-  kan de bedste sider af vores sind blive parate og væbnet til at vælte vore egne ønsker om uvidenhed, og blindhed.
Som en mand sagde engang, der er ingen rigtige mysterier, der er kun blindhed. Og blindhed kan altid overvindes af sandheden. Men for at befæste velmenende mennesker, der måske har mistet deres retning, skal sandheden nogle gange ikke tales – men synges. Og vi håber, at vi i aften, når vi står her for at ære dem der døde ved bunden af World Trade Center, og dem der er døde efterfølgende på grund af sygdomme og på grund af deres tapre indsats den dag, vi håber, at det vi gør her i aften for at forny vores engagement, og engagement i selve USA, via idealet om frihed, kan fortsætte gennem skønhed, i stedet for krig.

Genopbyg Amerikas infrastruktur: Optrap kampagnen for LaRouche-planen
Webcast, 16. feb., 2018


Gæst Paul Gallagher.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Titlen på vores show i dag er »Genopbyg Amerikas infrastruktur: Optrap kampagnen for LaRouche-planen«. Jeg har inviteret Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review, på showet i dag, og vi er glade for at du tager dig tid til at komme, Paul. Vi har nu mulighed for at få en meget seriøs og nøgtern diskussion om LaRouches økonomiske program: De »Fire Love«, og lige nu er dørene vidt åbne.

Med udgivelsen af den såkaldte »Udkast til Lovgivning for Genopbygning af Amerikas Infrastruktur« – Dette er programmet fra Trumps Hvide Hus, som blev sendt over til Kongressen. Det blev udgivet mandag. Alt imens indholdet af denne rapport er, for at sige det mildt, uheldigt – det har Wall Streets fingeraftryk over det hele, alene det, at dette forslag er kommet frem; men det er rent ud sagt en total taber, der har galvaniseret diskussionen nationalt, og det er virkelig begyndt at katalysere kongresmedlemmer på begge sider midtergangen til at begynde at tænke over spørgsmålet på en meget mere seriøs måde: Hvordan finansierer man infrastruktur?  Hvis vi taler om $1,5 billion, hvor skal de komme fra?

(Her følger engelsk udskrift):

And this includes, frankly, Trump himself.  As President
Trump said in the Letter of Transmission, that was sent over as
the opening to this legislative proposal, he said: “Our nation’s
infrastructure is in an unacceptable state of disrepair, which
damages our country’s competitiveness and our citizens’ quality
of life.  For too long, lawmakers have invested in infrastructure
inefficiently, ignored critical needs, and allowed it to
deteriorate.  As a result, the United States has fallen further
and further behind other countries.  It is time to give Americans
the working, modern infrastructure they deserve…. My
administration is committed to working with the Congress to enact
a law that will enable America’s builders to construct the new,
modern, and efficient infrastructure throughout our beautiful
Now, on Tuesday, President Trump held an open, televised
roundtable with different Senators and Representatives, both
Democrats and Republicans, and this was ostensibly to discuss the
aluminum, steel industries and trade policy around that, but
during that roundtable, which was televised, the discussion of
the infrastructure program came up.  And I’d like to just play a
short clip from that roundtable; this is an exchange between
President Trump and Sen. Sherrod Brown [D] from Ohio, and then
Senator Blumenthal [D-CT] also gets in on this.  And what you
hear is that President Trump says, look, I want to have a
bipartisan plan.  Come back to me with a counterproposal.  What
we put out was an opening bid, but I really want a bipartisan
plan.  I’m ready, willing and able.
So, here’s a clip from that roundtable:

[start video]
PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I actually think that we can go bipartisan
on infrastructure, maybe even more so, than we can on DACA. …
On infrastructure which is the purpose of what we’re doing
tonight, come back with a proposal.  We put in our bid — come
back with a proposal. We have a lot of people that are great
Republicans that want something to happen.  We have to rebuild
our country.  I said yesterday, we’ve spent {$7 trillion} — when
I say “spent,” and I mean wasted — not to mention all of the
lives, most importantly and everything else — but we’ve spent $7
trillion as of about two months ago, in the Middle East — $7
trillion.  And if you want to borrow two dollars to build a road
someplace, including your state, the great state of Ohio, if you
want to build a road, if you want to build a tunnel, or a bridge,
or fix a bridge because so many of them are in bad shape, you
can’t do it.  And yet, we spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.
Explain that one. [crosstalk]

SEN. SHERROD BROWN: I’ve love a bipartisan — we have a
bipartisan proposal.  We can [crosstalk] dollars on it in
infrastructure.  We’re glad to work together on a real
infrastructure bill with real dollars, plus what you can leverage
in the communities and private sector.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Do a combination.

SENATOR BROWN:  It needs real dollars.

President Trump:  I would love to have you get back to us
quickly, ’cause we can do this quickly and we have to rebuild our
country.  We have to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our
tunnels, so the faster you get back, the faster we can move.
Focus on document this week, if you don’t mind, right?  But the
faster you get back, the faster we move.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL:  I come back to Senator Brown’s
point, I think there’s a opportunity for real bipartisanship
here, in these two areas.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I agree, and I’d like you to come back
with a suggestion on infrastructure in the plan, and I think
that’s a bipartisan plan.  I really would like to see you come
back with a counterproposal on the infrastructure.  I think we’re
going to get that done.  I really believe that’s  — we’re going
to get a lot of Democrats, we’re going to get a lot of
Republicans. We’re going to get it done.  It’s something we
should do.  We have to fix our country:  We have to fix our roads
and our tunnels and bridges and everything, so, if you can work
together on that, and I am ready, willing and able, on
infrastructure — that is such a natural for us to get done.  And
I think we could probably do it.
Thank you all very much.  [End video]

OGDEN:  So as you can see, asking them to come back with a
counterproposal, he said, this is our opening bid, but the point
is clear:  Now is the time for us to mobilize like never before,
to put the LaRouche plan on the table.  {This} is the
Let me put on the screen here:  first we’ve got our Campaign
To Win the Future.  This is obviously the national statement of
intent for the elections in 2018.  LaRouche PAC is mobilizing a
national movement and galvanizing discussion around this program.
And then the content of that campaign can be seen on the next
slide, this is “The Four Laws To Save the United States:  The
Economics Principles Necessary for a Recovery — Why the United
States Must Join the New Silk Road” and this contains full
elaboration of Lyndon LaRouche’s four economic laws.
So, I know that Paul is very short on time, and I would just
like to ask you: Please address what the situation is now in
Washington.  What’s coming out of this release of this so-called
legislative proposal? And what actually has to be done?

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Thanks, Matt.  My first reaction, when the
White House plan was released — I call it the “White House
plan,” not the Trump plan, but the White House plan — when it
was released, was that closed a certain door of people in elected
offices around the country and in Washington, constantly saying
“what is the White House going to come up with?  what is the
White House going to come up with?  what are they going to give
us in the way of what they can get started towards infrastructure
investments? because we desperately need it?”   And when it
finally came out, and it was very, very, very lacking — as you
said, a Wall Street plan — that closed a certain door, and
immediately, thus, opened another one.
OK, now they have come out with that.  Now, we have to come
out with something.  It’s up to the rest of us, particularly
those in elected office, but all of us who are active in fighting
for this:  It’s up to us now to shape the alternative, because
this one just isn’t going to work.  And it’s good to see that
that definitely includes the President — that view.  He, on
another occasion, immediately after the plan was rolled out on
Monday, he said that compared to the tax legislation and the
military spending increases and so forth, that this
infrastructure plan that the White House has put out, was really
quite unimportant.  A rather surprising thing for him to say.
But it indicated, when it was followed the very next day by the
comment you just saw, “give me an alternative,” and then the very
day after that, in another meeting with members of Congress,
when, as soon as he was prompted in any way by any of them, he
came out very strongly for increasing the Federal gasoline tax by
25 cents a gallon, and applying that through the Highway Trust
Fund, to infrastructure investment — not at all something which
is part of the White House plan, so-called; and not part of the
Republican leadership’s plan at all.
But when he was asked, he went with that.  He hasn’t said
this publicly, but a number of senators and representatives who
were at that second meeting, have reported it publicly in the
same way.  It’s clear that he did say that he was for that
increase in the gas tax, and as he said, he would take the
political heat for backing it as President, if they would go
forward with it.
So you’ve had, in rapid succession,  a number of indications
that this plan, as poor as it was that came out from the White
House, is not in fact the President’s plan, and it simply closes
the door on all this waiting, and now says, where are the
And that is very definitely what is in the LaRouche Four
Laws, is the one alternative to this that will work.
Let me get into this in another way, unless you want to
break it up, Matt.  And if you have questions, please, interrupt.
But I wanted to read a piece that was written just two days
ago by a Chinese scholar John Gong; he’s a very prominent
professor University of International Business and Economics in
Beijing; and he’s a former executive editor of the {Journal of
Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies}.

OGDEN:  We actually have a slide with the title of that
article which was written for China Global Television Network
(CGTN), “Make America Great Again — With Chinese Money.”   And I
can read some of the quotes that people can see on the screen,
and then maybe you can address what the content is.
This is what he had to say:  “Trump is absolutely right that
Americas crippled bridges, potholed highways, and crooked
railways cannot wait any longer. America needs to be great again.
The only question is, where is the money coming from?”  And then
later in the article he said, “I have a great idea. Bank of China
and other major banks from China are now flush with dollar cash
and other dollar-denominated liquid assets, totaling over $3
trillion, mostly in the form of holdings in U.S. Treasury bills
and bonds. This money can be readily used for Chinese investors
to participate in America’s infrastructure boom. By that I mean
Chinese investors can participate in those infrastructure
projects as active equity investors, and maybe contractors or
suppliers at the same time.
“Call it the Belt and Road. Call it
America-belt-America-road. I don’t care, as long as Chinas current
account trade surplus can be somehow transformed into a capital
account stock, in the form of money invested in America as
permanent equity shareholders, and more importantly permanent
stakeholders of a stable and prosperous Sino-U.S. economic
relationship. This could be a win-win mode for both countries.”
So that’s Dr. John Gong.

GALLAGHER:  Now, that’s very important, in the way it is
formulated, in the precision of it.  He’s talking about Treasury
holdings, — he’s not the first Chinese official to do this.  In
fact, a year ago, in late January of 2017, Ding Xuedong, the
then-chairman of the Chinese Investment Corp., which is one of
their two big sovereign wealth funds, made essentially the same
proposal.  He said, we have such and such a volume of long-term
U.S. Treasury holdings, they’re not earners, their interest rates
are very low, their return is very low; we would like to trade
them for a long-term investment in a U.S. infrastructure bill, as
he put it. And he, at the time, estimated that really, the need
for investment in the United States for new infrastructure, was
{$8 trillion}, a figure which may seem impossibly large to many,
but actually isn’t.
Nonetheless, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has written in articles
which have been published in the Chinese press, she’s frequently
interviewed and quoted there, — she has written exactly this
proposal in articles which have been published there.  I have
presented exactly this idea to Chinese officials in Washington.
This is part of LaRouche’s Four Laws.
But to start with, the first action implied by his four
actions that have to be taken legislatively and from an executive
standpoint, is the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act and the
breakup of the Wall Street banks and the hiving off of all of the
casino speculative investment vehicles, special purpose vehicles
and all of that, in order to protect and use the commercial
banking system for investments.
You cannot get to real, major infrastructure renewal without
doing that, and you could see this in the meeting that you played
the clip from. There was at least one representative from
Missouri, who brought up the issue, when the discussion was about
trade, and specifically whether there might be tariffs against
aluminum imports from China, he brought up the fact that there is
a grave lack of capacity to produce sufficient aluminum for
industry in the United States, and where is that lack coming
from?  The lack of power supplies.  So that, this is an
infrastructure question, although if you ask the simple question,
“Is there an apparent sufficient amount of kilowatt-hours per
year per capita in the United States?”  Yes, there is. But is
there sufficient, reliable electrical power supply — constantly
online, reliable, electrical power supply — for an expansion of
industry?  The answer would in many cases be, “no.” And that was
what he was bringing up, in particular with respect to more
aluminum plants in the United States.  You have a grave inability
to produce enough power, particularly since the fiasco of
electricity deregulation out on the West Coast 15 years ago: That
deprived the aluminum industry and shut down a very significant
amount of it.
Now, if there’s going to be that kind of investment in
infrastructure across the country, it’s not going to be one, or
two, or three, or four, very famous big projects, like the
renovation of the whole Northeast rail corridor of Amtrak, and
the bridges and the tunnels in New York and so forth.  It’s not
going to be simply those things.  It’s going to be, at many, many
levels around the country, the production of enough clean water
supplies, the production of enough electrical power supplies; the
replacement and renovation — mostly replacement — of the river
navigation systems, locks and dams, and many of these things.
And for those, the commercial banks have to be ready to lend,
because it takes a lot of employment, a lot of contracting, a lot
of local borrowing:  The banks have to be ready to lend and if
you allow them to stay the big commercial banks, and the mid-size
regional banks — if you allow them to stay in the Wall Street
casino, that’s where they’ll stay.  If you say, “no, your
business as a commercial bank is lending,” then you have a credit
channel through the banking system through which national credit
can flow, and cooperate in this kind of thing.
So it starts with restoring bank separation under
Glass-Steagall.  We’re going to have a group of elected officials
from Italy in a couple of months come over and help us organize
in Washington on this, because they’re fighting for it in Italy
at the national and also the local level.
Then, the specific second law of LaRouche, a national credit
institution, which is able to produce large volumes of productive
credit for productive employment of the people, and for increased
productivity.  And that is where not only the White House plan,
but many other plans that have been put forward, are really
completely inadequate, where we do have to talk about several
trillions of dollars at least of investment,  and the way to do
that, is exactly the way that was reflected in that comment by
Dr. Gong: That is, there is a lot of long-term Treasury debt held
out there; three major holders of this long-term Treasury debt,
which totals $7.5-$8 trillion, are the commercial banks of the
United States, again, which hold it in their reserves and all
their excess reserves which are very large right now;  second,
Japan, which holds more than $1 trillion in primarily long-term
U.S. Treasury debt; thirdly, China, which actually holds now
somewhat more than Japan; about $1.2 trillion of the same kind of
debt.  Those are potential shareholders, equity holders,
subscribers of that Treasury debt into a new bank created by
Congress for the purpose of generating this kind of credit.
That is exactly how we have proposed and circulated and
organized that this is the way to form — without a tremendous
amount of new borrowing — to form a sufficiently large national
bank for infrastructure; essentially by swapping existing
long-term Treasury debt holdings for equity in such a new
national bank created by Congress with a guarantee from the
Treasury for the payment of the dividends on that equity.  And
with taxes — this is not free; it’s never free, — but with
taxes assigned to make sure that those dividends can be paid.
That’s where the increase in the Federal gasoline tax and
potentially the use of other what you would call infrastructure
excise taxes, like the port excise tax and the navigation tax on
the locks and dams, that’s where these would come in.  Because if
you simply go and raise the gas tax by 25 cents and spend the
money for infrastructure projects, it will not produce nearly,
nearly enough.  But if you use it in this way as leverage to
guarantee the equity in a new national bank in exactly the way
that we’re seeing reflected in that proposal, that article from
Dr. Gong, then it’ll work.  As I said, he’s not the only person,
not only among leading Chinese thinkers about this, but also from
Japan, there’s the same kind of positive view of this idea.
Potentially, there you have it — an infrastructure bank.
Then you have to go on and what are you going to use that
credit for?  It can’t be used simply to repair roads and repair
bridges.  There are entirely new areas of technological and
scientific breakthroughs which will raise productivity in the
economy to a far greater extent.  One of them that we identify is
that a crash program is necessary to develop not only
thermonuclear fusion electric energy, but the plasma technologies
of infrastructure, which will probably come from such a crash
program even before commercial nuclear fusion electricity
arrives.  We will have plasma technologies being spun off from
that crash program, which will address themselves exactly to the
production of the kinds of capacities that have died out in
deindustrialization in the United States.  But they’ll do it at a
higher level of technology.  Those kinds of investments, are one
of the Four Laws that LaRouche has called for.  Also, a big
increase in NASA’s capabilities, going back to the Apollo Project
level of effort by NASA to really go back to the Moon;
industrialize, develop the Moon, develop the raw materials there,
including for fusion energy production.  And from there, go
deeper into the Solar System and ultimately into the galaxy.
This is the kind of science driver which leads up-shifts in
productivity in industry.  And infrastructure is really the way
that these up-shifts get introduced to the economy.  For example,
in a high-speed rail system of cars using magnetic levitation and
similar technologies, this is the way it gets introduced.
So, that opening from the President is very important.
Yesterday you had comments which I think are very significant
from the two leaders of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee — the Republican chairman William
Shuster of Pennsylvania, the Democratic ranking member Peter
DeFazio — they are normally quite a bit at odds.  But in
interviews yesterday which were reported today, they were
reporting that they are already jointly working on a legislative
alternative to exactly what you saw the President asking for
there.  A legislative alternative again, with real Federal
dollars; the language which Senator Brown used — actually it was
Senator Wyden was the other Senator — real Federal dollars.  An
alternative to present which the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is where legislation along these lines
will have to start.  So, you’re seeing that; you’re seeing the
gas tax being discussed very widely, including by those same two
leaders of that committee.  You’re already seeing an
infrastructure bank act in the House — HR547 — of
Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat from Connecticut, which has
the backing of fully half of the Democratic Caucus in the House
and is not a national infrastructure bank which would operate in
the way that we’ve described and therefore would not be as large
or as capable.  But nonetheless, it’s legislation which in my
view is quite similar to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation
which operated under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration
and did so much to recover the country and then to lead the
mobilization for the war and through the war in the 1940s.  So
that is also something definitely within the purview of
LaRouche’s Four Laws.

OGDEN:  The idea of national banking is, I think, really the
critical idea; and it takes us obviously directly back to
Alexander Hamilton.  If you look at Hamilton’s view on
infrastructure, the idea of public infrastructure is very much an
American idea, and is a major pillar of the American System.
Hamilton’s emphasis on the necessity for the rapid upgrading of
the national infrastructure, the ports and dredging the harbors
and things like this, what was called “internal improvements.”
But this idea of public infrastructure has an American idea to
it.  In fact, it was written directly into the Constitution in
the form of the General Welfare.  There were huge fights,
including Hamilton’s defense of the Constitutionality of a
national bank against Thomas Jefferson around this idea of the
General Welfare.  I know you have to go, so maybe one more aspect
that you can address before you leave, and then I can conclude
the remaining portions of the show on my own.  But just on this
subject of the idea of the public good, the United States used to
be the world’s gold standard, in great modern infrastructure,
public infrastructure.  You can see that obviously by what
Franklin Roosevelt did during the New Deal.  Nations around the
world were banging on our door to try to imitate what we
accomplished with the Tennessee Valley Authority and so forth and
so on.  But now, the gold standard is swiftly being set by China
and what China has done in an unparalleled way.  Create this
amazing public infrastructure in a very rapid and swift manner.
Two things I think maybe could be addressed in what we need to
now learn from China or relearn in terms of what we used to be
committed to, is: 1) the policy approach that has made this
possible in China; but also, 2) the philosophy that China is
clearly committed to when it comes to this idea of the public
good, the common good, or what we call in American Constitutional
language, the General Welfare.  Maybe you can address that just
briefly before you leave, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  There was, in the 19th Century, the American
Whig and then Republican leaders were all very conscious
Hamiltonians.  They realized that they were attempting to develop
the country, and they were doing it — at least a lot of the time
— extraordinarily successfully with a commitment to the
“internal improvements” what we call infrastructure, but the
internal improvements, the national credit provision, the
protection of industry; which came from Alexander Hamilton.
But his overriding premise was actually none of those
particular policies, but rather his stating against the tide of
opinion in the 1790s when he was Treasury Secretary and the
decade before and after.  He definitely took on the tide of
opinion that the United States was going to be an agricultural
country, a country of yeoman farmers with all of their well-known
virtues and so on and so forth.  He said that the wealth of a
country is found in the inventive qualities of its people, and in
the freedom and opportunity that they have to turn their
inventive qualities into enterprise.  And he really was
responsible for the emergence of the first banks of the United
States; not only the First Bank of the United States, the first
national bank, but also the first private banks of the United
States, of which there were very few at that time.  He saw the
creation of a national bank as essentially the necessary link or
liaison between the actions of the government to assist the
economy and the actions of the private banks; that this was the
necessary way, in which they should be related.  But his principle
was that the mind of the individual and the freedom of the
individual and opportunity to make that into enterprise, that
that was what defined the ability to produce the wealth of a
country and that the wealth of a country was produced within it;
it was not gained by trading with other countries — fairly,
freely or otherwise.  It was gained primarily by producing the
wealth which the inventiveness of the people and the resources of
the country made possible.  And that was the function of
protection when it was used, but of course, Hamilton favored more
what we would call industrial subsidies than he did what we call
tariffs.  So that, right through Abraham Lincoln, was the creed
of the great leaders of the United States in the 19th Century and
considerably thereafter.  We became the greatest industrial
nation on Earth that way.
Franklin Roosevelt revived that general outlook, although he
did so without the creation of a national bank, really because of
what he was working with in Congress.  Otherwise, he might have
preferred to do that.  But he did it through such institutions as
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the TVA, which became
wonders of the world.  We have not really improved on that much
in the 70-80 years since.  But that idea, Hamilton’s ideas spread
very rapidly through Friedrich List, who spent a lot of time in
the United States and was a leading Hamiltonian in the 1820s and
1830s, and then was in the middle of the unification of Germany
for the first time in the Customs Union of Germany in the middle
of the 19th Century.  This spread through Bismarck’s policies,
who knew that he was a Hamiltonian, later in the 19th Century.
They spread through the Japanese adopting and learning a lot of
the works of Hamilton; late in the 19th Century inviting
Hamiltonian economists from the United States to come over and
advise them.  This kept being repeated in Korea again.  China has
taken this far beyond, because as you said, they’re not only
applying those policies, but they’re also as they always say
doing them with Chinese characteristics.  Particularly now with
Xi Jinping as the President of China, he has really defined and
enshrined in their Constitution the principle of what a country’s
leadership is judged for is its ability to strive for the common
welfare, the common aims of the population; what we call in the
Constitution, the General Welfare.  That has really had a very
distinctive effect on Chinese policy in the country and also on
the policy of the Belt and Road Initiative which Xi Jinping
launched, but was really already underway before he made the
formal speech three and a half years ago.  Already the
investments by big Chinese commercial banks outside China, in
these projects of energy, mining, but also a lot of
infrastructure projects.  These big investments were already
underway in 2011, 2012; then he made the announcement in 2013,
which was so very close to the policy of the World Land-Bridge
which had been promoted by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche since the
later 1980s.  And since that time, that has really been
recognized in China; they call Helga the Silk Road Lady.  This
policy of the common welfare is clearly one reflected in the way
that they’ve eliminated almost entirely down to the last few tens
of millions of people, they’ve almost entirely eradicated extreme
poverty in China.  I just heard the World Bank chairman the day
before yesterday praising that to the skies and saying it’s the
one model for the world.  He said the World Bank has been trying
to do this for so many decades, to eradicate poverty, without
making too much progress.  China has done it, and now they are
seeking to help do it in Africa and other places.  They want to
invest in the Middle East in reconstruction.  But this is really
the test that you are acting for the general good, for the common
welfare, which is what our Constitution commits us to.
So, in that sense, they’ve gone beyond, and in the process,
really developed a lot of technological breakthroughs in
infrastructure; and that’s where you find them.  That’s where
Roosevelt found them.  The projects of the 1930s, which many
people think of as just creating a lot of work for people, and
building a lot of airports and roads and bridges and things like
that; those projects — especially the hydro-electric projects
and especially the Tennessee Valley Authority — were
technological breakthroughs at the time.  They built dams,
navigation systems, hydropower systems technologically in ways
which not only hadn’t been done, but had been denied that they
could be done even right up to that time.  John F Kennedy spoke
about this later, that experts were saying that you couldn’t
build dams that were simultaneously for water management, for
navigation, and for hydropower.  The TVA did 57 such dams.  So,
they completely transformed an area of the country.  These
breakthroughs were made in all of this infrastructure building in
such a way, that the productivity of the U.S. economy leaped up in
the 1930s at the fastest rate of the last 150 years.  A close
second was the 1940s, including the war mobilization.
So that’s what China is experiencing now, as they make these
kinds of investments; and they’re doing it with a very common
welfare orientation.

OGDEN:  Wonderful!  So, thank you very much, Paul.  I’m
going to let you go before we finish the remainder of our show.
But I think you’ve made it very clear that we are uniquely
positioned to inform and ultimately shape this counterproposal
and what must ultimately become the infrastructure and general
economic policy of this Presidency.  So, I know we have a lot of
work to do.  Thank you for joining us, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  Thank you.  I’m sure you’ll talk about the
necessity to bring this up from the bottom as well; from the
local elected officials, from the state legislatures in
particular and apply it to the election campaign.  I think it’s
probably true what Chairman Shuster said, which is that work on
this legislation will be going on until the summer.  I think
that’s definitely true.  It will become a part of the election
campaign, no question.  If we can get candidates out there and
local elected officials out there who are for the Four Laws,
we’re going to shape this.  So, thanks for the opportunity and
having me on, and have a good time.

OGDEN:  Thank you, and we’ll talk to you again soon.  What
Paul said is absolutely correct.  This is the ultimate principle
or thought behind the campaign to win the future.  This is the
LaRouche PAC election mobilization in 2018.  We’ve already had a
number of state legislators endorse this campaign.  We’re really
on the ground in various places, including in West Virginia;
doing some very significant meetings with people who are involved
in the China-West Virginia deals.  We’ve also mobilized in a very
big way in the Midwest, which was key to the Trump election
victory.  We know that these former industrial states really are
the most significant in swinging these elections and creating the
constituency blocs around this idea of the LaRouche Four Economic
Laws and everything that you just heard Paul go through.  This is
the urgent necessity as we mobilize around this kind of program.
I think everything that you just heard from Paul, makes it very
clear that we are uniquely well-positioned to shape this entire
discussion.  I think the opportunity is even greater now than it
was previously.
Now, let me just go over a few things that I think will make
it very clear to you that there is an opportunity for a moment of
awakening, you could say, among people who have recognized that
everything that we’ve been committed to for the last several
decades up to this point has completely failed.  There were two
very informative or entertaining articles over the last week and
a half, which point to exactly this; indicate exactly this
opportunity for people to perhaps open their minds and begin a
more sober and serious discussion around the true principles of
economics.  One of these is an article which appeared in
Bloomberg, this was {Bloomberg Business Week} I believe.  The
title of this article was “What if China Is Exempt from the Laws
of Economics?”  This is by a fellow named Michael Schuman, but
the subtitle is “Beijing’s policymakers seem to be doing a lot of
things right — and that may upend much of basic economic
thinking, especially our faith in the power of free markets.”
So, here are a couple of excerpts from that article.  He
“Over my two decades of writing about economics, I’ve
devised a list of simple maxims that I’ve found generally hold
“But recently, my faith in this corpus of collected wisdom
has been badly shaken. By China.
“The more I apply my rules of economics to China, the more
they seem to go awry. China should be mired in meager growth,
even gripped by financial crisis, according to my maxims. But
obviously it’s not. In fact, much of what’s going on right now in
that country runs counter to what we know — or think we know —
about economics. Simply, if Beijing’s policymakers are right,
then a lot of basic economic thinking is wrong — especially our
certainty in the power of free markets, our ingrained bias
against state intervention, and our ideas about fostering
innovation and entrepreneurship.
“On the surface, that probably sounds ridiculous. How could
one country possibly defy the laws that have governed economies
everywhere else?…
“Yet as China marches forward, we can no longer dismiss the
possibility that it’s rewriting the rulebook. Beijing’s
policymakers are just plain ignoring what most economists would
recommend at this point in its development. And, so far, they’re
getting away with it….
“… Perhaps China really is refashioning capitalism.
“Perhaps. I, for one, am still clinging to my maxims….
“… Maybe my rules of economics will hold firm after all.
But thanks to China, I’m prepared to edit them.”
Now, it’s not that China is rewriting the rule book.  I
think that what you just heard from Paul is that it’s the West,
it’s the United States under the influence of British free market
ideology; this free-market school economics.  It’s the United
States and the West which have been playing by the wrong rulebook
for decades, if not generations.  We’ve neglected the rulebook
that we originally wrote.  It was Alexander Hamilton, it was our
first Treasury Secretary; that’s why it’s called the American
System of economics.  Other countries have applied these
principles of Hamiltonian economics and experienced the same
phenomenal growth that we experienced under the influence of
Hamiltonian policy.  That is exactly what China is experiencing
right now.  It’s leaving these economists scratching their heads,
but perhaps they merely have to open a few history books.
I think as you can tell from that Bloomberg article, it’s
beginning to dawn on people.  “Gee!  Maybe we’ve been wrong.
Maybe we’ve been duped by this British free trade, free market
ideology.  Perhaps that’s why our economies are in shambles right
Here’s another article.  This is in the {New York Times
Magazine}.  It came out earlier this week.  This one is very
interesting and goes through a lot of the history you just heard
Paul elaborate on.  This is called “The Rise of China and the
Fall of the ‘Free Trade’ Myth.”  The subhead is “China’s economic
success lays bare an uncomfortable historical truth.  No one who
preaches free trade really practices it.”  So, here’s an excerpt
from the article:
“[T]o grasp China’s economic achievement, and its
ramifications, it is imperative to ask: Why has a market economy
directed by a Communist state become the world’s second-largest?
Or, to rephrase the question: Why shouldn’t it have? Why
shouldn’t China’s rise have happened the way it did, with
state-led economic planning, industrial subsidies and little or
no regard for the rules of ‘free trade’?…
“Indeed, economic history reveals that great economic powers
have always become great because of activist states. Regardless
of the mystical properties claimed for it, the invisible hand of
self-interest depends on the visible and often heavy hand of
government. To take only one instance, British gunboats helped
impose free trade on 19th-century China — a lesson not lost on
the Chinese…. The philosophical father of economic
protectionism is, in fact, Alexander Hamilton, the founder of the
American financial system, whose pupils included the Germans, the
Japanese and, indirectly, the Chinese.”
After some history, he lays out the case of Germany, and
this one is interesting to focus on.  He says:
“… Unified in 1871, Germany was scrambling to catch up
with industrialized Britain. To do so, it borrowed from recipes
of national development proposed by Hamilton soon after the
Americans broke free of their British overlords. In his ‘Report
on the Subject of Manufactures’, submitted to Congress in 1791,
Hamilton used the potent term ‘infant’ industries to argue for
economic protectionism.
“… In his view, infant nations needed room to maneuver
before they could compete with established industrial powers. The
United States embraced many of Hamilton’s recommendations; the
beneficiaries were, first, the textile and iron industries and
then steel.
“It was Hamilton’s formula, rather than free trade, that
made the United States the world’s fastest-growing economy in the
19th century and into the 1920s. And that formula was embraced by
other nations coming late to international economic competition.
Hamilton’s most influential student was a German economist named
Friedrich List, who lived in the United States from 1825 until
the 1830s and wrote a book titled {Outlines of American Political
Economy}. On his return to Germany, List attacked the free-market
gospel preached by Britain as sheer opportunism…. Applying
List’s lessons, Germany moved with spectacular speed from an
agrarian to an industrial economy.
“… Closely following Germany’s example, Japan heavily
subsidized its first factories ….
“… South Korea, too, found solutions for its problems in
Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith. The country’s leader, Park
Chung-hee … was also deeply familiar with German theories of
protectionism. (The economist Robert Wade reported coming across
whole shelves of books by List in Seoul bookstores in the
“But little did I know that Hamilton (and List) would
achieve their greatest influence in post-Mao China. ‘The rise of
China resembles that of the United States a century ago,’ the
Chinese scholar Hu Angang writes. He is not exaggerating.”
Now, that’s a very interesting article to appear at this
moment.  I’m not saying that everything the author says in his
analysis is entirely accurate, or that all of the conclusions
that he draws are necessarily correct.  But what he does make
clear is that what made America great was the policies of
Alexander Hamilton.  And what’s making China great today are
those very same Hamiltonian policies.  This realization shows you
that we have a very fertile field for the reception of our
so-called Four Laws campaign — Lyndon LaRouche’s revival of
Hamiltonian policies.  The fight which Lyndon LaRouche has led
for decades to liberate the United States from this imposed free
market, free trade hoax; this British ideology.  To return us to
the principles of Alexander Hamilton.  What he did simultaneously
abroad to educate these other nations on the policies of the
American System and Hamiltonian economic policies.  That’s where
China got this from; that’s where you can credit the great
Chinese economic miracle of the last 15 years.  Do not write out
of the equation the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
played as spokesmen for this great Hamiltonian tradition, and
urgently with updates and a profound scientific depth that Lyndon
LaRouche has brought to this discussion.  But the time is now,
and the field is very fertile for the reception of this idea that
the time has come for a Hamiltonian coalition of nations.  We
must join hand-in-hand with China to do exactly that; to bring
development to all the nations on the planet using these
American, but universal, economic principles.
Now, let me just play a very short clip from a broadcast
that Helga Zepp-LaRouche had yesterday.  Because the biggest
problem that you run into — and I think this is something that
you run into as an organizer or as an activist — is that people
fail to make the necessary leap in terms of understanding these
principles because they have an axiomatic problem.  There’s a
disconnect.  The biggest problem that we have when it comes to
economics today is that money is essentially God.  Money has
achieved this status in economics where it is everything to
everyone.  It’s the Genesis of economics; it’s the root, it’s the
prime mover; it’s the measuring rod, it’s the purpose, it’s the
medium.  Money is everything.  And Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed
exactly this pathology in her webcast yesterday.  And she called
for a public debate on this.  She said, as it begins to dawn on
people who have believed that everything that they had believed
about economics may perhaps have been wrong, we need to question
some of the most basic economic assumptions that we hold dear,
and ask ourselves the question, “What is the ultimate purpose of
an economy and what is the true source of true economic wealth?”
So, here’s Helga LaRouche:


:  I think there is something
fundamentally wrong with the system of the free market, which
after all is not that free, given the fact that all central banks
did was to bail out the banks and keep money pumping for the
benefit of the speculators, so that the rich become richer, and
the poor become more poor, and the middle class is shrinking.
This article by Bloomberg which you referenced earlier, is
very interesting, because the author admits that according to his
theory, China should be collapsing, it should have meager
economic growth, but obviously the contrary is the case.  And he
says that China is doing everything which according to his theory
are terrible, like state intervention, party control, — things
like that — and China is prospering. And actually, he says,
he’s not yet ready to completely overturn his theory, but he’s
willing to make corrections.
There will be a lot more corrections, because I think we
need a public debate, what are the economic criteria for a
functioning economy?  And obviously, the works of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, and his development of physical economy, going
back to Leibniz, to Friedrich List, to Henry C. Carey, to Wilhelm
von Kardorff, who was the economic advisor of Bismarck and was
one of the key influences to bring about the industrial
revolution in Germany; as compared to the so-called free market
model, I think we have to have a real debate, what is the cause
of wealth?  Is it money, or is it the idea of the creativity of
the individual, which then leads to scientific and technological
discoveries, which applied in the production process leads to an
increase in productivity, which then leads to more wealth,
longevity, and all of these things.
We need a discussion about that, because the notion of what
is economy, equating that with money, has really become one of
the axiomatic assumptions of a failing system. So we need a
debate about that. [end video]

OGDEN:  So the time has come.  As I said, it’s a very
fertile field, and this is one of the most important reasons why
we’ve now launched a new LaRouche PAC class series, which gets
directly at these principles; not only of economics, but this is
what drives global policy.  What is the purpose of economy?  What
is the true identity of man?  And what should be the
collaborative between peoples and between nations, to what end?
So, I’ll take that as an opportunity before concluding, to remind
our viewers that tomorrow we will have the second class in our
2018 class series.  This class will be titled “The End of
Geopolitics, Part I:  The History of Geopolitics.”  The guest
speaker will be Harley Schlanger.  Again, you can register for
this entire class series, which is called “The End of
Geopolitics.  What Is the New Paradigm?”  The registration is now
open.  If you have not registered for this class series, I
strongly encourage you to.  The link is available on the screen
—  You can also visit
which will be the central hub of all of the material for this
class series.  Again, if you’re a registered participant, not
only do you have the opportunity to participate in the live
public forums, such as the inaugural class that was delivered
last Saturday by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, but you also have the
opportunity for an in-depth engagement around the syllabus, the
required reading materials, the homework assignments, the live
feedback from the teachers and from the leaders of the LaRouche
PAC class series, and also some discussion periods which are only
open to registered participants.  Registration has continued to
increase.  We have a large number of registered participants from
all across the United States and elsewhere around the world, too.
So, we’re putting together the educated grouping, the cadre which
will be able to lead this discussion for a new economics, a New
Paradigm.  The field is wide open.  The door is there, and all we
have to do is walk through it.  We are in a unique position to
inform this discussion today; and it is a very urgent debate
which needs to take place as Helga Zepp-LaRouche just said.
So, thank you for joining me here today.  I thank Paul for
joining me.  Please stay tuned to; we have a lot
of work to do, and we’ll see you next week.










Russiagate? Alle veje fører til London!
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
9. feb., 2018.


Vært Matthew Ogden: Titlen på vores show i dag er »Russiagate? Alle veje fører til London«. Planen er virkelig blevet kompliceret i løbet af en uge til halvanden, med offentliggørelsen af Nunes-memoet fra Husets Efterretningskomite, der efterforsker Christopher Steele; og dernæst afklassificeringen af senator Grassleys brev, som henviser Christopher Steele til Justitsministeriet til efterforskning for kriminelle handlinger. Sandheden bag det, der er blevet kaldt Russiagate, er nu hastigt ved at komme i fokus. Hver eneste tråd i denne historie, når man trækker i dem og følger dem, fører dig direkte til London.

Denne Russiagate-skandale er faktisk blevet til »Londongate«; og historien om det virkelig, aftalte spil er nu ved at blive åbenlys. Der var virkelig en fremmed efterretningstjeneste, der forsøgte at intervenere, blande sig, og forme udfaldet af valget i USA. Men denne efterretningstjeneste havde sit hovedkvarter hvor? I London, på Themsens bredder ved Vauxhall Cross; lige dér, i MI6’s hovedkvarter. Historien kommer nu i fokus. Det er præcis, som vi oprindelig beskrev det i LaRouche PAC’s brochure, som vi udgav i september 2017. Det eneste aftalte spil, der fandt sted, var dét mellem USA’s og UK’s hemmelige efterretningstjenester, i liga med DNC og Hillary Clintons kampagne. Undermineringen af vores demokratiske valgsystem kom fra vore såkaldte nærmeste allierede – briterne; som ikke skyede noget middel for at forhindre, at deres geopolitiske verdensorden blev afsat, og der i stedet voksede en stormagtsrelation frem mellem USA, Rusland og Kina.

Lad os huske på, hvad denne brochure, som blev udgivet for seks måneder siden, sagde. Brochuren er nu i færd med at blive revideret og opdateret og vil snart udkomme i andet oplag. Men lad os se på brochuren og se, hvad den siger.

»[Præsident Trump] truede det angloamerikanske, britiske imperiesystem efter krigen … ved at afvise evindelig krigsførelse, søge bedre relationer med Rusland, kræve gennemførelse af Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, gå ind for det, han refererer til som det Amerikanske System for politisk økonomi og love massiv infrastrukturudvikling og en moderne varefremstillingsplatform for produktive jobs.«

»Briterne kræver skalpe, på baggrund af deres opfattelse af at være truet, der specifikt findes i ønsket om en samarbejdsrelation med Rusland og en afslutning af den ’unipolære’ ramme for relationer mellem nationer.«

Den fortsætter med at sige:

»Kuppet mod Donald Trump startede faktisk i 2013-2014. Den populære forklaring på nederdrægtighederne og forbrydelserne mod præsidenten er, at Hillary Clinton og Barack Obama ansatte deres netværk, inklusive oversiddende loyalister i regeringen og efterretningssamfundet, med det formål at ændre resultatet af det amerikanske valg og at iscenesætte det igangværende kup. Denne forklaring, der primært fokuserer på begivenheder i 2016, overser, alt imens det er sandt nok i en umiddelbart national forståelse, det større billede. Som vi vil vise, så begyndte briterne at kræve Donald Trumps hoved, iflg. deres egen redegørelse, i 2015 og blandede sig og blandede sig i USA’s valg og [har forsøgt at iscenesætte] et kup for at omstøde valgresultatet hver eneste dag herefter.«

Herefter sporer brochuren den relevante historie, der går helt tilbage til kinesernes annoncering af en ny, international, økonomisk orden i 2013, i form af det, de kaldte Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Som de ligeledes annoncerede, ville blive tæt koordineret med Ruslands Eurasiske Økonomiske Union i en bestræbelse på økonomisk udvikling til hele det eurasiske kontinent. Dette er præcis, hvad Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i over 20år har været fortalere for, i form af den Eurasiske Landbro, og som dernæst blev kendt som den Nye Silkevej.

Fig. 1

Denne del af verden, som Kina og Rusland nu aktivt forfølger udviklingen af; dette eurasiske område af verden er, hvad geopolitikkens fader, den britiske geopolitiks fader – Halford Mackinder – kaldte Hjertelandet. Han skrev en artikel i begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede ved navn, »Historiens geografiske omdrejningspunkt«. Den blev udgivet i 1904. Det, han sagde i denne artikel, og som gjorde ham til faderen af moderne geopolitik, det 20. århundredes britiske geopolitik, er, at Hjertelandet er det geopolitiske omdrejningspunkt for hele verden. Vi ser her hans kort [Fig. 1], og lige i centrum finder vi Eurasien med betegnelsen, »omdrejningspunkt«. Hele hans geopolitiske teori opsummeredes i denne udtalelse: »Den, der regerer over Østeuropa, hersker over Hjertelandet. Den, der regerer over Hjertelandet, hersker over verdensøen. Og den, der regerer over verdensøen, hersker over verden.«

Spørgsmålet om, hvem, der regerer over Østeuropa, handler stort set om, hvem, der regerer over Ukraine. Og da den behørigt valgte ukrainske præsident Victor Janukovitj annoncerede, at han ikke ville underskrive Memorandaet for Samarbejde med den Europæiske Union og i stedet ville opretholde sin tætte relation med økonomisk samarbejde med Rusland, var det det sidste strå. Mange af de samme personer, vi nu ser nævnt i Grassleys og Nunes’ efterforskning af Udenrigsministeriet, såsom Victoria Nuland; mange af de samme personer besluttede, at tiden for regimeskifte var kommet. Ved at aktivere et netværk af oversiddere fra højrefløjen og ekstreme ukrainske nationalister, der under Anden Verdenskrig havde samarbejdet med Hitler; denne flok – Victoria Nuland og andre – iscenesatte et voldeligt kup i Ukraine; det såkaldte Maidan. De væltede den demokratisk valgte, ukrainske regering og installerede deres egen regering; Victoria Nuland er berømt for at være blevet taget på fersk gerning i at indrømme dette, på bånd.

Den, der således regerer over Østeuropa, hersker over Hjertelandet. Den, der regerer over Hjertelandet, hersker over verden. Dette er britisk geopolitik, og i årtier har den særlige, amerikansk-britiske relation været et instrument for håndhævelse af dette Mackinders synspunkt af, hvad verdensordenen bør være. Når som helst en præsident; når som helst en ledende, politisk person i USA kom og truede dette synspunkt, ville elementer i de amerikanske og britiske efterretningssamfund slå alarm og på den ene eller anden måde neutralisere denne trussel. Som LaRouche PAC’s brochure dybtgående forklarer, så var det præcis, hvad der skete i kampagnen imod Lyndon LaRouche. Som brochuren forklarer, så må man forstå, at dette præcis er tilfældet med den operation, der køres imod præsident Trump. For at kunne forstå operationen imod præsident Trump, må man forstå det ud fra dette perspektiv. Fra det øjeblik, det stod klart, at Trump var en seriøs deltager i kapløbet om USA’s præsidentskab, og at han helt tydeligt hældte mod at afslutte Obama-Clinton-Bush-politikken med inddæmning, begrænsning og konfrontation med Rusland og Kina og i stedet hældte mod et gensidigt fordelagtigt, økonomisk og strategisk samarbejde med disse to lande – Rusland og Kina. Og fra det øjeblik blev han mål for dette apparat.

Så vær ikke naiv og lad dig blive indfanget i det daglige mediespin på talkshows på fjernsynet. Dette handler ikke om, hvorvidt du rent personligt støtter eller bryder dig om Donald Trump. Dette er et opgørets øjeblik i den årelange kamp for det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl og kampen for at frisætte, befri, USA fra dette britiske Mackinder-synspunkt om geopolitik, der har bragt os helt ud på kanten af atomkrig. I stedet bør USA fuldt og helt deltage i det Nye Paradigme, der nu er vokset frem, med at bringe økonomisk udvikling og moderne økonomisk fremskridt til enorme områder af den tidligere tilbagestående, koloniserede og underudviklede del af verden.

Som vores brochure, der blev udgivet i september 2017, for seks måneder siden, stiller spørgsmålet: »Har vore efterretningstjenester faktisk ulovligt anstiftet aktive forholdsregler for et kontraefterretningsprogram, imod en siddende præsident?« Vi ved nu, at Comey løj eller vildledte Kongressen om aflytningerne af Trump Tower. FISA-kendelserne beviser dette. Senator Grassley har spurgt FBI, hvorfor, hvis I aflyttede en nær medarbejder til præsidenten, ville I ikke advare præsidenten imod ham, som det er sædvanen? Det sande svar er, at præsidenten selv var og er målet for et hidtil uset og illegalt kupforsøg, udført af dem, der har aflagt ed på at overholde Forfatningen og nationens love.

Så nu ved I det. Siden valget, og før valget, har vi siddet fast i et meget uddybende og farligt, britisk svindelnummer; med et hasardspil om vores nations fremtid i et koldt kup imod en valgt præsident. Der er begået regulære forbrydelser; ikke af præsidenten, men mod præsidenten og Forfatningen. Det, der er sket, er, at divergerende, politiske standpunkter, ideer, er blevet gjort til noget kriminelt; den selv samme fare, som de fleste bestemmelser i vores Forfatning og dens borgerlige frihedsrettigheder (Bill of Rights) blev udtrykkeligt udarbejdet for at værne imod. Vi har fortalt jer den virkelige årsag til, at præsidenten er blevet angrebet af en fremmed magt – briterne og deres allierede i vort land.

Så igen: Denne brochure blev udgivet i september 2017; for næsten seks måneder siden. Men alt det, vi dengang hævdede, bekræftes nu som sandt af kendsgerningerne efterhånden, som de kommer ud; som med tilfældet med Nunes-momoet, Grassley-brevet og hvad vi ellers kan forvente, vil komme ud af disse efterforskninger i den nærmeste fremtid. Hvis man træder et skridt tilbage og ser på det store billede her, og ser på det ud fra dette perspektiv, er det nu uigendriveligt. Hvis man vil identificere den virkelige kilde til forbrydelserne mod vores republik og mod vort demokrati, så træk blot i tråden, og man vil finde, at alle veje fører til London.

I sin ugentlige webcast (torsdag) talte Helga Zepp-LaRouche meget direkte om dette. Jeg vil gerne afspille et kort klip for jer fra dette webcast af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, hvor hun identificerer netop dette aspekt; at alle tråde i denne sag, hvis man følger dem hele vejen, viser, hvorfra den virkelige kriminalitet kommer. Her kommer Helgas klip:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Planen bliver mere kompliceret, som man siger. Historien er faktisk helt utrolig, og jeg er stolt over at have skrevet en artikel helt i begyndelsen af denne affære, hvor jeg sagde, at der er et aftalt spil med briterne, og ikke med russerne – og det er præcis det, der nu kommer frem og er ved at blive et offentligt spørgsmål. Jeg vil begynde med sagen mod Steele, som det var meningen, skulle for retten i Højesteret i London, hvor Steele skulle møde frem, men i sidste øjeblik blev repræsenteret af sin advokat; argumentet var, at dette kunne berøre britiske nationale sikkerhedsinteresser. Og minsandten, om ikke en repræsentant fra Udenrigsministeriet også var til stede med deres advokater, og de kom med den samme erklæring.

Så den britiske regerings, britisk efterretnings rolle er nu et spørgsmål, og det står helt klart, at Christopher Steele ikke var en eller anden tilfældig, tidligere MI6-agent, men at han derimod virkelig var en agent for ikke alene briterne, men også for FBI. Denne pointe er kommet frem i en meget interessant artikel på Pat Langs weblog, »Sic Semper Tyrannis«. En fast, respekteret bidragyder til denne blog, som udlægger på bloggen under pseudonymet »Publius Tacitus«, spørger i sin overskrift, »Forsøgte britisk efterretning at ødelægge Trumps præsidentskab?«, hvilket er præcis, hvad vi har for os.[1]

Værten for denne blog, Pat Lang – for folk, der ikke kender ham; han er en pensioneret, højtrespekteret efterretningsmand i USA, og slet ikke en eller anden russer eller en anden kilde, der kunne være tvivlsom i denne sammenhæng – han arbejdede i lang tid for Forsvarets Efterretningstjeneste (DIA) – og han er højt respekteret.

Hvorom alting er, så peger »Publius Tacitus« på den kendsgerning, at de nye memoer, der er kommet frem fra senatorerne Grassley og Graham, og fra Senatskomiteen for Homeland Security og Regeringsanliggender, som alle bekræfter det, der står i Nunes [Husets Efterretningskomite]-memorandaet. Og der er virkelig kommet mange nye aspekter frem. De indikerer, at Comey måske løj under ed, for, da han holdt den berømte pressekonference, der frikendte Hillary Clinton, påstod han, at han ikke havde koordineret dette med nogen andre. Dette står imidlertid i skarp kontrast til nogle flere beskeder, som blev udvekslet mellem Peter Strzok og Lisa Page, to FBI-ansatte, der var involveret i både Hillary Clintons e-mail-affære og ligeledes i Russiagate. I disse beskeder indikerede de, at Hillary vidste, der ikke ville komme nogen anklager mod hende. Der er behov for yderligere efterforskning herom.

Der er desuden fremkommet et andet, meget ildevarslende resultat, og det er en anden udveksling af tekstbeskeder mellem de to, hvor de den 2. sep. 2016 siger, at »POTUS«, dvs. ’President of the United States’, nemlig Obama, ønskede at vide alt, de foretager sig. Hvad refererer dette »alt« til? Det refererer enten til efterforskningen af Hillary Clinton, eller også til Russiagate, og sidstnævnte ville betyde, at Obama nu er direkte forbundet med Russiagate og ikke kun indirekte via betalingen til Fusion GPS og Steele, hvor Obama-administrationen også betalte, sammen med DNC og Hillary Clintons kampagne.

Dette er alt sammen ekstremt, ekstremt varmt, og vi har nu alle disse Senats- og Kongreshøringer og komiteer, der efterforsker det. Kongresmedlem Nunes, der havde offentliggjort dette memo – eller rettere, præsident Trump havde godkendt at få det afklassificeret og offentliggjort sidste fredag – han sagde, dette er kun »Fase 1«. Der kommer flere faser, og de vil blandt andet omfatte Udenrigsministeriet, hvilket selvfølgelig også involverer Victoria Nuland, hvis navn nu er dukket op. Der har ligeledes, omkring et andet spørgsmål, været mange udvekslinger mellem Christopher Steele og Victoria Nuland med hensyn til kuppet i Ukraine, det berømte Maidan-kup i februar 2014.

Dette er alt sammen meget interessant, meget ’varmt’. Russiagate er praktisk taget en død sild, men det, der nu i stedet er på bordet, er den britiske regerings, britisk efterretnings indblanding i valget i USA, der forsøgte at sabotere Trumps sejr, først, og da han alligevel vandt, da at ødelægge Trumps præsidentskab ved hjælp af en totalt opdigtet anklage. Det er nu kommet offentligt frem, og det er stort! Jeg kan, selv om dette er foregået i nogen tid, stadig kun være totalt chokeret og overrasket over, hvordan de gængse vestlige medier lykkedes med ikke at dække dette, som tydeligvis er ved at nå dimensioner, der går langt, langt videre end Watergate.

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet. Hele Zepp-LaRouches webcast fra torsdag kan læses på dansk her:


OGDEN:  So, worse than Watergate, in Helga LaRouche’s words.
As Helga mentioned in her remarks there, earlier this week, there
was a very significant article which was published on the blog
“Sic Semper Tyrannis” by Pat Lang, who is former Defense
Intelligence, a very high level, very connected person.  The
article is titled, “Did British Intelligence Try to Destroy the
Trump Presidency?”  Let me read you few excerpts from Pat Lang’s
article.  He says:
“Last night’s release of the memo by Senator’s Grassley and
Graham asking the Department of Justice to open a criminal
investigation of Christopher Steele for possible violations of 18
U.S.C. § 1001 provides critical confirmation of charges
presented in the HPSCI memo prepared under the leadership of
Devin Nunes, but it also confirms that Christopher Steele was not
just some random guy offering good gossip to the FBI. He was an
official intelligence asset. He was, in John LeCarre’s parlance,
our ‘Joe.’ At least we thought so. But, there is growing
circumstantial evidence that Steele was acting on behalf of
Britain’s version of the CIA–aka MI-6. If true, we are now faced
with actual evidence of a foreign country trying to meddle in a
direct and significant way in our national election. Only it was
not the Russians. It was our British cousins”.
“[T]wo developments in the last two days suggest that
British intelligence officials, at least some key officials, were
witting of Steele’s activities in gathering information for the
“First, Steele is resisting efforts to face a deposition in
a lawsuit over his infamous dossier. Steele’s lawyers argued in a
court in London this week that a deposition would endanger the
former spy’s dossier sources as well as harm U.K. national
security interests. If the Judge buys this claim then we will not
have to speculate anymore about whether or not Steele was acting
on his own or had a ‘wink-and-a-nod’ from his MI-6 bosses.
“Second, in my mind more telling, were the comments made
this week by former MI-6 Chief, Richard Dearlove, on behalf of
his former protege:
“Among those who have continued to seek his expertise is
Steele’s former boss Richard Dearlove, who headed MI-6 from 1999
to 2004. In an interview, Dearlove said Steele became the ‘go-to
person on Russia in the commercial sector’ following his
retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the
reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow
intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as ‘superb.’
But we do not have to rely solely on Dearlove’s glowing
remarks about Steele. There is other information indicating that
the Brits played a substantial, if not leading, role in spying on
Trump and building the Russian meddling meme. The Guardian
reported in April 2017 that:
“|’Britain’s spy agencies played a crucial role in alerting
their counterparts in Washington to contacts between members of
Donald Trump’s campaign team and Russian intelligence operatives,
the {Guardian} has been told.
“|’GCHQ first became aware in late 2015 of suspicious
“interactions” between figures connected to Trump and known or
suspected Russian agents, a source close to UK intelligence said.
This intelligence was passed to the US as part of a routine
exchange of information, they added.
“|’Over the next six months, until summer 2016, a number of
western agencies shared further information on contacts between
Trump’s inner circle and Russians, sources said.’
“So much for our special relationship. As the evidence of
British intelligence meddling in the U.S. election piles up, it
will create some strains in our bi-lateral ties. It has the
potential to harm cooperation on military, law enforcement, and
intelligence fronts. I suspect there is some scrambling going on
behind the scenes to come up with a strategy to contain the
damage while rooting out the sedition. Stay tuned.”
Now, speaking of Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI-6
and his relationship to Christopher Steele, there is a very
significant article which was published this week in the
Washington Post.  And that article is published under the
title, “Hero, or Hired Gun?  How a British Former Spy Became a
Flashpoint in the Russia Investigation”.  And under the subtitle
“He’s the Spy”, the article lays out Steele’s pedigree as a very
high-level British intelligence operative, and his extremely
close relationship with Richard Dearlove, the former head of
MI-6.  So, here’s what the article says:
“Steele had all the right credentials for the job.
“He was steeped in Russia early on after being recruited to
Britain’s elite spy service from the University of Cambridge. He
spent two decades working for the MI6 spy agency, including a
stint in his mid-20s in Moscow, where he served undercover in the
British Embassy.
“When he returned to work for the agency in London, he
provided briefing materials on Russia for senior government
officials and led the British inquiry into the mysterious 2006
death in London of Alexander Litvinenko, a former KGB official
and Putin critic.
“In 2009, after more than two decades in public service,
Steele turned to the private sector and founded a London-based
consulting firm, Orbis Business Intelligence, drawing on the
reputation and network he developed doing intelligence work.
“Among those who have continued to seek his expertise is
Steele’s former boss Richard Dearlove, who headed MI6 from 1999
to 2004.
“In an interview, Dearlove said Steele became the ‘go-to
person on Russia in the commercial sector’ following his
retirement from the Secret Intelligence Service. He described the
reputations of Steele and his business partner, fellow
intelligence veteran Christopher Burrows, as ‘superb.’

“In the early fall, he and Burrows turned to Dearlove, their
former MI6 boss, for advice. Sitting in winged chairs at the
Garrick Club, one of London’s most venerable private
establishments, under oil paintings of famed British playwrights,
the two men shared their worries about what was happening in the
United States. They asked for his guidance about how to handle
their obligations to their client and the public, Dearlove
“Dearlove said their situation reminded him of a predicament
he had faced years earlier, when he was chief of station for
British intelligence in Washington and alerted U.S. authorities
to British information that a vice presidential hopeful had once
been in communication with the Kremlin.
“He said he advised Steele and Burrows to work discreetly
with a top British government official to pass along information
to the FBI.”
Now, that entire story sounds very much like a scene
directly out of a John LeCarre novel, if you ask me.  But this
character, Richard Dearlove, is somebody of whom Helga
Zepp-LaRouche asks “What is his pedigree, and what is he famous
for when it comes to dodgy dossiers?” in that webcast that she
delivered yesterday.  So, here’s what Helga LaRouche had to say
about Richard Dearlove:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  The fact that Richard
Dearlove, the former head of MI6, absolutely defended the
reputation of Steele, is very interesting in this respect,
because who is this Dearlove? He is the infamous author of the
famous dossier which led to the attack on Iraq in the Second Gulf
War, supposedly because Saddam Hussein was in the possession of
weapons of mass destruction, which we know was a blatant lie,
which led Colin Powell to make this infamous speech in the United
Nations in February 2003, which he later characterized as the
biggest mistake of his life, because it led to the intervention,
including the United States, in the war against Saddam Hussein.
That is something which eventually must also be tried. And I know
that Ramsey Clark tried to make that an issue before the
international legal authorities.
So, this is not just the attempt of a coup against the
United States, but this is a paradigm of policies which have led
to the present condition in the world, including the destruction
of much of Southwest Asia, including the refugee crisis.  So
these are not small things, and I think it is high time that this
whole paradigm should come out in the open and is being replaced
by a completely different policy.
So, I think the stakes here are extremely high, and I
think people should really rethink everything and look at the
material which is coming out, because it is an unbelievable
[T]he dossier which was published by LaRouche PAC, written
by Barbara Boyd. This was written half a year ago, but if you
read this dossier now, it is incredible, how absolutely on the
mark this dossier was, concerning the role of British
intelligence.  So I think the circulation of this dossier is
something which everybody can do very easily. Get it in the
social media, get it in the alternative blogs, get it into any
newspaper, which has the honesty to follow events in a truthful
way. And right now, things are coming out in the open. There were
articles by Ray McGovern, by William Binney, Pat Lang, by Russia
Today,  — naturally, they pick up on the fact that Russiagate is
now completely falling apart.  So I think the more people can do,
to get the public attention on what is going on in this
absolutely gigantic fight in the United States, the better;
because some of these spooks shy away from daylight, and the more
the Sun is shining on them, all the better.

OGDEN:  So again, this pamphlet that was put out by LaRouche
PAC six months ago, this was a very prescient and very insightful
pamphlet.  I guarantee you it has a served a major role in
informing the threat of the investigations for the people who are
serious about getting at the truth of this.  We’ve witnessed
Russiagate transformed into Steelegate, and Steelegate means
Londongate.  All threads, if you follow them and pull them, will
lead you back to London.  This pamphlet is being updated as we
speak, and it will be going into a second [sic] printing very
soon, and you can expect that this will continue to have a very
significant impact.
I just want to, in conclusion, recommend that our viewers,
in understanding the context as I went through it earlier, and as
that pamphlet elaborates it very clearly, the context of this
entire thing is the fight over the soul of the US Presidency and
the future of US policy on the world stage.  We’ve witnessed
decades and administration upon administration of this so-called
US-UK special relationship; which has merely perpetuated this
Mackinder geopolitics on the entire planet.  It has brought us to
the point of confrontation which could threaten thermonuclear
war.  This has become all too real.  The fight over the paradigm
— will we remain the satrapy of this British geopolitical world
order, or will we break from that?  Will we be liberated from
that?  Will we embrace the New Paradigm which is now sweeping the
planet?  That is the question which is at stake here, and the
stakes could not be higher.
For that reason, I want to strongly encourage all of our
viewers to return here to tomorrow, February 10th
at 12noon.  That’s 12noon eastern time.  We will be treated by a
live address by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who be delivering the
inaugural class in the LaRouche PAC 2018 online class series.
That class series, as you can see here on the screen, is titled
“The End of Geopolitics.  What Is the Global New Paradigm?”  It
will be hosted at the url, which is on the top of the screen there
—  This will be a 12-week class
series, which will follow up on the very successful class series
which we hosted here on last year during 2017 on
LaRouche’s economic discoveries.  The invitation to this year’s
class series is available there on  Let me just read to you from
the invitation:
“The American people are faced with a historic choice: join
China’s revolutionary New Silk Road program and secure a new
paradigm of win-win global development, or continue the suicidal
geopolitical policies of Obama and Bush, guaranteeing
confrontation with Russia and China and threatening world war.
While President Trump is inclined to move in the direction of
cooperation with China and Russia, he is being threatened with a
palace coup by those desperately clinging to the old geopolitical
view of unchallenged Anglo-American global dominance.
“You can play a role in this decisive point in history. Help
secure the New Paradigm.
“LaRouche PAC is launching a new class series, “What is the
New Paradigm?” to prepare you to lead the population at this
critical time. 2018 must be the year we end geopolitics.”
Then, it lists what these classes will cover:
“Introduction: What is the New Paradigm?”  This is Helga
LaRouche’s address tomorrow.
“What is Geopolitics, Part I — History
“What is Geopolitics, Part II — Philosophy
“Culture — Beauty & Freedom vs. the CCF [Congress for
Cultural Freedom]
“Confucian and Western Philosophy
“Science: Man’s Relation to the Universe
“Wrap-up and Mobilization — End Geopolitics”
So, the invitation invites you to register now for access to
the syllabus, to the homework, to the reading assignments, and to
the special live discussion sessions which will be available only
for registered participants.  Registration is now open at  Questions can be emailed to
We strongly encourage you to register now for this class
series, to become an active participant in this class series; to
build class hosting sessions in your location wherever you are in
the United States or even abroad, to build a group of people who
will participate in these classes on a weekly basis with you.
You can host it at your house, or at the local library, or on
your college campus.  And create a national mobilization of
participants around this series of classes so that we have the
cadre of people who are educated and who understand this global
context for the ongoing fight that we now find ourselves in here
in the United States.
So again, tomorrow at 12noon, Helga LaRouche will be
addressing this class series live.  This will be the inaugural
address, and we encourage you to register now for the entire
class series for 2018.  That brings a conclusion to our webcast
today.  But I think if you reflect on the theme here —
Russiagate has now become Londongate; all roads lead to London.
Let me put the graphic of our title right back on the screen here
one more time, and you’ll see the image there of the MI-6
headquarters.  This is where all roads lead; pull the threads and
you’ll discover the truth about who really colluded with US
elections in 2016, and is continuing to meddle with our political
Thank you very much for joining me here at
and please stay tuned.


Breaking: Hemmeligt Nunes-Memo
offentliggjort! Sandheden om Russiagate.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
2. feb., 2018.


Vært Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil starte med at annoncere de seneste nyheder: Nunes-memoet, det fire sider lange memo, der blev udarbejdet af formand for Husets Efterretningskomite David Nunes, er nu officielt blevet afklassificeret af præsident Trump og er blevet frigivet til den amerikanske offentlighed. På trods af det Demokratiske lederskabs, efterretningssamfundets, selve FBI’s og endda britisk efterretnings trusler, bagvaskelser og intimidering, har præsident Trump og det Republikanske lederskab på Capitol Hill besluttet at afklassificere dette memorandum, og det er en bombe!

Det afslører præcis det, som LaRouche PAC har dokumenteret lige fra begyndelsen af dette: Det såkaldte slibrige og ubekræftede, britiske efterretningsprodukt, kendt som Steele-dossieret, blev brugt som såkaldt »bevis« for at indhente en FISA-kendelse til at udspionere ledende medlemmer af Trumps kampagne. Det, som dette memo fortæller, er, at det nu er officielt, at Christopher Steele selv sagde til seniorembedsmand i Justitsministeriet, Bruce Ohr, at han var »desperat for, at Donald Trump ikke blev valgt og havde meget stærke følelser imod, at han blev præsident«. Det er Christopher Steeles egne ord, og dette sagde han til Bruce Ohr, før den første FISA-ansøgning overhovedet blev indgivet.

Og selv om det var kendt, at dette såkaldte dossier var et helt klart partisk stykke researcharbejde for oppositionen, som blev finansieret af Hillary Clintons præsidentkampagne, imod hendes behørigt nominerede modstander i valget, Donald Trump, så blev denne anmodning om overvågning godkendt af FBI-direktør James Comey, og ligeledes af Andrew McCabe [daværende FBI-vicedirektør].

Dette memo vil helt bestemt markere et vendepunkt i hele denne operation og hele dette kupforsøg mod vores præsident og vil højst sandsynligt gå over i historien som et af de mest skamfulde kapitler i vores republiks historie. Hele Russiagate-operationen er et skamfuldt eksempel på det mest grove magtmisbrug fra FBI’s side, der fuldt ud lever op til den berygtede arv efter J. Edgar Hoover, i et forsøg på at bruge dette lands efterretningstjenester, i aftalt spil med britisk efterretning, til at underminere og vælte en ledende, politisk person og efterfølgende, USA’s behørigt valgte præsident.

Som indledning til denne udsendelse vil jeg gerne dele med jer, den fulde tekst af dette memo, der netop er blevet afklassificeret. Som I ser i toppen, »Afklassificeret«, og det blev afklassificeret af præsidenten, efter ordrer, den 2. feb., 2018. Vi læser teksten [LPAC’s redaktørs bemærkninger: Følgende tekst er taget fra Husets Permanente Efterretnings-Udvalgskomites pdf-dokument. I pdf-dokumentet vises den originale understregning (her med enkeltkrøllede parenteser) og fed skrift (dobbeltkrøllede parenteser); kursivering (ligeledes her vist med enkeltkrøllede parenteser) bruges udelukkende til publikationer.]

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet):   

This memorandum provides Members an update on significant
facts relating to the Committee’s ongoing investigation into the
Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) and their use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
(FISA) during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Our findings,
which are detailed below, 1) raise concerns with the legitimacy
and legality of certain DOJ and FBI interactions with the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), and 2) represent a
troubling breakdown of legal processes established to protect the
American people from abuses related to the FISA process.
{{Investigation Update}}
On October 21, 2016, DOJ and FBI sought and received a FISA
probable cause order ({not} under Title VIl) authorizing
electronic surveillance on Carter Page from the FISC. Page is a
U.S. citizen who served as a volunteer advisor to the Trump
presidential campaign. Consistent with requirements under FISA,
the application had to be first certified by the Director or
Deputy Director of the FBI. It then required the approval of the
Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General (DAG), or the
Senate-confirmed Assistant Attorney General for the National
Security Division.
The FBI and DOJ obtained one initial FISA warrant targeting
Carter Page and three FISA renewals from the FISC. As required by
statute (50 U.S.C.§1805(d)(1)), a FISA order on an American
citizen must be renewed by the FISC every 90 days and each
renewal requires a separate finding of probable cause.
Then-Director James Comey signed three FISA applications in
question on behalf of the FBI, and Deputy Director Andrew McCabe
signed one. Then-DAG Sally Yates, then-Acting DAG Dana Boente,
and DAG Rod Rosenstein each signed one or more FISA applications
on behalf of DOJ.
Due to the sensitive nature of foreign intelligence
activity, FISA submissions (including renewals) before the FISC
are classified. As such, the public’s confidence in the integrity
of the FISA process depends on the court’s ability to hold the
government to the highest standard– particularly as it relates
to surveillance of American citizens. However, the FISC’s rigor
in protecting the rights of Americans, which is reinforced by
90-day renewals of surveillance orders, is necessarily dependent
on the government’s production to the court of all material and
relevant facts. This should include information potentially
favorable to the target of the FISA application that is known by
the government. In the case of Carter Page, the government had at
least four independent opportunities before the FISC to
accurately provide an accounting of the relevant facts. However,
our findings indicate that, as described below, material and
relevant information was omitted.

1) The “dossier” compiled by Christopher Steele (Steele
dossier) on behalf of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and
the Hillary Clinton campaign formed an essential part of the
Carter Page FISA application. Steele was a longtime FBI source
who was paid over $160,000 by the DNC and Clinton campaign, via
the law firm Perkins Coie and research firm Fusion GPS, to obtain
derogatory information on Donald Trump’s ties to Russia.
a) Neither the initial application in October 2016, nor any
of the renewals, disclose or reference the role of the DNC,
Clinton campaign, or any party/campaign in funding Steele’s
efforts, even though the political origins of the Steele dossier
were then known to senior DOJ and FBI officials.
b) The initial FISA application notes Steele was working for
a named U.S. person, but does not name Fusion GPS and principal
Glenn Simpson, who was paid by a U.S. law firm (Perkins Coie)
representing the DNC (even though it was known by DOJ at the
time that political actors were involved with the Steele
dossier). The application does not mention Steele was ultimately
working on behalf of–and paid by–the DNC and Clinton campaign,
or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for
the same information.

2) The Carter Page FISA application also cited extensively a
September 23, 2016, {Yahoo News} article by Michael Isikoff,
which focuses on Page’s July 2016 trip to Moscow.   {This article
does not corroborate the Steele dossier because it is derived
from information leaked by Steele himself to Yahoo News.} The
Page FISA application incorrectly assesses that Steele did not
directly provide information to {Yahoo News}. Steele has admitted
in British court filings that he met with {Yahoo News}–and
several other outlets–in September 2016 at the direction of
Fusion GPS. Perkins Coie was aware of Steele’s initial media
contacts because they hosted at least one meeting in Washington
D.C. in 2016 with Steele and Fusion GPS where this matter was
a) Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source
for what the FBI defines  as the most serious of violations–an
unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the
FBI in an October 30, 2016, {Mother Jones} article by David Corn.
Steele should have been terminated for his previous undisclosed
contacts with
Yahoo and other outlets {{in September}}–before the Page
application was submitted to the FISC in October–but Steele
improperly concealed from and lied to the FBI about those
b) Steele’s numerous encounters with the media violated the
cardinal rule of source handling–maintaining
confidentiality–and demonstrated that Steele had become a less
than reliable source for the FBI.

3) Before and after Steele was terminated as a source, he
maintained contact with DOJ via then-Associate Deputy Attorney
General Bruce Ohr, a senior DOJ official who worked closely with
Deputy Attorneys General Yates and later Rosenstein. Shortly
after the election, the FBI began interviewing Ohr, documenting
his communications with Steele. For example, in September 2016,
Steele admitted to Ohr his feelings against then-candidate Trump
when Steele said he {{“was desperate that Donald Trump not get
elected and was passionate about him not being president.”}} This
clear evidence of Steele’ s bias was recorded by Ohr at the time
and subsequently in official FBI files–but not reflected in any
of the Page FISA applications.
a) During this same time period, Ohr’s wife was employed by
Fusion GPS to assist in the cultivation of opposition research on
Trump. Ohr later provided the FBI with all of his wife’s
opposition research, paid for by the DNC and Clinton campaign via
Fusion GPS. The Ohrs’ relationship with Steele and Fusion GPS was
inexplicably concealed from the FISC.

4) According to the head of the FBI’s counterintelligence
division, Assistant Director Bill Priestap, corroboration of the
Steele dossier was in its “infancy” at the time of the initial
Page FISA application. After Steele was terminated, a source
validation report conducted by an independent unit within FBI
assessed Steele’s reporting as only minimally corroborated. Yet,
in early January 2017, Director Comey briefed President-elect
Trump on a summary of the Steele dossier, even though it
was–according to his June 2017 testimony–“salacious and
unverified.” While the FISA application relied on Steele’s past
record of credible reporting on other unrelated matters, it
ignored or concealed his anti-Trump financial and ideological
motivations. Furthermore, Deputy Director McCabe testified before
the Committee in December 2017 that no surveillance warrant would
have been sought from the FISC without the Steele dossier

5) The Page FISA application also mentions information
regarding fellow Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos, but
there is no evidence of any cooperation or conspiracy between
Page and Papadopoulos. The Papadopoulos information triggered the
opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July
2016 by FBI agent Pete Strzok. Strzok was reassigned by the
Special Counsel’s Office to FBI Human Resources for improper text
messages with his mistress, FBI Attorney Lisa Page (no known
relation to Carter Page), where they both demonstrated a clear
bias against Trump and in favor of Clinton, whom Strzok had also
investigated. The Strzok/Lisa Page texts also reflect extensive
discussions about the investigation, orchestrating leaks to the
media, and include a meeting with Deputy Director McCabe to
discuss an “insurance” policy against President Trump’s election.
[end memo]

So this is a bombshell.  And what it absolutely makes clear
is that these Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrants
against leading members of the President Trump campaign {never}
would have been requested or obtained without the so-called
evidence presented in the Steele dossier.  And this Steele
dossier is completely discredited, and as it made clear, in
Steele’s own words, he was “desperate that Donald Trump not get
elected and was passionate about him not being president.”
Now, exactly as Congressman Matt Gaetz two weeks ago, when
he first read this memo, when it was still classified, he said,
“the facts contained in this memo are jaw dropping….  There is
no higher priority than the release of this information to
preserve our democracy….  I think that this will not end just
with firings.  I believe there are people who will go to jail….
The entire Mueller investigation is a lie built on a foundation
of corruption….  This will vindicate claims by many of us:  It
is a real attempt to undermine the President, from the scariest
of places.”
President Trump was speaking to the media earlier today, and
right before the official release of this memo, the decision to
release this memo by the Republican leadership in the House,
President Trump had the following to say.  This is what President
Trump’s own words were, in anticipation of the probable release
of this memo.  He said the following: “I think it’s terrible.
You want to know the truth?  I think it’s a disgrace.  What’s
going on in this country, I think it’s a {disgrace}.  The memo
was sent to Congress, it was declassified.  Congress will do
whatever they’re going to do.  But I think it’s a disgrace what’s
happening in our country.  And when you look at that, and you see
that, and some of the other things what’s going on, a lot of
people should be ashamed of themselves, and much worse than that.
So, I sent it over to Congress, and they will do what they’re
going to do.  Whatever they do is fine.  It was declassified, and
let’s see what happens.  But, a lot of people should be ashamed.”
So those were President Trump’s words.
Now, LaRouche PAC has issued a statement, which is now
posted on the LaRouche PAC website.  This statement contains a
short summary of what is contained in the Nunes memo, and then it
has a short analysis and some commentary, and it promises to be
swiftly followed up by more marching orders in the coming 72
But this is what LaRouche PAC has to say:  “…We have a
clear abuse of FISA, a fraud on that court.  Material facts about
surveillance of an American political campaign, and an American
citizen, set into motion by the campaign’s political opponent and
their allies in the Obama administration were concealed from the
court by the FBI and the Department of Justice.
“But there is much, much more here. Steele’s dirty work was
used by the Clinton campaign and the Obama Administration, in
collusion with the media, in an attempt to defeat Donald Trump’s
bid for the Presidency. The subsequent Russiagate and Mueller
investigations have been used in an attempt to destroy the Trump
Presidency. The entire Russiagate myth, promulgated by Obama and
the British, have destroyed U.S. Russian relations and endangered
the entire world.
“We published the full story and the reasons why this is
occurring months back. It is not what you think. Read the
dossier, sign the petition, all of it, {all of it}, needs to be
investigated and prosecuted.”
Now, this is the dossier []  which LaRouche PAC
released months ago.  This is the full documentation on not only
Robert Mueller’s background in prosecuting Lyndon LaRouche, in
covering up the crimes of 9/11, and now, in being a central
player in this attempted coup against the President of the United
States; but it was also ahead of the curve in absolutely
documenting exactly what this Nunes memo is discussing.
Let me give you one short example:  This is a quote from
inside the Mueller dossier.  It says the following: “Hillary
Clinton used the Steele Dossier to paint Trump as a Russian dupe
throughout her general election campaign against him.  James
Comey used it to justify his FBI counterintelligence probe of the
Trump campaign which began in July of 2016, and has continued.
“Thus, we have the British government … {intervening in an
election in the United States to sway the result.}  Most
certainly this raises questions about the applicability of
election laws which bar foreign funding for exactly the reason
that the United States elections should be decided by United
States citizens.  Most certainly, once this sequence of events is
fully investigated, it will become clear that all government
participants intended to sway the election unlawfully, using the
powers of a state to vanquish the will of the voters.”
And that gets directly at the core of the matter.  And we
didn’t need the Nunes memo to know that that what this was all
about all along.
Now, what this dossier also documented — this is now, I’m
talking about the LaRouche PAC dossier on the Mueller operation
— what this documented is that motivation is not what you think
it is.  The motivation has got to be contextualized within an
understanding of what is this moment in history in which we find
ourselves?  And this entire Russiagate coup from the very
beginning was intended to prevent the kind of collaborative
relationship that President Trump was clearly inclined towards in
his Presidential election campaign, to say we have to end this
World War III, thermonuclear game of chicken that the Bush
administration and the Obama administration have been playing
with the Russians, which has brought us to the very threshold of
the kind of nuclear war that the citizens of Hawai’i were
frightened about during that so-called false alarm a few weeks
ago.  This is a very, {very} real danger!
And the American people knew that to be true, and they
associated Hillary Clinton with nothing less, than the further
escalation of Obama’s World War III policy against Russia.  This
is the consequence of British Imperial geopolitics:  Divide and
President Trump made clear that he was willing to reach out
a hand of collaboration and cooperation with Russia, and also, as
has subsequently been clear, with China, and to say, “we’re going
to turn the geopolitical chessboard over, and we are going to
establish a new great-powers relationship with these leading
powers, in order to address the common problems that mankind must
resolve.” And that was President Trump’s clear, clear
So why was the Russiagate thing cooked up from the very
beginning?  Well, it was to block President Trump from
establishing that kind of collaborative relationship with Russia
and with China, and instead, to ensure the continuation of the
Obama/Hillary Clinton policy of confrontation and potential
thermonuclear war.
{So that’s what’s at stake here.}  And the reason that the
timing is so critical, is because a New Paradigm of economics and
strategic partnerships is emerging on this planet as we speak.
It’s rapidly escalating and it’s a tide that very well could not
be turned back short of that kind of thermonuclear war.  What
form that New Paradigm is taking is the Belt and Road Initiative,
China’s initiative to create a new win-win economic, political,
and strategic partnership among the nations of the world for
peace through massive economic development.  The Belt and Road
has already come to Central Asia, the Belt and Road has already
come to Africa, the Belt and Road has already come to Eastern
Europe. And the Belt and Road, as we speak, is in the process of
coming to the Western Hemisphere with Latin America and Caribbean
fully on board.  The question is, will the United States join?
That was the question which provoked this Russia-gate coup
attempt against President Trump from the very beginning.  That,
and because we must defend the very fundamental facets of our
Constitutional republic, of our Constitutional democracy; that is
why we must defeat this coup.  Whether you consider yourself a
Republican, whether you consider yourself a Democrat, an
independent, whether you even personally support President Trump
or like him; you must defeat this clear and blatant coup against
the Constitution and the Presidency of the United States.
Now, what I’d like to do for you is to point out the irony
that the Democratic Party which, going back to the dirty trick
operations against the Kennedys, against Martin Luther King, by
J. Edgar Hoover, the Democratic Party led the charge on
investigating this FBI operation.  The Democratic Party has now
sold themselves out completely to be the party of Russia-gate —
the new McCarthyism.  There’s a very ironic statement by attorney
Alan Dershowitz; he went on TV just yesterday, pointing out
exactly this irony.  And I’d like to just read you some of what
Dershowitz had to say, pointing out that the Democratic Party has
now become the cheering section for the FBI.  He says:
“I’m just old enough to remember when liberals and major
media organizations believed America’s national security
apparatus had to be closely monitored to protect our civil
“The liberals and journalists brought to light the horrific
abuses of power that J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI and the National
Security Agency undertook in the 1960s against Martin Luther King
and others….
“But all of that was forgotten this week, as Washington
liberals rushed to the microphones to demand that the Nunes memo
from Representative Devin Nunes, Republican from California, be
kept from the American people.  Their sympathetic friends in the
media were quick to give their complaints blanket and largely
unskeptical coverage.
“The four-page Nunes document is a House Intelligence
Committee summary of Justice Department and FBI files that points
to serious abuses of power involving the surveillance of US
citizens in the run-up to the 2016 election…. But to leading
Democrats, the possible discussion of intelligence agency abuses
is akin to Armageddon.
“Representative Adam Schiff, Democrat from California, the
ranking Democrat on Nunes’ Intelligence Committee, has read the
Nunes memo, but curiously dismisses it by saying … the memo is
‘meant only to give Republican House members a distorted view of
the FBI.’  Far from resembling the crusading liberals of the
1960s and ’70s, who probed the FBI; Schiff has taken on the role
of the Bureau’s lapdog.
“… All of this presents a rich stew of questions that you
might expect Washington to be curious about.  Instead, you have a
frenzy of denunciation of people who want transparency in
government and a lack of curiosity about the activities of our
most powerful intelligence agencies — entities that have been
guilty in the past of clear abuses of power.
“If Americans are to have faith in their government, it must
have people who watch the watchers in our intelligence agencies.
So far this week, we are seeing an awful lot of people blindly
defend the bureaucracy rather than fulfill their duty to question
Again, that was Alan Dershowitz.
So, the Democratic Party has completely bankrupted itself.
This is moment in which the entire LaRouche PAC program — the
Four Laws, the economic recovery program that we have documented
and we have put out, our campaign to win the future, and the
campaign to bring the United States into the New Paradigm of
development in the form of the New Silk Road — this has got to
replace this morally and intellectually bankrupt behavior by the
Democratic Party; and this must become the policy for all
American citizens who are interested in saving this country.
Now, Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered a very significant
webcast yesterday — the founder and President of the Schiller
Institute.  During that webcast, she was asked by the moderator
what we should expect from the release of the Nunes memo.  Of
course, this was before it was clear that the memo would be
released; although we were all highly anticipating the release of
this classified document.  But, I would like to play for you a
short excerpt of what Helga LaRouche had to say.  I think she
very clearly situates this within the broader context which must
be understood.


:  Oh, I think this is reaching
very interesting dimensions.  As a matter of fact, on the way out
of Congress, Trump was asked if he would release this Nunes memo,
and he said “100%.”  And then also the White House Chief of Staff
John Kelly was interviewed, and he said the White House would
release this memo “pretty quick,” because the American people
should make up their minds on their own, what their judgment is.
And that is very good.
So there, again, you have a complete freak-out, for example,
the German media, which were absolutely not reporting about this
whole controversy, or {if} they would only report about it from
the standpoint of Russia-gate and soon Trump will be gotten out
of office.  Now they have to sort of cover their behind, in
reporting about it, but they’re still on the line of the
FBI-leaning version, but they do have to report it.
What happened this week was naturally dramatic:  You have
the decision of the House Select Committee on Intelligence to
release the memo.  Then you had the firing of [FBI Deputy
Director Andrew] McCabe; that is very good.  Then you have the
ongoing operation by Senator Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham,
who, on the one side are insisting on a criminal investigation
against Christopher Steele; but they also sent letters to all the
leading Democrats, Podesta, the DNC, the various other Democratic
officials, asking them detailed questions:  What did they know
about the Steele dossier? When did they know about Hillary?
Many, many questions.
Then, McCabe is also under a new investigation, because it
seems that he delayed the whole Hillary investigation concerning
her emails by three weeks, trying to push it behind the November
So I think there is a lot of fury:  You have people warning
that the outcome of this will decide the fate of the United
States — for example, Paul Craig Roberts, who after all was in
the Reagan administration, he had a very stern warning saying the
stakes are extreme; if the coup plotters would get away with
their actions, then the United States would turn into a full
police-state, where the intelligence services would create a
dictatorship and there would be no more accountability of the
government.  So this is clearly one side.
And on the other side, naturally, there is expected hope
that if this memo, which is due to come out, at the latest
tomorrow, because the rules are such that it has to be five days
after the vote in Congress, and that can really be an earthquake.
Because if what seems to be in this memo becomes public, I think
it will change not only the situation in the United States, but
also it will have an earthquake effect internationally. [end

OGDEN:  So, we can expect that earthquake to occur
internationally.  This is a huge development.  The point is, that
this must be situated within this fight, this ongoing battle for
the soul of the US Presidency.  We can see even at this moment
that there are still opposite tendencies at work at the highest
levels of this administration; people who are working against the
inclination that this President has for the kind of great powers
relationship and a new paradigm of international partnerships.
We saw a very inflammatory speech by Rex Tillerson just
yesterday.  We’ve seen the release of the National Security
Strategy, which accuses China and Russia of being authoritarian
dictatorships which are attempting to reorder the entire
international order.  And so forth and so on.
But we also see that President Trump continues to reach out
to Russia.  He did not impose these sanctions against the Russian
officials, even though it was sent to him by Congress, and he
continues to reach out to President Xi Jinping.  And he continues
to emphasize that a good relationship between the United States
and these two countries is a very good thing, and not a bad
thing.  That’s the point, though; that he is being backed into a
corner.  He continues to have the highest levels of his own
administration working against him, and this political earthquake
which we can expect coming out of the declassification of this
memo which makes undeniably clear that this was a political
operation through the use of the intelligence agencies of this
country in pure J. Edgar Hoover style through and through.  It
was nothing more than that, and continues to be nothing more than
President Trump, obviously as we know, delivered the State
of the Union address this Tuesday, just a few days ago.  Whereas
the LaRouche Political Action Committee has been in an intense
campaign to put on the table LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws and
the necessity for the United States to join the Silk Road, that
campaign has not lessened one bit in the aftermath of the State
of the Union; but has, in fact, intensified.  The persisting
questions will continue to be on the table.  If President Trump
wants $1.5 trillion in infrastructure investment, where is that
going to come from?  How are you going to do that?  Should you
use a Hamiltonian national banking approach, as opposed to this
other concoction which has been put together by Steve Mnuchin and
others?  Also, as the trans-Atlantic financial system continues
to be perched on the verge of a meltdown, how will President
Trump respond to that impending threat?  God forbid, if the
entire came down as it did in 2008, if not worse.   We must
preempt that threat with a Glass-Steagall reorganization of this
entire financial system, as has been called for by LaRouche for
years.  The threats are very clear; we’re in a Catch-22.  We’re
on the verge of either a hyperinflationary blow-out, or a total
bottom dropping out of the entire trans-Atlantic system.
So, in response to President Trump’s State of the Union
speech, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in that same webcast yesterday, had
a little bit of analysis.  I’d like to share that with you.


:  Obviously, he did not say what
he should have said, namely to go with the Four Laws of Lyndon
LaRouche, Glass-Steagall, and a new credit system in the
tradition of Alexander Hamilton.  Now, we don’t give up hope that
that may still come, because, after all, if you remember, when my
husband in 1983 had campaigned for what became the Strategic
Defense Initiative, this was not mentioned by President Reagan in
the State of the Union address; but then, on the 23rd of March,
Reagan publicly announced the Strategic Defense Initiative.  So
therefore, we can absolutely hope that President Trump
eventually, when he has to come to the question of financing the
infrastructure he announced, he will come back to his promise
from the election campaign to implement Glass-Steagall.
Otherwise, the speech was not bad.  I think it’s quite
significant that, according to CBS, in a poll, 75% of the people
who saw the speech were in great support for Trump.  So I think
that domestically, he definitely touched on a sense of optimism,
even so there are still many problems, obviously, with the
financial system which he did not address.  But I think it’s on a
good course.
I think the strongest indicator that he is doing something
good is the freak-out by the Democrats, and while he appealed to
a bipartisan cooperation on the immigrant issue, on
infrastructure, the Democrats who basically were sitting there,
demonstrating not-applauding, and in a certain sense being quite
the war-party.  I think that has become crystal clear, because in
the context of the State of the Union, actually one day before,
was the deadline for the implementation of the sanctions which
the Congress had voted on half a year earlier; and nothing
happened.  The Trump administration did not implement sanctions
against Russia and there was a complete freak-out by such media
as the {New York Times} or think tanks like the Atlantic Council
which basically accused Trump of completely going against what
the Congress had mandated.  But the simple answer of the Trump
administration on the sanctions against Russia was that it was
not necessary.
Now, that’s very good.  I think that in spite of the fact
that Trump in terms of the foreign policy aspect of his State of
the Union address where he called Russia and China “rivals,”
rather than partners or something more positive, to which the
Chinese reacted quite strongly.  They said that this was alarming
and provocative.  But then, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said
that the United States and China should work together instead,
for a happier future of all of mankind.  So that response was on
the one side, expressing displeasure, but on the other side, keep
reaching out for the kind of cooperation which already was
demonstrated between Xi Jinping and Trump.
The Russians even responded less harsh, because they, in a
commentary said the speech by Trump was much milder those of all
of his predecessors, referring obviously to Obama and Bush.
So I think this is not the end of the world.  It’s not what
it should be, but I think in the context of what is happening in
the United States, one can also not expect, given the neo-con
mobilization, given the really ridiculous behavior of the
Democrats, I think he did pretty well. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, that’s Helga LaRouche’s analysis of President
Trump’s State of the Union.  Clearly, what this demands of us is
an escalation on the front of the campaign that we’ve been
waging.  This is contained in the Campaign to Win the Future
statement which is now being circulated across the country for
endorsement; and in fact, has already received an endorsement
from some members of state legislatures, including a Democrat
member of the state legislature from Michigan.  This is really on
the verge of totally breaking through.  This really goes to the
core of what President Trump, I think, stands for in the eyes of
those who elected him; especially those electoral victories which
were decisive in the so-called “Rust Belt” states — in
Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Wisconsin.  He flipped those three
states in an unprecedented Election Night turnaround.  That’s
what secured him the victory.
During his campaign when he went to the Midwest, when he
went back after his victory, continually President Trump has
continued to stand by this idea that we are a nation of builders,
and we must revive and live up to that great legacy with great
projects for our own generation.  That was one thing that he
mentioned in the State of the Union speech, but he elaborated it
last night in a speech at the Greenbrier in West Virginia for the
Republican Party retreat.  This is the very conclusion of that
speech by Donald Trump:


:  We’re proud of our history,
we’re confident in our values, and we’re grateful to our heroes,
and we are determined to create a brighter future for all of our
people.  We are restoring the bonds of love and loyalty that
unite us all, as friends, as neighbors, as citizens, as
Americans.  Because when Americans are united, nothing — nothing
at all — nothing can stop us.  We win.  (Applause.)
As I said the other night, we are a nation that built the
Empire State Building in one year.  Actually, to be exact, it was
— we built it in less than a year.  Would you believe it?
Working 24 hours around the clock.
We built the Hoover Dam in record time.  We built the Golden
Gate Bridge.  We linked our nation together with railroads and
highways.  We dug out the Panama Canal.  We’re the nation that
won two World Wars, defeated fascism and communism, and put
satellites into space and planted our great American flag on the
face of the moon.  We’ve healed the sick, cured disease, and
cared for the poor like no other nation.  We’ve lifted millions
into prosperity, and delivered millions into freedom.
This is our legacy.  This is our birthright.  And this is
the foundation on which we build our very glorious future.
Because together, we are, indeed, making America great again.
Thank you, and God bless you all.  Thank you very much.
(Applause.)  Thank you. [end video]

OGDEN:  Now, that’s exactly the spirit which I think has
energized the American people, and which we must continue to
inform with the specific policies to honor that birthright as a
nation of builders, as a nation which has accomplished
unprecedented things, and which we must continue to do.  The
great projects are there for the taking, and if we look at what
China is now doing, China has become a nation of builders as
well; not only domestically, but abroad.  The building of the One
Belt, One Road Initiative, this New Silk Road — both the land
Silk Road and the new Maritime Silk Road which is spanning the
globe — this is what the United States must decisively join.  It
has come to the Western Hemisphere to the southern nations; and
now it is time for the United States to join that collaboration
and to reach out a hand of partnership between the United States
and China, and to renew our partnership between the United States
and Russia.
One thing that you just heard President Trump say is that we
were the nation that won two world wars and defeated fascism.
Well, today happens to be the 75th anniversary of the victory at
the legendary battle of Stalingrad.  This was a horrific,
six-month siege.  The casualties are absolutely staggering; over
1 million casualties reported on the Russian side alone.  Half a
million Russians died during the battle of Stalingrad; but this
was a great victory, led by the legendary Marshal Zhukov.  It was
a decisive defeat of the Nazi army, which led to the following
two years of the war, which finally, in collaboration between —
there you see on the screen — President Roosevelt and Stalin of
the Soviet Union.  Fascism, Nazism was defeated.
To conclude our show, this is a quote from President
Roosevelt’s letter of congratulations to Josef Stalin on the
victory at Stalingrad, 75 years ago today.  I would encourage us
to take this as the paradigm of what we must revive in terms of
that kind of great powers relationship.  If we come together as
great nations on this Earth against mankind’s common enemies and
for the common aims of mankind, we can accomplish great things.
So, here’s what President Roosevelt had to say; this is addressed
to Josef Stalin.
“As commander in chief of the Armed Forces of the United
States of America, I congratulate you on the brilliant victory at
Stalingrad of the armies under your supreme command. The 162 days
of epic battle for the city which has forever honored your name
and the decisive result which all Americans are celebrating today
will remain one of the proudest chapters in this war of the
peoples united against Nazism and its emulators.
“The commanders and fighters of your armies at the front and
the men and women who have supported them in factory and field
have combined not only to cover with glory their country’s arms,
but to inspire by their example fresh determination among all the
United Nations to bend every energy to bring about the final
defeat and unconditional surrender of the common enemy.”
“[signed] Franklin D Roosevelt”

And as we know, it was Franklin Roosevelt’s vision, as
documented in the book {As He Saw It} by his son, Elliott
Roosevelt, that in the aftermath of World War II, in the
aftermath of the defeat of fascism, we would work together with
those allies that we had during the war, including Russia and
China and India, to bring about a new era of development for the
planet.  To bring what Franklin Roosevelt demonstrated in the
form of the New Deal with the TVA and the great projects that
were built here in the United States, lifting hundreds of
thousands of Americans out of poverty at that time, to bring
those New Deal policies to the globe in collaboration with the
allies who won the war against fascism, to continue the war after
the defeat of Adolf Hitler and to fight a war against the
colonial and imperialist policies of the British Empire.  And to
fight a war against the poverty and backwardness that had been
imposed on the world from centuries of British rule.  That was
Franklin Roosevelt’s vision for after the war.  That was
unfortunately and tragically abandoned with Franklin Roosevelt’s
death.  We experienced decades of a Cold War with the nuclear
sword of Damocles hanging over our heads.  We are now at the
point at which finally we must make the decision — will we allow
that Cold War mentality of geopolitics to bring us to the point
now of World War III and the potential extinction of the human
race through thermonuclear war?  Or, will we embrace the revival
of that legacy which is now being accomplished by the Chinese and
the Belt and Road Initiative and all the nations that have joined
together for that New Paradigm of peace through great projects
and development?  Will we say now is the moment when we can pick
up where Franklin Roosevelt left off and reach out a hand of
partnership and collaboration to Russia, to China, and to all the
other nations of good will on this planet, to bring development
— finally — to every corner of the globe.
Obviously today, we’ve seen a major turning point in the
history of the United States.  This is a huge development, and as
we promised, there will be more updates from LaRouche PAC in the
coming hours, the coming 24, 48, and 72 hours to come.  So,
please stay tuned to and mobilize, mobilize,
mobilize.  Thank you for joining us; stay tuned.

Genopbyg Amerikas hjerteland:
Fra ’Rustbæltet’ til ’Bælte & Vej’.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
26. jan., 2018

Vært Matthew Ogden: I dag har jeg en særlig gæst, Bill Roberts, som er med fra Detroit, Michigan. Bill Roberts er LaRouche PAC’s kampagnekoordinator for Midtvesten, og vi har også set hans succes mht. at være kandidat til kongressen, hvor han vandt 41 % af stemmerne i det demokratiske primærvalg i Michigan.

Titlen på vores udsendelse i dag er »Genopbyg Amerikas hjerteland: Fra ’Rustbæltet’ til ’Bælte & Vej’«. Vores tema i dag er at se på kampagneplatformen til 2018-valget, som LaRouche PAC har udgivet og nu mobiliserer for på nationalt plan, og se på dette gennem Midtvestens linser, det såkaldte ’Rustbælte’, der engang var motor for økonomisk vækst i hele USA. Dette er vort lands produktive hjerteland, og dette har været epicentret for kollapset i vareproduktion og den specialiserede arbejdsstyrke i USA. Dette udgør kernen i vores evne til at bringe USA ind i en ny æra for store projekter og økonomisk udvikling, der typificeres af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ; heraf titlen på vores udsendelse, »Genopbyg Amerikas hjerteland: Fra ’Rustbæltet’ til ’Bælte & Vej’«.

Kerneindholdet i LaRouche PAC’s valgplatform 2018 er, at USA’s præsidentskab omgående må vedtage Lyndon LaRouches fire økonomiske love og gå ind i en win-win-relation med Kinas Nye Silkevej. LaRouches fire økonomiske love er præcis det, der er nødvendigt lige nu, hvis vi ønsker at få midlet til at gå ud af det, der synes at være en »ingen udgang«-situation. Vi er nu i en nedtælling på fire dage til præsident Trumps State of the Union-tale på tirsdag. I takt med denne nedtælling, har vi optrappet vores kampagne nationalt for at sætte dette på dagsordenen: LaRouches fire økonomiske love, og USA må gå med i den Nye Silkevej.

At dømme umiddelbart ud fra præsident Trumps tale her til morgen på Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum, så vil han få brug for en ’omvendelse på vejen til Damaskus’ i løbet af weekenden for at komme til at forstå, at, nej – at tale om en aktiemarkedsboble og $7 billion i såkaldt »tilføjet værdi« eller merværdi på Wall Street, udgør ikke en økonomisk genrejsning! Faktisk udgør det selve problemet. Dette er præcis, hvad William White, tidligere cheføkonom for Den internationale Betalingsbank (BIS), advarede om i et interview, han gav i Davos til Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, og hvor han diskuterede det faktum, at vi praktisk taget uundgåeligt har kurs mod det transatlantiske finanssystems kollaps, af præcis denne grund: de billige penge, nulrente-politikken, der er blevet gennemført af Federal Reserve og den Europæiske Centralbank (ECB), har skabt det, som William White kaldte et »Catch-22«, et Punkt 22. Hvis disse rentesatser forbliver lave, vil vi have kurs mod en hyperinflationseksplosion af penge i systemet, og det vil føre os til en Weimar-stil hyperinflation, som vi så det i 1923. Men hvis ECB og Fed beslutter at hæve renten, vil »zombie-bankerne« og »zombieselskaberne«, der i de seneste flere år har eksisteret, baseret på denne politik med nulrente, billige penge og kvantitativ lempelse, kollapse indad, og vi vil få et kollaps af systemet i denne retning.

Ud fra William Whites standpunkt, så har denne advarsel »ingen udgang«.

Der er faktisk en udgang, og vi ved nøjagtig, hvad det er, og dette er, hvad præsident Trump omgående må vedtage. Udgangen består i Lyndon LaRouches fire økonomiske love: Rejs en brandmur i form af Glass-Steagall mellem kommerciel bankvirksomhed og de produktive investeringer, og så alt det møg, vi har i form af spekulativ værdi på Wall Street og City of London. Lad dette møg tørre ud og blæse væk; men beskyt de nødvendige, produktive, kommercielle bankvirksomhedsaspekter af vores økonomi. Erstat den spekulative økonomi med et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, hvor man tager billioner af dollars i statslig kredit, via en ny Nationalbank, og dirigerer det, ikke til spekulation, men derimod til reel, fysisk værdi: til storskala infrastrukturprojekter, store projekter, nye industrier, vareproduktion og til en forøgelse af arbejdskraftens produktive evne i USA’s arbejdsstyrke; og især – som vi skal diskutere her i dag – i Midtvestens tidligere produktive arbejdsstyrke, og ligeledes bringe USA ind i dette store nye projekts Nye Silkevej.

Dette er, hvad præsident Trump må forstå om økonomi, og vi er i en nedtælling på fire dage til State of the Union, til at sætte dette på dagsordenen. Vores job slutter på ingen måde her; men formålet med denne 2018-valgplatform, som LaRouche PAC har udgivet, er tværtimod at vinde en kampagne, essentielt, for USA’s præsidentskab. Vi er naturligvis ikke i et præsidentvalgår, og præsident Trump er den behørigt valgte præsident og vil være vores præsident for de næste tre år, mindst, på trods af bestræbelserne fra Russiagate-kuppets side og hans opponenter, der forsøger at vælte hans præsidentskab; men den kampagne, vi kører, er en kampagne for USA’s præsidentskabs politik: Det er en kampagen for at vinde kampen om præsidentskabets politik.

I dag skal vi diskutere strategien, og Midtvesten, eller USA’s industrielle hjerteland, er et af de afgørende elementer i denne strategi. Om lidt vil I få at se, at præsident Trumps sejr i 2016-valgene, i realiteten skyldtes hans sejr i Midtvesten. Han var i stand til at bryde det, der kaldes den »Demokratiske blå brandmur«, og han vendte fire store, tidligere industrielle rustbæltestater, der havde stemt demokratisk, siden valget af FDR i præsidentielle valg; og han vendte dem og vandt disse stater: Pennsylvania, Michigan og Wisconsin, for ikke at tale om hans sejre i Ohio.

Hvordan gjorde han det? Han adresserede selve det faktum, at både det Republikanske og det Demokratiske Parti havde indgået en ’aftale med djævelen’ om en konsensus om, begge at være partiet for frihandel og post-industrialisering. Kandidat Trump sprængte hele denne konsensus i stykker, gik ind og sagde, »Jeg er imod frihandel, vi vil nedlukke NAFTA«, og han sagde i særdeleshed, »vi vil bringe industri tilbage til hjertelandet«. Vi vil få ny vareproduktion, nye jobs, og han krævede endda en »ny industriel revolution«.

Jeg vil gerne give lidt baggrund, før vi kommer til diskussionen, om, hvad det var, præsident Trump fik adgang til, hvad enten, han helt var klar over det eller ej. Men dette er i produktivitetens ånd, og jeg vil faktisk hævde, at dette ikke er Trump-vælgerskaren, men at det er »LaRouche-vælgerskaren«. Og det, vi vil gøre med denne kampagne for at lægge 2018 LaRouche PAC-platformen på bordet, er, at vi vil organisere denne vælgerskare omkring denne vision, de Fire Loves økonomiske program, og vi vil bruge denne indflydelse til at skabe en revolution i USA’s præsidentskabs økonomiske politik.

Lad os gå lidt tilbage i tiden, til det industrielle kraftcenter, som Midtvesten var kendt som, før det fik lov at sygne hen og blive til ’rustbæltet’. Dette skete pga. Franklin Roosevelts mobilisering under Anden Verdenskrig, med at tage det, som var bilindustriens maskinværktøj til biler – i Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin og i det vestlige Pennsylvania – og at tilpasse disse bilfabrikker og bruge den specialiserede arbejdsstyrke til at lancere det, der blev kaldt »Demokratiets arsenal«.

Så lad os nu gå lidt tilbage i tiden og se på denne nyhedsfilm fra Anden Verdenskrig, og I vil få at se, hvad vi mener, når vi taler om Franklin Roosevelts Demokratiets arsenal.


(Engelsk udskrift af resten af udsendelsen:)

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT:  We must be the great arsenal of

NARRATOR:  President Roosevelt makes an unprecedented 9,000
mile tour of the United States, to see for himself the nation at
war.  Visiting armament plants from coast to coast, he stops at
the giant Chrysler tank arsenal, where he sees the Army’s latest
mechanized monsters, tested as they come from assembly lines.
Then, on to one of Henry Ford’s great bomber plants, where
the President and First Lady are greeted by Mr. Ford and General
Manager Sorensen.
Plane workers, delighted with the surprise visit, show the
President that wartime production is meeting the goal set, many
plants exceeding their quotas.

PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT:  We shall send you, in ever-increasing
numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns:  That is our purpose and our

NARRATOR:  And the President’s words meant action.  America
became the Arsenal of Democracy. …
Working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, where General
Motors is undertaking to produce more than 10% of all war
matériel fabricated from metal.  Thousands of workmen in four GM
divisions turn out machineguns in a mass-production basis.
Output is months ahead of schedule….
General Motors has pioneered in applying mass production
methods to the manufacture of aircraft.  Work goes on day and
night under the adept fingers of General Motors men and women.
They are producing an avalanche of weapons for victory in General
Motors manufacturing centers all over America.  Machine tools,
the master tools of industry and of victory are made at a
constantly increasing rate…. [end video]

OGDEN:  So “machine tools, the master tools of industry and
victory” are made at an ever-increasing rate.  That was the
Arsenal of Democracy.  That was Franklin Roosevelt’s economic
Now, what happened?  President Trump, in the 2016 election
did what all other candidates have refused to do:  He refused to
take what he called the “forgotten men and women” of the United
States, very much so, these formerly industrial, skilled labor
force, and he said, you will be the forgotten men and women no
Contrast that to what Hillary Clinton did, where she took
these states — Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — took them
for granted, and in fact, never even went to Wisconsin for a
campaign event — and lo and behold, on Election Night, surprise,
surprise, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, all went for
Trump. And in fact, that was the key to his winning the U.S.
How did he do it?  Well, let me play this clip for you from
President Trump’s going to Ypsilanti, Michigan to the Willow Run
auto factory, and where he discusses the Arsenal of Democracy,
and calls for the creation of new industrial revolution.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Great Americans of all backgrounds
built the Arsenal of Democracy, including the legendary Rosie the
Riveter, who worked here at Willow Run. You know that. [cheers]
Seventy-five years ago, during the Second World War, thousands of
American workers filled this very building, to build the great
new airplanes, the B-24 Liberator, at peak production — listen
to this — it’s not the country that we’ve been watching over the
last 20 years: They were building one B-24 every single hour.
[cheers]  We don’t hear that, we don’t hear that any more, do we?
We’ll be back, we’ll be back, soon.  The most amazing
And while that’s incredible, it’s a tribute, really, to the
teamwork, determination and patriotism that lives on today, in
each and every one of you.  Great people — you’re great people.
Now, these hundreds of acres that defended our democracy are
going to help build the cars and cities of the future.  So I ask
you,  — that’s fine, ’cause you’re rushed — so I ask you today
to join me in daring to believe that this facility, this city,
and this nation, will once again shine with industrial might.
I’m asking you to place your faith in the American worker
and these great American companies. [applause]  I’m also asking
you, to respect, and place your faith in companies from foreign
lands that come here to build their product.  We love them, too.
Right?  We love them, too. [applause]
I’m asking all of the companies here, today, to join us, in
this new industrial revolution:  Let us put American workers,
American families, and American dreams first, once again.  May
God bless the American worker.  May God bless the Motor City.
And may God bless the United States of America.  Thank you, thank
you. [cheers]
[end video]

OGDEN:  And there you have it. So let’s put on the screen
here, the electoral map, and this is a very interesting map [Fig.
1] and I’m actually going to ask Bill Roberts to discuss it with
us a little bit.  But this was published by the Washington Post
immediately after the election victory by President Trump. And
you’ll see here, the title is “The Former Obama Strongholds
Sealed the Election for Trump.”   And I’ll let Bill describe what
we’re looking at, but you’ll see there, the concentration is in
the rust belt, in the former industrial heartland, there, and
that’s the region of the country we’re talking about here, right
So Bill, tell us what we’re looking at in that map and
explain to us exactly what the strategy for victory here, has to

BILL ROBERTS:  Sure.  Matt, let me just start out by saying
that there was recently an article published by a local
representative, representing Macomb County [Michigan],  I think
one of those counties that was an Obama-voting county, probably
voted for Obama twice, and then shifted and voted for Trump.
What this local elected official was arguing for a decent
high-wage, what’s called a prevailing wage, for union employees.
And he made the point in that document that this policy actually
started with Henry Ford; it started with Henry Ford’s decision
that he was going to pay his workers $5 a day to produce cars,
and this wage would allow them to be able to buy the car that
they were producing.  So this is the coalition of producers which
we now have to mobilize to define, the standard of competence on
which national elected officials are going to run their
Now, let me bring back up this map, here:  What you’re
looking at, these are the districts across the country that voted
for Obama twice, as in the dark yellow; and in the light yellow
are districts that voted for Obama once.  But all of these shaded
areas then were the counties that switched, that swung and voted
for Donald Trump in 2018.  So these are traditionally Democratic
areas, where Trump went in and campaigned, where Hillary Clinton
did not, and he really made his focus the “forgotten men and
women,” who were part of this very advanced — I think “rust
belt” is a kind of derogatory term, because in fact, the labor
forces associated with these regions, whether they be farmers or
skilled workers, produce extremely advanced products, to the
tolerances of a thousandth of an inch, or even smaller.  And
Trump tapped into something that Lyndon LaRouche identified
later, which is that, this was part of actually a global process
of voters rejecting the failures, the failed policies of the
trans-Atlantic financial system, the destruction of the skilled
workforce; the overrunning of these areas with an epidemic of
drugs, of opiates; the failed regime-change wars.  And they voted
for the policy, and not the party.
And so, these are obviously going to be areas in which both
the parties are going to be looking in the election to try to
swing the vote.  The problem is, neither party has the policies
that can address the dire situation that these forgotten men and
women find themselves in.   Neither party’s leadership has a
competent program to be able to directly address these blue
collar and rural districts in the upper Midwest, in terms of the
kind of economic destruction they’ve seen.
So, it really falls upon the campaign of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee, and what we have to find is the
standard of competent that can actually rebuild these areas.  The
LaRouche Four Laws, the identification of the necessity of the
United States cooperating with China and countries that we can
align our credit systems with, in order to actually capitalize a
national infrastructure bank and a full economic recovery.
I would just say that, you know, you have Democrats on the
one hand, who continue to push the fraud of the Russiagate
investigation, as if this hasn’t been disproven, and moved to
other slanders against Trump, such as the Durbin fraud of the
racist remarks that Trump allegedly said.  None of the voters in
these swing areas, they absolutely hate this kind of stuff.  And
then, on the Republican site, Trump has really got to be able to
break with this GOP/Wall Street backed leadership orientation
within his own party, in order to be able to address, similarly,
this voting base.  Because Wall Street- backed policies are not
going to finance an economic recovery.  Trump has already said
that the public-private partnerships are not going to function to
build the vast amount of infrastructure that’s required.
So the LaRouche Political Action Committee and our team here
in the Midwest, are looking at races of interest, not necessarily
ones that are going to come down to Republicans versus Democrat,
but maybe even ones where there’s an interesting difference in
the party primary first — in other words, in the immediate
period, in the immediate campaigns, is there an Obama-backed
candidate, for example, who is running against someone who has
the support of building trades, of engineering societies?  Has a
real interest in the revival of the productive economy, and this
is our domain to shape.
As you said Matt, this is really a LaRouche constituency.
And I’ve been in these areas:  I mean, these are people, that
voted Democrat in every election in their entire life, and then
they voted for Donald Trump.  And it was the question of the
“fair trade not free trade,” it was the issue of bringing back
manufacturing; it was the commitment to seeking solutions beyond
geopolitics, beyond the regime-change wars that have been, really
disproportionately hitting these post-industrial and urban
communities that have made up a disproportionate number in the
Armed Forces recruitment.
So, if you look, there is 53% of these communities that
shifted over and voted for Trump after having voted for Obama:
This is an interesting demographics of producers who are
clamoring for real leadership.  There is a profound, profound
vacuum of leadership, that I know from our forays into the state
legislatures in the recent weeks, are really demanding a way in
which — and they have not found this solution outside of what we
have presented to them — but a way in which you can actually
capitalize, a sustained and thorough, scientific-driven,
infrastructure-driven economic recovery over the next 10, 15, 20
years.  And what strikes these local elected officials more than
anything, is that they have not been presented with any other
plan at all that even identifies an approach to amassing the kind
of investment that you will get with the LaRouche plan and that
you will get with the cooperation of the United States with China
and with countries like Japan.
So, I think it’s an extremely fertile situation if we
intervene with a kind of vigor now to define the only competent
solution which exists for candidates and for constituency groups
to demand that those candidates campaign on.

OGDEN:  And that’s exactly the declared intention of this
2018 Platform from LaRouche PAC, is to seek out those
constituency groups, but more so to create those constituency
groups that are going to, through leadership and organization,
will demand this scientifically informed economic agenda; what
LaRouche has laid out.  Glass-Steagall to erect a firewall;
reorganize the financial system; national banking as Alexander
Hamilton did it; trillions of dollars in Federal credit for
infrastructure, new industries, productive employment; and then
all under a driver.  Like the same kind of driver you saw there
for the Arsenal of Democracy; that was a mission orientation.
The kind of mission orientation that we need today is the space
program and for fusion power.  These are the kinds of drivers
that create the top-down organization that economic activity can
participate in, and then will feed into and have a
self-reproducing kind of increase in productivity.
Now what happened in Detroit, and what happened in Michigan,
and what happened in the Midwest, was not something that was just
a crisis of the last few years.  This has been decades and
decades in the making, and it goes back even before NAFTA.  What
occurred was a loss of that commitment that Franklin Roosevelt
had to productivity and to productive employment.  We actually,
Bill, you and I worked together to produce a video several years
ago, around the time that Detroit was forced to declare
bankruptcy.  It was called “Detroit: A Test Case for Genocide”.
In that video, we put together an animated graphic that showed
the population increase in Detroit due to the mobilization around
the Arsenal of Democracy; but then following that, and with the
abandonment of that commitment to industrial production, the
population decrease which has occurred for several decades, and
which has now gotten to a critical point.  So, this is actually
an animated population graphic, and I would like to just put this
on the screen.  You can listen to the narration there.  This is
from the original video, “Detroit: A Test Case for Genocide”.

VIDEO:  The population of Detroit began to explode around
the turn of the 20th Century; increasing exponentially around
1910.  However, with the crash of 1929 and the onset of the Great
Depression, the population of Detroit began to level off and even
decline for the first time in its history.  It wasn’t until
Franklin Roosevelt’s Arsenal of Democracy that the population
began to grow again, surging to its maximum in 1950 with a
population of over 1.8 million people; making Detroit the fifth
largest city in the United States at the time.
However, after 1950, the population began to drop once
again, slowly at first, but accelerating over time.  By the year
2000, the population had collapsed to under a million, and by
2010 to 713,000; less than the population was a century before.
A more than 60% drop from its peak in 1950; a loss of over 1
million people.  This will only continue to accelerate at an
ever-increasing rate under the bankers’ dictatorship now
controlling the city. [END VIDEO]

OGDEN:  That was the despair and the crisis which really has
been many generations in the making in Michigan, in Detroit, that
Lyndon LaRouche was seeking to resolve when he called for a new
re-tooling of the auto industry back in 2012 to 2013, and even
prior to that around the bankruptcy of the Big Three
[automakers].  What he was calling for at that time, was to say
“Let’s re-tool the auto industry, and let’s use this machine tool
capability — the ‘make anything’ industry — to build the kinds
of lock and dams, the bridges, the high-speed rail, the
components for nuclear power plants; the kind of materiel that
you would need to mobilize an emergency economic recovery of the
United States.  The fact that that wasn’t done, has created even
worse conditions of impoverishment and despair.  As you pointed
out, Bill, some of the pockets of the worst opioid epidemic are
in these former industrial, former skilled labor communities.
This is the constituency which elected President Trump, but what
has to happen if President Trump is going to deliver on the
promises that he made?  How is this going to mobilized?  What
kind of economic recovery, what form is that going to take now
from the standpoint of the Midwest?

ROBERTS:  Well, if the news media had actually reported what
Trump did when he was in China, Trump secured $254 billion in
direct investment into these various states you’re talking about.
West Virginia, which has been decimated by Obama and by the drug
epidemic, West Virginia is set up to receive $84 billion in
direct investments from a Chinese company, as a result of the
trip that Donald Trump took to China and the friendly cooperation
of China and the United States, facilitated through these two
leaders — the President of China and President Trump.  Now,
that’s more money than any known proposal proposes to have the
Federal portion, the Federally-funded, matched portion of
investment in U.S. infrastructure.  You look at any plan coming
from Democrats, that’s more money than the Federal government is
going to capitalize in an infrastructure program.  So, the first
question on anyone’s mind who now knows that — if you tell that
to them — since the media is not readily reporting that is, “How
is China able to invest so much in infrastructure?”  Of course,
the answer is that China has an American System policy bank;
that’s how China is able to capitalize these vast development
programs across the continent of Asia into Africa.
Now of course, China and Japan are both willing to put
probably a total of about $1 trillion or more into capitalizing a
policy bank in the United States.  It doesn’t have to be a direct
investment.  A number of direct investments by China were
rejected on the basis of supposed security concerns.  So, they
don’t have to be direct investments, but we can simply capitalize
a national bank and then utilize the approach we have in the
past, such as a new gas tax, to finance such debt, such a
national banking structure.  I think this is something that used
to be very commonplace; this is how Franklin Roosevelt did
things, this is how Abraham Lincoln did things, and it’s a kind
of forgotten method.  If this would have been reported that, in
fact, this is the dynamic that exists in the world that is
driving massive development throughout the planet, then everyone
would be talking about this already.  Everyone would be wanting
to know how China is able to do this.  They would be demanding
that the very Henry C Carey system that the Chinese love to study
so much is exactly the basis on which we now unleash a 10-15 year
process of massive infrastructure investment; and that the way
that you pay for this, is through massive revolutionary
breakthroughs in technology keyed off of breakthroughs in the
manned space mission and the expansion of NASA, and in fusion
power.  That it’s the revolutionary scientific advancements, not
money per se, which actually is what pays for this process.  The
Chinese understand this, too; which you can see in their fusion
program and in their highly developed and growing space program.
The media has certainly been aiding and abetting an
unfortunate process in this country; where the elections will
tend to be very partisan, low level, least common denominator
kinds of discussions; hot-button topics.  But it doesn’t have to
be.  Everything that we’ve just gone through here in terms of the
history of how the United States has been a productive country
and has been a scientifically revolutionary country driven by the
machine tool sector, and has had institutions that make it
possible to finance such revolutionary developments; that these
are not only available to the United States, but that this is
already a process driving most of the world.  In fact, the
President of the United States has been the most open President,
and is very open to working with these other countries within
this very sort of dynamic.  So again, our objective — we have to
sort of evangelize; because there are so many people out there
who, if they simply knew what was happening in the world and if
they had the LaRouche Four Laws solution at their fingertips,
they would gladly demand it.  They would gladly reach across the
aisle to work — Republicans working with Democrats on mobilizing
big Federal expenditures for infrastructure; Democrats gladly
dropping the insane anti-Trump tirades, and instead urging him to
break with Wall Street, and reach across the aisle and work with
Republicans who are willing to collaborate on an anti-Wall Street
policy, an American System policy along with Trump.  So, we found
tremendous openness.
But we don’t want to just go to the candidates for the
endorsement and for them to campaign on these policies — on the
New Silk Road, on ending the coup against the President, and on
LaRouche’s Four Laws.  But rather, we want to get to their base
of support — the skilled labor unions, the professional
organizations, the engineers, the voting blocs in general and the
state legislatures, the super constituents.  We have to have an
accelerated process of educating these individuals on the unique
LaRouche solution that you are not going to get from the party
leadership at this point, who are really too much stuck in the
old paradigm.  But if we introduce these constituents to the New
Paradigm, sure, of course, gladly they will take that instead of
this lame discussion that you’ll otherwise get at these
candidates’ debates.

OGDEN:  And LaRouche PAC is uniquely positioned to do that;
that’s why it’s so necessary that we put out this platform, this
statement of intent and that we’re conducting a national
mobilization.  LaRouche PAC, especially there in the Midwest with
the productive labor force, the working class constituency,
LaRouche PAC has an extraordinary amount of authority on the
ground among those kinds of labor organizations and productive
workers.  I would say also Bill, you personally have an
extraordinary amount of authority because of what you have been
engaged in there for years; including, as I mentioned at the
beginning, a Congressional campaign that you ran in 2012 there.
You got 41% of the vote in the 11th Congressional District there
in the 2012 Democratic primary.
Now, I’d actually like to play a clip for our viewers of
testimony that you gave in front of the Detroit City Council in
2012, when this entire rigging of the LIBOR rate came up and the
city was dealing with “Oh my gosh!  How are we going to repay
these debts and are we going to have to declare bankruptcy?”
Here’s the intervention that you made around Glass-Steagall and
the necessity of immediately instituting this kind of Franklin
Roosevelt policy.  So, this is testimony from July 24, 2012 at
the Detroit City Council.


:  My name is Bill Roberts.  I am running for
U.S. Congress, and I do so for the same reason I’m here today,
which is that if I were not here to say what I’m saying today, no
one would say it.  I’m calling on the Detroit City Council to
reject any cuts that endanger the lives of human beings, and
instead to publicly call for and fight for the reinstatement of
House Resolution 1489, the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall; which
both Congressmen from Detroit are co-sponsors of, to break up the
too-big-to-fail banks.  The reason why I bring this up today is
because it is clear that 75% of major cities enter into interest
rate swaps.  These interest rate swaps were rigged against cities
at the highest level; at the LIBOR — the London Inter-Bank
Offered Rate.  This is murder.  This is not insider trading; this
is murder.  It has resulted in cuts to departments that have
killed people.  There are people at the highest level involved in
this.  I call upon the Detroit City Council to stand up and have
the guts to tell the private bankers that they are going to jail.

OGDEN:  Now, within the next year, Detroit was forced to
declare bankruptcy under Rick Snyder and financial manager Kevyn
Orr.  And exactly one year later, in July of 2013, Lyndon
LaRouche went on record and was asked what has to be done to save
the city of Detroit, to save the entire industrial heartland, and
what kinds of solutions are on the table?  He talked about
Glass-Steagall, but he talked about an expanded Glass-Steagall
solution.  So, I’d like to just play this clip from Lyndon
LaRouche for you.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  What is the situation of the United States
in terms of its economic development over the period, say the
last really effective Presidency went down?  What happened,
particularly with two terms of the Bush family and this latest
phenomenon, is that the economy of the United States virtually
does not exist.  And that’s true in the case of the auto industry
in particular, which is the center of this whole thing with
Detroit, is the auto industry.  It’s not just the auto industry
in Michigan, nor is it in the northern states around Michigan.
It goes all the way through the entire system — north, south,
east and west.  The U.S. economy does no longer function!  And
there is no hope for this nation under the present conditions,
unless we change those conditions radically.  Therefore, we have
lost the auto industry.  Do you know how important the auto
industry was?  Do you know how important back in 2005 and so
forth when we fought to save the auto industry?  And I was
playing a leading part in that fight.  Do you realize what
happened when the auto industry went down?  Do you realize that
we no longer are a nation capable of meeting our own needs?  Look
at the food supply.  What’s the food supply of the United States?
How do parts of the farm area work?  Nothing works!  Especially
since George W Bush became President.  Since that point, there
has been a disintegration throughout Europe and throughout the
United States and other parts of the world.  We no longer have a
sustainable economy.  What we have is the possibility, with
special efforts, to revive the economy.
Now, what we’re going to have to do — we’ve got some people
in Detroit, for example.  They’re unemployed, essentially.  There
are few of them left in the other odd industries that they fled
into as machine tool specialists and so forth.  What we’re going
to do is create a new industry, based on the core of the skilled
people who can play a key leading part in assembling a
replacement for what used to be called the auto industry.  The
real name for the auto industry as it was since World War II, is
the machine tool industry; that’s its character.  So, our job is,
in the case of Detroit, you cannot solve this economic problem by
sitting there or by following some politician’s recipes.  What we
can do is seize control of the situation.  Only through
Glass-Steagall can we save the United States; otherwise the
United States is doomed without Glass-Steagall.  Because there is
no agriculture, there is no machine tool system, there is no
labor production of any significance; that’s it.  So therefore,
unless we get Glass-Steagall in, we will not be able to make an
immediate change from the kind of economy on which you’re
operating now, which is a hopeless failure.  By changing quickly
to bring agriculture back, to build up the water systems that we
need for feeding our people; all these things depend upon
Glass-Steagall.  Not just Glass-Steagall itself, but an expanded
version of Glass-Steagall.
Therefore, the issue is, unless we can seize the hands of
power in the United States and organize the government to behave
like the government, not like it’s been doing recently; and go in
there and put Glass-Steagall into effect quickly.  Having done
that, we’re going to have to — in addition to Glass-Steagall —
we’re going to have to create a credit system to supplement
Glass-Steagall in order to finance the things that have to be
built up in terms of production which are needed to restore this
nation.  Without those actions, there’s no hope.  You don’t have
a chance; there is no other option.  Grab the United States; put
it back to business as best you can, and use some innovation.
But above all, apply Glass-Steagall as I know how to do it; and
some other people also know.  The very fact that we restore the
confidence of the people in their own nation — that is, the
United States — by taking immediate action; which means large
amounts of fundraising and fund contributions to get farming and
industry back going immediately.  We have to have — just as
Roosevelt did during the period of the onset of the Depression,
his first years.  We had people; we put them to work.  They
weren’t really producing anything; they were stuck in there with
shovels and picks and so forth out in the streets.  They weren’t
really producing things, but they were there; and they had a job.
And they had the beginnings of a family income, and they had a
future.  That’s what Roosevelt gave them, and that’s what we now
have to give the people of the United States.  We cannot give
them much, because the friends of the Bush family have stolen so
much there’s not much left for real people.  But we can restart
the process of production; restart that; and that we can do.  And
that we {must} do.  Without Glass-Steagall, we cannot do it.
So, the lives of the people of the United States depend upon
Glass-Steagall.  And Glass-Steagall can only be delivered by
Glass-Steagall Plus.  Glass-Steagall Plus means that we’re going
to take the junk that is junk, and we’re going to cancel it.
Most of this banking crap is worthless; there’s no value in it.
So why are we continuing to bail it out in a hyperinflationary
rate?  We don’t need it.  Put the thing through processing, and
you will find that when you go through the paperwork, all these
banking systems, the Wall Street crowd, all of them; how much of
these things they claim they own are actually real?  I don’t know
if they could come out with a penny of it for a giant.  So
therefore the point is, we have to restore the United States; get
rid of this crap, and do what Franklin Roosevelt did.  It’s going
to be more difficult than what Franklin Roosevelt faced in his
time, but the principle is, we’ve got to do it.  That’s the
answer; we’ve got to do it and get the message across to the
people.  That’s the only thing; there is no other chance.  Forget
this Republican nonsense; they’re just wolves trying to find a
place to bark in.  But that’s the answer, and there is no other

OGDEN:  So, that was from 2013, but as you can see, that’s
the core of Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws; that’s the
entirety of the program.  That’s the kind of voice of authority
that we have to come into the scene with, and speak with that
kind of forcefulness, that kind of authority.  That’s exactly the
voice of Lyndon LaRouche that this constituency bloc can be
formed around.  As I said, what Trump tapped into — whether he
knew it or not — is indeed the LaRouche constituency there in
the heartland, in the industrial Midwest.
So, Bill, I just wanted to let you make some concluding
points, but this is the theme.  We can very rapidly take this
so-called Rust Belt and bring it into the Belt and Road
Initiative; and bring the New Paradigm of great projects into the
Midwest and awaken that kind of optimism.  So, Bill, I invite you
to just go ahead.

ROBERTS:  Well, I think what Lyn said right there is
absolutely key; that’s it.  People got brainwashed into thinking
that money is the key to wealth; that money is economy.  And Lyn
said “No. Cancel a lot of that money.  We don’t need the money.”
People said, “Cancel the money?  How can we do that?”  The point
is, you don’t need it, and what you need is, you need the machine
tool capability, you need the advanced farming, and you need the
things that go along with that.  I wish we would have had a
graphic in terms of where the funding goes in a national credit
system, because that’s really what he was addressing here.  But
the key is, you need the credit.  We can build everything we need
to.  The people, the “toolies” in these areas as they call them,
in these counties where people switched profile and voted for
Trump; they understand this.  They understand how what is central
to an economy; what is essential to a productive workforce.  The
issue is credit.  You don’t need Wall Street trying to make
11%-12% off of any money that they loose from their hands.  What
you need is to organize the credit; then the people can build the
economy.  You don’t need the straitjacket of this monetary
system.  In fact, if Trump doesn’t move against this Wall Street
financial bubble, this will bring the country down.  It’s a
ticking time bomb right now, waiting to go off; as William White
and others have said.  This thing is ready to go.  If this is not
moved against with the Glass-Steagall policy, we’re looking at a
complete and utter disaster.  But the good news is, we don’t need
it.  It’s simply that the American citizenry, the people watching
this today, have to take it as a personal challenge that we have
to create among these constituencies of the country, the notion
that there is a standard of competence for Federal office.  That
standard of competence is the comprehension of this principle;
this non-monetarist credit system principle that we have been
discussing today.
I guarantee that if you do that, people will listen.

OGDEN:  Well, let me put on the screen one more time “A
Campaign for Victory: The Campaign to Win the Future”.  This is
the electoral platform that LaRouche PAC has put out for 2018.
And Bill, you’re right in the middle of mobilizing the
constituencies there in the Midwest.  We need a national
mobilization to endorse this platform; not only candidates for
office, but Bill, as you said, the building trades, the labor
unions, the productive workers, the agricultural organizations.
These are the constituency bases that need to come to understand
this as principle.  The link is there on the screen:
LPAC.CO/YT2018.  This is the LaRouche PAC election platform for
We’ve got a lot of work to do, because it is our
responsibility to communicate what you just said, Bill.  This is
a non-monetarist principle; it means that you have to raise your
level of comprehension of what economics is really all about.
This is not monetarism, this is not Wall Street; this is a
question of what makes mankind a unique creative species, and how
is that reflected in national economic policy.  So, that’s what
is contained in the LaRouche PAC 2018 Campaign to Win the Future.
We ask you to join our mobilization; endorse this, and become a
part of what we’re doing nationally.  This is our strategy for
So Bill, thank you very much for joining me here today.
It’s good to hear from you; it’s good to hear what’s happening
out there in the Midwest, and we look forward to being in touch a
lot more.  I think we can look forward to a real mobilization.
So, thank you very much.
And thank you for tuning in to  Please stay
tuned; we have a lot of work to do, and we’ll see you next week.
Thank you.  Signing off, this is Matthew Ogden.  Good night.

»Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien
og Afrika« LaRouche PAC Internationale
Webcast 19. jan., 2018, med
Hussein Askary og Jason Ross, forfatterne
af Schiller Instituttets nye rapport

Vi har et helt særligt program i dag; med mig i studiet har jeg Jason Ross, og via video fra Sverige har jeg Hussein Askary. Jason og Hussein er begge medforfattere af en ny rapport, der netop er udgivet, med titlen, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.

(OBS! Se invitation til seminar i København 5. febr. med Hussein Askary)

[Bemærk: Der er mange billeder, der hver er separat nummererede af de forskellige talere; det er selvfølgelig bedst at se videoen, -red.]

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er 19. januar, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast fra

Vi har et helt særligt program i dag; med mig i studiet har jeg Jason Ross, og via video fra Sverige har jeg Hussein Askary. Jason og Hussein er begge medforfattere af en ny rapport, der netop er udgivet, med titlen, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.

Det bliver emnet for aftenens udsendelse; men før vi kommer til det, vil jeg gerne lægge ud med at sige, at LaRouche Political Action Committee har indledt en national kampagne for at sætte betingelserne for valgene 2018. Som I ser her, er titlen for vores kampagne »Kampagnen for at vinde fremtiden«, og det er titlen på en erklæring, der nu cirkuleres i hele landet. Erklæringens indhold fremlægger de politiske prioriteter, der vil bestemme udfaldet af valgene her i USA i år, med hensyn til dette lands overlevelse. Vi er i det indledende stadie for at indsamle underskrifter på denne erklæring, og vi opfordrer seerne, især her i USA, til at underskrive denne kampagne. URL ses her på skærmen, og I kan også få organisationer i valgkredsene, medlemmer af delstatskongresserne, siddende medlemmer af USA’s Kongres og i særdeleshed kandidater til offentligt (føderalt) embede, til at underskrive denne kampagne.

Indholdet af denne programerklæring er meget signifikant. Den kræver, at USA vedtager Lyndon LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love, dvs.: Vedtag Glass-Steagall for at rejse en brandmur mellem kommerciel, produktiv bankaktivitet og spekulativ bankaktivitet på Wall Street; for det andet, at indføre et nationalbanksystem (statsligt banksystem) i Alexander Hamiltons tradition; for det tredje, brug billioner af dollar i føderal (statslig) kredit til at løfte det amerikanske folk og for at skabe produktiv beskæftigelse på det højeste og mest avancerede teknologiske niveau; og for det fjerde, sæt et forceret program i gang, der går i retning af udvikling af fusionskraft og udvidelsen af bemandet rumfart.

Det er meget, meget vigtigt, at vi har indledt denne kampagne nu, for vi går nu ind i de sidste 11-dages nedtælling fra nu og frem til præsident Trumps State of the Union-tale den 30. jan. Indholdet af dette politiske programforslag må være bestemmende for præsidentskabets politiske program her i USA. Som I ser, er vore to punkter på dagsordenen 1) Vedtag Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, og 2) Gå med i den Nye Silkevej.

Det bliver emnet for vores diskussion i dag. For de seere, der evt. ikke ved det, så blev ideen om den Nye Silkevej først udarbejdet af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche i 1980’erne. Det var den daværende Eurasiske Landbro for at udvikle det eurasiske kontinents indlandsområder, som forbinder Øst og Vest. Det blev til den Nye Silkevej og blev kaldt således af præsident Xi Jinping i Kina, da han i 2013 vedtog dette. Det udviklede sig så til Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som var en forbindelse mellem den landbaserede Silkevej og udviklingen af en Maritim Silkevej.

Gennem LaRouche-bevægelsens lederskab udvides dette nu til ikke blot en eurasisk Ny Silkevej, men en Verdenslandbro, der omfatter alle Jordens kontinenter, inklusive Vesteuropa, Central- og Sydamerika, Nordamerika og for vores udsendelse her i dag i særdeleshed, Afrika.

Udviklingen af Afrika har ligesom været en slags lakmusprøve for menneskeheden i dag: Kina har taget denne udfordring op og har bestået prøven og sat standarden, som resten af verden må følge. Vi har set dette inspirere andre nationer, og for nylig har vi haft et meget signifikant gennembrud med den franske præsident Emmanuel Macrons besøg i Kina, hvor han mødtes med præsident Xi Jinping og erklærede, at Frankrig favner billedet af udvikling af verden gennem den Nye Silkevej, inklusive, at Frankrig ønsker at arbejde sammen med Kina om Afrikas udvikling. Dette er måske en bodsgang for Frankrigs kolonialistiske imperiefortid, men det, præsident Macron havde at sige, var meget signifikant.

Som I ser, så holdt han en meget signifikant tale i Xi’an, og i denne tale diskuterede han, hvad Kina har gjort for at udvikle Afrika og for at løfte 700 millioner af sin egen befolkning ud af fattigdom, og at Frankrig nu må imødekomme opfordringen til at deltage i denne udvikling, især udviklingen i Afrika, i partnerskab med Kina. Her følger et par citater af, hvad præsident Macron havde at sige:

»Det er lykkedes Kina i de seneste par årtier at løfte 700 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom … Men jeg tænker også på Afrika. Kina har i de seneste par år investeret stort i infrastruktur og råmaterialer med en finansiel styrke, som europæiske lande ikke har. Samtidig har Frankrig historisk og kulturel viden om Afrika, som giver det mange aktiver for fremtiden.

Vi må ikke gentage fortidens fejltagelser, med at skabe politisk og finansiel afhængighed under påskud af udvikling … det turde være unødvendigt at sige, at denne udvikling kun vil ske i fællesskab … Frankrig har erfaringen med en ensidig imperialisme i Afrika, der undertiden har ført til det værste, og i dag, med disse nye Silkeveje, der åbner op … Jeg mener, at partnerskabet mellem Frankrig og Kina kan gøre det muligt at undgå en gentagelse af disse fejltagelser … Det er en moralsk udfordring, og jeg håber oprigtigt, at vi kan imødekomme den sammen … Det enorme arbejde, der gøres med infrastruktur og økonomisk udvikling, vil give et nyt ansigt til disse nye Silkeveje på det afrikanske kontinent.«

Som præsident Macron sagde, »det er en moralsk udfordring«; og nu får Afrika, der har været et af de mest underudviklede, fejlernærede, forarmede og tilbagestående steder på planeten, muligheden for en renæssance og for at blive et knudepunkt for udvikling for hele dette område af planeten.

Som jeg sagde, så er titlen på aftenens udsendelse »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika«, og jeg vil lade Jason Ross introducere jer til Hussein Askary, og vi kan diskutere indholdet af denne specialrapport, der netop er udgivet.

Jason Ross: Jeg tror, vi skal gå direkte til Hussein nu. Hussein Askary har arbejdet i området i mange år. Han er den, der oversatte EIR’s Specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen« til arabisk og lancerede denne oversættelse i Kairo på et møde med den egyptiske transportminister.

Hussein har arbejdet meget på dette. Sammen har vi skrevet denne 274-siders rapport, I ser her. I kan få en kopi af denne rapport på Amazon og direkte gennem vores site også, [LPAC.CO/ExtendedSilkRoad], I ser linket her for neden, for at få en kopi.

Og hermed, lad os høre fra Hussein.


(Her følger et engelsk udskrift af resten af udsendelsen).

HUSSEIN ASKARY:  Thank you, Jason and Matt.  I’m very happy
to be on this show.  The writing of this report, actually, which
took us several months last year, together with you, Jason, and a
great team of collaborators in the Schiller Institute, it was a
bit of a paradox, because we were writing this report from the
standpoint of the future, and therefore the tone is optimism in
the report.   But at the same time, when you look at the news
from Southwest Asia, which people wrongly call the “Middle East,”
and Africa,  the news that these regions are, you know,
hell-holes and people are fleeing from there by tens of
thousands, there’s famines, there’s wars, and all kinds of
things.  But, if you keep digging your feet into that so-called
“reality,” which is artificially created by geopolitics, you will
never come out and you will never be able to think clearly to
solve the problem.
And therefore, as Lyndon LaRouche always says, it’s the
future that determines the present.  It’s our vision of the
future which gives us the inspiration and the means of thinking
to change our behavior today.  And this is something which we
hope that with this report, too, and all the other campaigns we
are having, to change the minds of people, and of leadership,
whether it’s in the United States or Europe, or Southwest Asia,
or Africa — anywhere.
At the same time, we are not naïve, we are not in the ivory
tower, sitting and drawing nice baths, but this is a very
scientific study, based on LaRouche’s idea of physical economy,
but also they are philosophical and humanist principles
throughout this whole report and the project we are designing,
which goes both humanist Christian tradition and also the
Confucian humanist Chinese tradition.  We have provided for the
readers of this report, a complete picture of what are the tools
needed, whether physically, or intellectually, scientifically and
morally, to be able to reach this future we are outlining in the
And we are not simply just reporting on “great things” that
have already happened, that China is doing, but we are drawing a
map towards the future: A future which Lyndon LaRouche already,
more than 30 years ago, when the African Union published the
Lagos Plan of Action for the development of Africa, he criticized
the reaction to that policy by saying that you cannot adhere to
the existing financial and economic and moral policies of the
existing order, and at the same time achieve the development
goals of Africa.  You have to have a complete shift.  And that
shift is what Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the president of the Schiller
Institute now says is the New Paradigm, the New Paradigm which
has been launched by China and its partners in the BRICS, Russia
and other nations, and many more nations are joining.
Now, if we look at the first slide, the Silk Road, this is
what Matt said in terms of our development of the idea — the
LaRouches’ development of the idea of the World Land-Bridge, to
bring all the continents together.  Now, the New Silk Road is
already reaching West Asia and Africa.  Egypt has been building
the new Suez Canal to adapt to the Maritime Silk Road, and the
other nations, like Ethiopia, Kenya, and others are already in
collaboration and new railway systems have been built.  So
already on the ground, that’s taking place.
But what is needed is a larger vision which we provide.
Now, also we have to reverse many of the old policies which have
been followed, which have kept Africa impoverished, such as, for
more than 200 years, Africa has been considered by the European
colonialists and their partners across the Atlantic, as a looting
ground — whether it is slavery, whether it is raw materials,
plantations, and so on.  And unfortunately, after World War II,
the vision of Franklin Roosevelt was not implemented, because he
died before the end of the war, and a wholly new type of
creatures took over in the United States.  And the United States
also, with the “special relationship” with the British Empire
became a partner in the looting of Africa. And companies we have,
like Anglo American, which is a corporation called Anglo
American, very active in mining in Africa — I mean, the name
tells you all about it.
But we just take a look at what has been happening in Africa
in at least the last 10-15 years, the attitude,  — that’s what
is fascinating with the New Paradigm — the attitude of Europe
and the United States toward Africa has always been that “Africa
is a problem,” while the Chinese see Africa as an “opportunity.”
Therefore, the focus by Europe and the United States, while they
were looting the continent, were just pushing aid programs.  Now,
the slide we have, number 2, here, is the “Foreign Direct
Investments in Africa,” where we see the United States is the
blue line on the top, and China is the red line, which is
increasing steadily.  The United States, something funny happened
in 2008 — there was the financial/economic crisis — then you
have a dip in investments in Africa, but also what happens in the
United States is that the first African-American President is
elected.  And you see, from 2009, U.S. investments in Africa
completely collapsed and came down to zero by 2015, while the
Chinese investments increased.
Now, there’s a flip side to this argument, is because most
of the U.S. investments in Africa are in the oil and mining
sector. And with the collapse of the oil and mining prices, there
was no more interest; and Mr. Obama also launched the largest
fracking operation on Earth in the United States, to make the
United States the biggest producers of fossil fuels in the world.
But China’s investments continued all the same.
In the next slide, number 3, we see the level of investments
by the Export Import Banks of the United States on the one hand,
which is the blue line which is completely dead, on the bottom;
the United States does not issue credit for exports any more to
Africa.  But then we have the China Exim Bank increasing its
investments, and more interestingly, is that the World Bank,
which is the top, and you see where the failure of Western policy
in Africa has been: The World Bank has been investing more than
China in Africa, but it’s a completely misdirected investment.
It’s on tiny, tiny, small programs, there is no financing of
large-scale infrastructure as China does; there are no
transformative projects, and no new technology.
In the next slide, we can see we have a lot of hypocrisy,
saying that the Chinese want to come into Africa to loot African
natural resources, and this image, number 4, shows a very clear
picture that it is actually the United States and the Western
countries, but with the United States, the investments in Africa
have been mostly in the mining sector and the Chinese investments
have been very diversified, in construction, manufacturing,
mining, and others, such as agriculture, for example.
We can see also, the next slide, is Britain.  Now, China is
the largest, and people think, is not the largest investor in
Africa, yet.  It’s the United States and Britain which have been
the biggest investors in Africa.  But as we showed the United
States is mostly interested in mining, energy, and metals; and
here we have Britain, you can see the last 10 years of
investments. [“U.K. Foreign Direct Investment Positions in
Africa, 2005-2014”]  And the last two columns in the breakdown
into types of investments: The red one is mining, and the light
blue is in the financial sector, which is also looting Africa’s
financial resources.
So that’s really the picture. And in the final slide in this
group, number 5, we have where the investments of the Import
Export Banks have gone:  The United States has 71% of all loans
from the Exim Bank, although it has been very, very little, but
70% of it is in the mining sector; while China, the greatest
chunk of the Exim Bank investments has been in the transportation
sector.  And of course, there’s mining and energy,
communications, water, and other — very, very important sectors
for Africa’s development.
Now, what we have, in addition to this looting of Africa, we
have the hypocrisy which is very rampant in the West, like in
Europe and the United States, that “we have to help Africa.” Now,
when they talk about “helping Africa” is simply very small relief
projects to keep things as they are.  And they usually talk about
“sustainable development.”  Now, “sustainable development” does
not mean that you build modern technology, technologies that we
have in the United States or in Europe, whether it’s in transport
or power generation; it is absolutely forbidden to support roads,
railways, nuclear power, hydropower — there is nothing like
that.  What they are proposing is simply, as President Obama, as
we show in one of the slides, when he went to Africa, his idea,
he had projects called “Power Africa,” for power generation in
Africa, and we looked at the numbers and you know, the goal of
Obama’s Power Africa is to keep Africa exactly as it is, with
very, very slight changes here and there.  And also what was
being proposed was this idea of using solar energy, which
everybody knows is not efficient to have a modern, industrialized
So this has been a real problem in dealing with Africa.  And
as we have seen, that China has completely different idea about
Africa —

ROSS:  Hussein, why don’t we switch over to a clip we have
of President Obama explaining what he thinks about African energy

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  It’s going to be your generation
that suffers the most.  Ultimately, if you think about all the
youth that everybody’s mentioned here in Africa, if everybody’s
raising living standards to the point where everybody’s got a
car, and everybody’s got air conditioning and everybody’s got a
big house, well, the planet will boil over. [end video]

ROSS:  That was President Obama in South Africa.

ASKARY:  And in fact, that’s really revealing, because
that’s his soul speaking, because they consider human beings as a
burden.  Now, the United Nations statistics say that by 2050, the
bulk of the world’s population growth will take place in Africa.
And of the additional 2.5 billion new people, projected to be
born between 2015 and 2050, 1.3 billion will be added in Africa,
which means Africa’s population will reach about 3 billion
people.  Now, for Obama and the Malthusians this is a huge
problem.  But for China, this is a great opportunity!
And if we look, in 2015, which is very interesting, a
complete contrast with what Obama’s saying, when President Xi
Jinping went to South Africa, the same place where Obama was
speaking, in December 2015 at the Forum on China-Africa
Cooperation (FOCAC), this is slide number 10, President Xi
Jinping said something very interesting, which is really the
spirit of the New Paradigm: What he told the African leaders is,
I quote, “Industrialization is an inevitable path to a country’s
economic success.  Within a short span of several decades, China
has accomplished what took developed countries hundreds of years
to accomplish and put in place a complete industrial system with
an enormous productive capacity.” And then he continues and says,
“It is entirely possible for Africa, as the world’s most
promising region in terms of development potential, to bring into
play its advantages and achieve great success.  The achievement
of inclusive and sustainable development within Africa, hinges on
industrialization, which holds the key to creating jobs,
eradicating poverty, and improving people’s living standards.”
Now, wow!  What a contrast!  President Xi Jinping said that
by using modern technology as scientific development, we have
achieved miracles in China and this really applies to Africa,
too, as developing nations.  And he means it.  So the Chinese now
have turned the whole idea of :sustainable development” upside
down.  What people think in Europe and the United States about
sustainable development means, pumps for water, the small solar
panels — no!  China’s talking about [industrialization] and it’s
also the latest, the state-of-the-art technology available.
Because this is also interesting from a economic-scientific
standpoint, because what China experienced that instead of going
back to square one, going back to the industrialization process
where the United States and Europe started, with the steam engine
— no, you start not with that, you start with the best
technology available today, and that’s high-speed railway for
example.  The same thing applies to Africa.

ROSS:  You know, Hussein, you and I were both at a
conference in November in Germany, in Bad Soden, and one of the
speakers there was a Chinese professor He Wenping, who gave some
talks about Chinese approach towards Africa.  And since you’re
bringing up what China’s policy is, why don’t run a short clip of
what she had to say, to hear it from a Chinese person directly?

DR. HE WINPING:  But now, I think One Belt, One Road is
entering 2.0 version–that is, now facing all the countries in
the world. As President Xi Jinping mentioned to the Latin
American countries, “you are all welcome to join the Belt and
Road.” In the Chinese “40 Minutes,” Xi said, all the African
continent is now on the map of the One Belt, One Road, the whole
African continent, especially after the May Belt and Road Summit
in Beijing had taken place. …
China’s One Belt, One Road initiative is relevant to
countries, their own development strategy. For example, Ethiopia.
Ethiopia has now been named as the “next China” on the African
continent. It’s not my invention, these words–many scholars have
been published talking about which country in Africa is going to
be the China in Africa, which means, developing faster! Faster
and leading other countries forward. Most of them refer to
Ethiopia has now reached an GDP growth rate, last year, as
high as 8%…
So very quickly, let’s move to Africa. In Africa, we have
commitment, that is the FOCAC, the full name is the Forum on
China-Africa Cooperation. This forum was established in 2000, and
every three years there is a FOCAC meeting. The FOCAC meeting in
2015 took place in Johannesburg, South Africa. In that meeting,
President Xi Jinping joined the meeting, put forward ten
cooperation plans, and pledged the money–as high as $60
billion–to cover all ten areas: industrialization, agriculture,
infrastructure, finance, environmental protection, and more.
The Belt and Road is very good for Africa’s job creation. A
lot of money has been earmarked to use for the industrialization
of Africa. Let me just highlight in my last two minutes, the two
areas, like two engines–like in an airplane, if you want to take
off, you need two engines: One is industrialization, another is
infrastructure. Without good infrastructure, there’s no basis for
industrialization–short of electricity, short of power, short of
roads, and then it’s very hard to make industry take off.
We have done a lot. Africa now is rising. Before, Africa was
regarded as a hopeless continent, more than 15 years ago. But
now, with kite flying over, now it’s Africa’s rising time….
Just to show you another infrastructure map: the Mombasa to
Nairobi railway that was just finished at the end of May. We are
going to build the second phase, from Nairobi all the way to
Malaba in Uganda, and then that’s an East African Community
network. When this railway was finished–this is President Uhuru
Kenyatta, saying this laid the foundation for industrialization.
This shows people celebrating this railway connection, and this
shows a man holding a paper saying “Comfortable, convenient, very
soft, safe, and very beautiful.” And here, very beautiful at 100
years old, a grandmother. [applause] [end video]

ASKARY:  Yes, that’s the spirit, that’s the spirit of things
that are happening in Africa, which is fantastic.  But it’s also
a certain projection of the happiness of the Chinese people and
their leadership in what they have achieved in their own country.
So China’s saying, we have done this ourselves, you can do it,
and we are committed to offering you everything we have achieved,
so you can also achieve yours.  It’s a win-win policy:  It’s good
for you, it’s good for us.
It’s completely different from what we have seen in the
Western policy, which hopefully will change — what we mentioned
about President Macron, what he had said is really shocking for
me, too. And you see that the New Paradigm, it changes people’s
souls.  And this is very, very important that we are becoming
more human than before, with these great achievements
So in any case, what we do in this report is, we took for
example, if you look at slide 12, this is a map which the African
Union put together in the Lagos Plan of Action in 1982.  But
nothing has been done.  This is for highways.  Now, we don’t
prefer to have trucks travelling 10,000km from north to south; we
prefer more high-speed railway, standard gauge railways, and so
on.  But this is the kind of vision which existed, but it was
never implemented.
Our vision of connecting the whole African continent, and
also with the so-called Middle East, that this could be done now.
We also believe that the Chinese intention is the same: To
integrate all of the African nations, the populations and the
natural resources of these nations, and utilize them for the
development of Africa itself.  Now, in 2014, which is my next
slide [slide 13], the Prime Minister of China, Li Keqiang, went
on a tour in Africa.  This picture is his meeting with the
leaders of the East African Community, which Professor He Wenping
just mentioned in her speech in the video you showed.  He told
the African leaders that China’s intention is to help connect all
the African capitals with high-speed railway.  One interesting
thing which the Africans themselves say, is that when the Chinese
want to do something here economically, when they want to help,
they are not like the Europeans.  The President of Uganda said,
they don’t come here with lessons in democracy; they come here to
build things, they are not lecturing us.  This is very
interesting because China is not imposing anything on any nation.
It’s inviting others and offering its capabilities.  This was in
May 2014, and in just three years, we have the first standard
gauge railway which is in the next slide [slide 14]; Uhuru
Kenyatta, very proud, inaugurating the railway from Mombasa to
Kenya.  There was a British line which was called the Lunatic
train, which was very slow, but it was designed to loot African
wealth.  And also the Djibouti to Addis Ababa railway was built,
also in three years in record time, and so on and so forth.  So,
China is winning African hearts and minds by doing these
investments, but doing them in record time and with no
conditionalities involved.
In addition of course, some of the mega-projects which we
are demanding be built and encouraging being built in Africa with
China’s help, for example we have in slide 15 the Transaqua
Project, which is an Italian-designed project to both refill Lake
Chad, which is drying up and threatening 30 million people’s
lives with drought.  To bring just 5% of the water of the
tributaries of the Congo River to Lake Chad through an artificial
canal.  But at the same time, connect East and West Africa with
railway and roads to open these countries, which are Rwanda,
Burundi, and Eastern Congo, the Central African Republic, Chad,
and so on.  These nations need outlets to world markets and also
to import useful machines and so on.  So, we have been
propagating, as the Schiller Institute, for many years and trying
to get the European Union and the United States to support this
project; but they rejected it.  Now China is proposing to start
looking at this project, and a Memorandum of Understanding was
signed with the Lake Chad Commission to have a feasibility study
of this project; which is a huge project, but it will transform
large parts of Africa, not because of the water itself, but
because of the old infrastructure involved in the central part of
Africa.  The next slide [slide 15] outlines the impact area of
this whole project.  It will create massive agro-industrial
centers in that part of Africa which is suffering the most.  The
biggest migration from Africa is from these regions into Europe.
But instead of having all those young people drowning in the
Mediterranean, trying to flee to Europe looking for a decent
life, they can stay in their countries now and build their
countries by giving them the tools to do that.
Of course, there are also other projects, but what’s
interesting about the Belt and Road is that it’s also inspiring,
not just helping countries, but inspiring countries to undertake
plans which have been dormant for many years.  But now the time
has come; for example, the new Suez Canal project.  There is also
connecting to Europe from Morocco, which is the next slide [slide
16]; building a tunnel under the Strait of Gibraltar, connecting
Morocco and Spain; and building a high-speed railway, the first
high-speed railway in Africa is being built now in Morocco.
There are new ports being built, and also a scientific,
industrial city being built in cooperation with China.  We have
another connection between Africa and Europe; we have still not
given up on Europe.  We want Europe to its and technological
potential to contribute to this project and help itself by
contributing to Africa’s development.  We have the Sicily to
Tunis tunnel and bridge connection to connect North Africa also
to Europe; this is a mega-project, and so on and so forth.  We
have also the Grand Inga Dam which China is now interested in
building on the Congo River, which will produce a huge amount of
hydropower — 40,000MW of power — which is twice as big as the
biggest dam in the world which the Chinese built in China; the
Three Gorges Dam.  The Inga Dam, or series of dams, will be twice
as big as the Chinese Three Gorges Dam, and a Chinese company has
made an offer to the government of the Democratic Republic of
Congo; and there’s also a counterbid by a Spanish company.
People should read the report; they should look at all the
content and try to understand it with a completely new eye.  The
eye of the New Paradigm, which I think is very important.  In
conclusion, what I wanted to say initially, is that as we have in
the last slide [slide 19] is this region which people call the
Middle East; we call is Southwest Asia.  It has been a horrific
scene for the worst results of geopolitics and power politics.
Regime change in Libya; regime change in Iraq; attempted regime
change in Syria supporting terrorist groups.  We have a horrible
war in Yemen which should end immediately.  It’s the worst
humanitarian catastrophe in the world right now, taking place in
Yemen.  You look at this region and say “How could this region
get out of this Hell?”  This is what Helga Zepp-LaRouche said:
This year we should kill geopolitics.  We should end geopolitics.
The idea that nations have to undermine other nations; that
nations are in competition with each other; that you have to
weaken your adversaries; you have to undermine them, you have to
kill them, you have to ruin their economy, destroy their
infrastructure, so you can become a winner.  That ideology is not
really human.  This has to end now and be replaced by the
“win-win” idea, which is the more human kind of idea.  The
potential for enormous development exists in this region.  It’s
the crossroads of the continents.  Both the Belt and the Road
pass through there.  Forty percent of world trade passes through
there.  You have natural resources, you have human resources, you
have rivers; you have every element necessary to have a massive
development process in this region, which will be the basis for
establishing peace among the nations of this region and also the
big powers.  If the United States joins Russia and China in
developing this region, this would be the biggest test for
mankind.  Of course, Africa is very important, but we have things
happening in Africa.  But, we still have a horrible situation in
Southwest Asia, which can lead into new and maybe bigger wars
than before.  Therefore, I think what Helga is saying that if we
use the Belt and Road idea, the idea of “win-win”, to crush
geopolitics, this would be victory not only for the countries of
this region; this will be a victory for all humankind.

ROSS:  Absolutely!  It’s a victory for a concept of mankind.
One example that comes to mind is Yemen.  Yemen is under constant
Saudi bombardment; they’ve been victims of a war by the Saudis
for some time now.  Yemen has a very powerful movement within it
for integration with the BRICS; a real sense of “Hey!  Even
though our conditions right now are what they are, this is our
future; and we’ve got to have that future in mind.  That’s what
we’re going to make happen.”
You think about the economic potential of Africa, and as you
said, it’s so clear, it’s so obvious the economic potential in
West Asia and Africa.  Geopolitics is what has prevented this
development.  It’s not that Africa didn’t get the help that it
needed; China is showing that it’s an obvious thing to do.  It
was a deliberate decision to prevent development and to hold
Africa back for the purposes — as you described — of looting.
A couple of examples that you brought up, just to bring out the
contrast a little bit more: You brought up the Grand Inga Dam
which would be located in the Democratic Republic of Congo; one
of the poorest, most energy-poor per capita, very low energy
availability.  It’s got the perfect site for a hydroelectric dam
complex, making enough electricity for tens of millions of
people.  The World Bank pulls out funding on it, because it’s a
big project which of course, they’re not going to touch because
it would have a major development impact.
What I’d like to actually show is another voice from Africa.
Professor He Wenping had mentioned that Ethiopia is sort of the
China of Africa, and other African diplomats will say this as
well; that Addis Ababa is sort of the unofficial capital of
Africa.  I don’t know if everyone in Africa agrees with that.
But I’d like to hear from Dr. Alexander Demissie, who also spoke
at the Schiller Institute conference in November, and hear from
him from a direct African perspective, what the impact of Chinese
investment has been and what the future can be in Africa.
DR. ALEXANDER DEMISSIE:  So today, what I’m trying to
discuss with you, or to present to you, is what is actually this
Belt and Road Initiative and how is that connected to Africa?
What kind of long-term impacts when we talk about the Belt and
Road Initiative and Africa?
So, this is a map [Fig. 1] I always present when I do
presentations, and I ask people, “What do you see here?”  It’s a
very simple question.  But what do you see here?  Yes, you should
see something.  So, it’s a rhetorical question; I’m not expecting
you to answer me.  But it takes usually several minutes until
people realize what they see here.  You see the absence of the
American continent; that’s what you see here.  The absence of the
American continent.  By saying this, you see that the Belt and
Road Initiative, the Chinese version of the Belt and Road
Initiative, is absolutely Eurasian-oriented; meaning that
starting in China, it is primarily Eurasian-oriented.  The idea
of the Belt and Road Initiative — probably even your idea back
in the ’70s — is the Land-Bridge that we have been discussing
yesterday and today.  Within this picture or map, you will see
also Africa.  Africa is prominent, Africa is not entirely in the
center, but on the left side; and it should be part of the Belt
and Road idea.  It’s primarily an infrastructural undertaking, so
the Belt and Road Initiative we don’t have yet political
institutionalization.  We have infrastructural ideas, we have
corridors; but we don’t have yet political institutions.  If we
talk about the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank or the Silk
Road Bank, these are just connected to infrastructure; they are
not political ideas.  And interestingly, this idea fits perfectly
into the current African needs.  What are the current African
needs?  The current Africa need is infrastructure development.
Africa wants infrastructure and the aspiration — I’m going back
here to the Agenda 2063, that has also coincidentally been coming
up 2013 together with the Belt and Road Initiative.  Africa wants
a good infrastructure connection, a good internal
interconnectivity.  So, the idea coming from China is perfectly
fitting into the idea actually happening or discussed within the
Africa continent.
We see now an actor coming in.  China is an actor coming in
and literally taking or doing part of those needed works.  This
is a huge — at least from the African perspective — this is a
huge plus for many African countries.  The idea of the Belt and
Road Initiative, which is actually coming only in 2013; we see
that it is helping what has been taking place on the continent
between China and African countries since the year 2000.  We see
this that China has clearly declared that they would like to see
Chinese-African cooperation moving into development of highways,
regional aviation networks, or industrialization.  Also we see
that China has been given a lot of clarity to the African Union’s
infrastructure development for Africa.  This program has
approximately 51 different programs, and this is translated into
400 different physical projects.  I speak about ports, and
streets, and telecommunication lines, whatever you require for a
nation to function, or for a continent to function.
What we see in Africa now is that since at least two years,
there is a growing corridorization in the China-Africa
relationship.  As corridorization, I mean that not single
countries are any more important, but entire regions are becoming
more important for China.  This is a huge departure from a
single, bilateral country-based approach towards corridor
development.  If you look at Africa corridors, the map on the
right [Fig. 2], we see right now as we speak today, there are
around 33 different corridors that have either been developed, or
are under development, or are thought out and need to be
developed.  Corridors do nothing else than combine two different
areas, and by doing so also creating a development initiative, a
development paradigm.
Let’s go to East Africa.  So now, this is Africa; I’m aware
that the plans for these things have been in the drawer for a
long time.  We know also that a lot of American research
institutes played a very good role in creating those plans in the
’50s and ’60s, especially in Ethiopia.  The Grand Renaissance Dam
that is being built in Ethiopia, goes back to American scientists
that have been creating those ideas in the ’60s.  It’s being
built already now.  So, a lot of ideas in East Africa have been
already on the table for decades, but no one was able or willing
to pay for it.  But now a lot of money is coming out of China, so
these infrastructure — and how this can change the life of the
people is easily described.  The transportation of cargo from the
Djibouti port to Addis Ababa used to take three days.  Now, with
the train, it’s already 10 hours.  So now we can imagine what
kind of economic activity will happen to this one corridor
development, or one infrastructure within this community. [end

ROSS:  I just wanted to read another short excerpt from
Alexander Demissie.  Towards the end of his presentation, he
said, “The problem as I see it, is that the traditional partners
are still in the old paradigm of thinking.  They still think with
traditional assumptions.  Africa is seen as an aid-dependent
continent; not a continent full of opportunities.  It is still
seen with the wrong mindset.  This is one of the biggest
problems, and it has to change.”
So, I think our report does a very thorough job of
addressing the whole gamut of issues here.  What the historical
errors have been, or not errors, but cruelties or injustices that
have occurred towards Africa, towards Southwest Asia with the use
of geopolitics, with the use of looting rather than development.
As well as what some of the ideas are today that hold back the
potential for development.  The ways that environmentalism is
used; the ways that there shouldn’t be any net growth of the
human species are used.  This is the basis, for example, for the
World Bank refusing any loans to coal or to large hydro plants.
But you’re not going to develop a continent with solar panels, as
much as Obama might have wanted to have done that.
The other issues are in regards to economics.  That there is
this prevailing and totally wrong view about economics that looks
for financial returns as being the metric; as opposed to going
beyond GDP and saying how are we changing life expectancies?  How
are we changing productive potential?  What’s the long-term value
of helping a nation to develop in a partnership?  This is the
sort of thing.  So, the report goes through all of this; it goes
through what the specific projects are that are needed.  It goes
through something that’s very important for policymakers — how
to finance it.  How the hopes of trying to get investment, of
trying to get loans from private banks for these big projects;
it’s simply not going to fly.  The use of national banking, as
China has done both domestically as well as with its ExIm Bank
with these two large rail projects in Africa in particular in
Kenya and the Addis Ababa to Djibouti railroad.
So, I think we’ve heard from China, we’ve heard from
Southwest Asia, we’ve heard from Africa.  Let me ask you,
Hussein, if you have any words that you would like to direct
towards our American viewers.  What would you tell Americans?
What should we be doing?

ASKARY:  Exactly!  I had also in mind to say that, because
we need to hear from Americans.  I don’t think it’s a good idea
that the United States is not on the map of the Belt and Road;
but I think a different United States should be involved.  I’m
very sure that if President Franklin Roosevelt, President
Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King must be very happy now for what
is now already starting to happen in Africa.  They might feel
sorry for the lost time, but I’m sure they are happy.  Americans
should look back at that best of American tradition and work with
ideas of Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche PAC and LaRouche’s
associates, because the United States will not become great again
with the team that President Trump has.  America will be great
again with the ideas that the LaRouche PAC, the ideas of Franklin
Roosevelt, the Hamiltonian idea of a national credit system,
rather than depending on Wall Street.  These things will make
America great again, but it also will help the United States to
have a completely different policy in the world; which will make
the people around the world see the United States with completely
different eyes.  Right now, the United States is not so liked
around the world; not because of Trump, but because of previous
administrations’ war policies, their hypocrisy.  As you showed in
Obama’s case, their policies would lead to genocide.  So, the
United States is not really a popular country around the world,
but this can shift.  In order for that shift to happen, there
should be a shift inside the United States in the mind and the
soul of the American people.  I’m sure the kind of work you are
doing in LaRouche PAC would help greatly.

OGDEN:  And that’s exactly what we are doing with this
campaign to win the future statement.  As I said in the beginning
of the show, we’re initiating a national mobilization to bring
together all of the constituent layers — regardless of party,
political orientation — around a vision of economic development
for the United States and for the world.  If you just imagine the
kind of way that the world could be transformed in the next 15 or
20 years with what China has begun doing in Africa; something
that people thought was impossible.  They just disregarded Africa
and said well, this is just where you’re going to have
impoverishment and backwardness.  Now, this could seriously
become a hub of development for the planet.  But take that and
extend it across the Bering Strait into the Americas; have a rail
link between Eurasia and North America.  Then imagine an entire
development corridor down through the central part of North
America, through the heartland, the farm country in the Midwest;
down through Mexico, across the Darien Gap into Central and South
America.  Then also, extend the Maritime Silk Road to the
Caribbean.  That vision of what could happen in the Western
Hemisphere is the extension of the sort of optimism that you now
see China bringing to Africa.
So, as I said, I think it’s the great moral test.  Emmanuel
Macron was absolutely right; he said it’s a moral challenge what
the nations of the world do to collaborate to bring development
to the African continent.  I think we can be very happy that it’s
because of the leadership over decades of the LaRouche movement,
of you Hussein.  What you’ve been doing; what you did to
collaborate with Jason to put together this extraordinary Special
Report.  I know that this is being listened to in the highest
levels of power across the African continent and in Southwest
Asia; we have evidence of that.  The invitation that you
received, Hussein, from the Egyptian Transportation Ministry, and
other examples.  So, we have to proceed with that kind of
confidence that we are, indeed, shaping the policy for the
So, let me put on the screen one more time; this is the
vision of an economic renaissance — this is the Special Report
that Jason and Hussein collaborated in authoring.  That is
available; you can find the link to that on the screen here —
LPAC.CO/ExtendedSilkRoad.  It’s a very thorough, book-length
Special Report.  This is something that is not just important for
the African leaders and for China.  This is something that is
very important for the United States.  This is something that we
should be considering when we talk about what is US foreign
policy, and those disgraceful graphics about the plummeting of US
investment into Africa over the course of the last eight years
during the Obama administration.  That needs to be reversed; and
it needs to be reversed by bringing the United States and China
into a “win-win” collaboration for the development of these
We are going to proceed with this campaign to win the
future.  And we’re asking you to endorse this, to join our
mobilization, and to make sure that this becomes the policy
parameter for the 2018 election.  None of the melodrama, not the
soap operas, not all of the secondary and tertiary issues.  These
are the questions which will determine the future of the United
States and the survival of our country and what our role is in
respect to this New Paradigm that we’ve just been discussing on
the show today.
So, again, we have 11 days between now and President Trump’s
State of the Union address.  We are putting these two items on
the agenda.  The United States must adopt LaRouche’s Four
Economic Laws, and the United States must join the New Silk Road.
So, Hussein, is there anything that you want to say in
conclusion before we end this show today?  Any special messages
for our viewers, both in the United States and internationally?

ASKARY:  I think it’s a great opportunity for people now to
get this report, take to themselves the scientific, even
philosophical and other ideas that are in the report which are
necessary.  As you said, it’s for everyone; it’s not only for
Africans.  I think the main target of the report should be
Europeans and Americans, because we need these kinds of ideas
more than at any time before.  We have problems here in Europe
with the infrastructure, with unemployment.  You have massive
problems in the United States.  You need to have these ideas for
your own sake, too; but there is enormous potential that exists
in Europe and the United States that could be revived.  But that
has to be done in the right way; and the right way was outlined
by Mr. LaRouche, but we put it in very clear terms in this
report.  I hope people will get the report and learn something
and push the policymakers in the United States to also do the

OGDEN:  Wonderful.  Thank you very much, Hussein, for
joining us.  And thank you to Jason for joining me here.  I think
we have a lot more to come.  So, a very exciting report here
today.  Help us circulate this video; send it out to everybody
that you know; share it on social media.  Let’s get these ideas
to permeate the United States.  Thank you very much and please
stay tuned to

Frankrig omfavner den Nye Silkevej:
Bliver USA den næste?
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
12. jan., 2018



Vært Matthew Ogden: Som I ser, så er temaet for aftenens show, at vi fortsat befinder os i en nedtælling til præsident Trumps State of the Union-tale den 30. jan. i år. Der er nu 18 dage tilbage til denne tale; og vi holder fortsat fast i vores forpligtelse til, at det er vores job at sætte to punkter på dagsordenen: Nummer ét: præsident Trump må vedtage Lyndon LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love. Nummer to: præsident Trump må udtrykkeligt erklære, at USA går med i den Nye Silkevej.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:
On that latter point, a very dramatic breakthrough has
occurred this week, and the world has substantially changed.
However, you most likely have not heard this news; unless, of
course, you are watching  But the western media
is failing to report what is probably one of the most strategic
changes in the alignment of the world in many years.  That news
comes out of a trip that French President Emmanuel Macron made to
China in the beginning of this week.  Now, this may come as a
surprise to many people who might not have expected that this
would occur.  But we do have to say that the activities of the
LaRouche movement yet again have now come to bear and really
deserve significant credit for this strategic shift that has
occurred in France.  Of course, you remember that Jacques
Cheminade, who is a collaborator of Lyndon LaRouche in France,
ran a very high-profile Presidential campaign just last year, in
which he called for France to join the New Silk Road.
Now, what has Emmanuel Macron done?  He has announced that
he intends for France, and also by consequence, Europe to
collaborate with China on the New Silk Road.  This is an
extraordinary change.  Emmanuel Macron was the first European
leader to visit China in the aftermath of the 19th Party
Congress.  He had a very high-level, substantial state visit
which lasted several days, with President Xi Jinping.  What has
he announced?  France is now making the commitment that France
will collaborate with China’s Belt and Road Initiative of great
infrastructure projects across Eurasia and notably in Africa.
That’s a very important point for France, due to its history in
Africa.  Emmanuel Macron and President Xi Jinping announced that
they will particularly be focussing on French-Chinese cooperation
in developing nuclear power technology.  This is something that
France is a leader in, in Europe; and China is also now an
emerging leader in nuclear power.  This will be what will power
the world’s economies, including the economies of all those
nations along the New Silk Road.
This makes France not the first European country to make
this commitment and to announce their interest in joining the New
Silk Road.  Of course, the 16 countries of Eastern Europe have
already made that announcement.  We had the summit at the CEEC
[Central and Eastern European Countries] conference in the fall
of last year.  These Eastern European countries have already
announced that they are enthusiastic about joining the New Silk
Road, and being the front door for the Silk Road into Europe.
However, what this is, is the first Western European country to
announce unequivocally this intention to collaborate with China
on the New Silk Road.  France is the number two economy in
Europe; it’s a leading world power.  Obviously, a global power
and a very longstanding civilization; and it is one of the
permanent United Nations Security Council members.  That topic
was also part of the discussion between Macron and Xi Jinping.
So, I would assume that, unless you’ve been watching, you do not know the significance of this news.
But what we’re here to do today, is to communicate to you exactly
what occurred during this historic trip by Emmanuel Macron to
China.  And to ask the question:  Now that France has taken this
step, whither the rest of Europe, and whither the United States
of America?  The invitation is on the table for the United States
to join the Belt and Road Initiative.  The door is wide open.
President Trump has expressed his clear intention and interest in
working together with President Xi Jinping and developing a close
relationship and a new era in US-China relations.  Now all he
needs to do is take that step through that open door, and to do
exactly what President Macron on France has just done.
So, I would like to share with you some excerpts.  First, of
a speech that Emmanuel Macron made in Xi’an, which is one of the
historic cities at the terminus of the Silk Road in China.  This
is the city where they have the famous terra cotta warriors; and
Emmanuel Macron did make a tour of that astounding museum.  When
you see this with your own eyes, you realize the power and the
depth of the ancient civilization that China represents.  Then,
subsequent to that, I will share with you some of the comments
that he made to the same effect during a joint press conference
he had with President Xi at the conclusion of his trip.
So, here are a few quotes from President Macron’s speech in
Xi’an.  What President Macron said during this speech is, he went
through the history of French-Chinese relationships and stressed
how significant this shared history has already been.  Then he
said the following:  “I want you to understand something today.
France is here; becoming transformed in depth and wants to be
that country of dialogues and construction of a new partnership
for the 21st Century, with China.  With it, Europe wants, through
the building of its own power to build a balanced cooperation
with China in the coming century.  When you build a relationship
of friendship, it is a balanced cooperation that you seek.
“It is in the same spirit that I wish for us to advance
on the New Silk Road.  Indeed, One Belt, One Road is the
perspective gave itself and that it has proposed to the world.
When a proposal is on the table, it is not my habit not to
discuss it.  I understand the opportunities for China on the
economic level for finding new markets internationally; on the
political level in order to open up regions hit by
under-development; on the diplomatic level to stabilize trade in
fragile regions where there are states in difficulty, and in
developing regions; on the cultural level, since it is a matter
of exerting leadership with the force of new ideas.  I think that
the initiative of the New Silk Roads can meet our interests —
those of France and of Europe — if we give ourselves the means
to really work together.  After all, the Silk Roads were never
purely Chinese, if I’m honest.  When we talk about the Maritime
Silk Roads, they were first Portuguese.  On land, they went
through Central Asia — Iran, Iraq, Tyre, and Antioch — and in
so doing, they were Sino-European.  The genius of the first Silk
Roads was to have often re-invented European roads and made them
Chinese roads.  I am saying that in a consubstantial way, these
roads are still shared.  And if these are roads, they cannot be
one way; they must be a two-way street.  I am thus ready to work
to the announced objectives.  Road, railroad, airport, maritime
and technological infrastructure programs along the Silk Roads
can provide a response to the infrastructure deficit;
particularly in Asia.
“The pooling of our financial resources, public and private,
for cross-border projects, can strengthen the connectivity
between Europe and Asia and beyond.  To the Middle East and
Africa, and allow better integration, structure, and opening up
through the growth of trade.  At the same time, it will do much
more.  And the city of Xi’an is a living example.  Those first
Silk Roads brought Buddhism and Islam and Christianity here.
These New Silk Roads will inevitably lead to cultural and
educational exchanges and to profound transformations in the
countries that they cross.
“Finally, it is a matter of giving ourselves a perspective
at a moment when the shared grand narratives are so sorely
lacking in the world.  I must say, it is one of the great merits
of these Silk Roads proposed by Xi Jinping.  These Silk Roads
re-activate the imagination of a new civilization of fruitful
exchanges, of shared wealth.  And they show to all those who
thought that we were in a tired, post-modern world where the
great stories were forbidden, that those who decide to live great
epics can make others dream as well.  I believe profoundly in
great stories.
“It is up to France, and with it to Europe, to contribute
its share of imagination to this proposal, and to work at it in
the months and years to come.  This will be the object of my
exchanges with President Xi Jinping:  To define the agenda of
trust that I want, that we put together.  I know that some will
say that this agenda of trust must be one to create an
equilibrium between a developed country and a developing one.
But China is no longer a developing country; it is a country
which is bypassing that, largely.  Therefore, we must reinvent
here the terms of a new relationship; and the Silk Roads are the
very expression of that new relationship of China to the world.
I propose to identify very concretely the political framework in
which we can build that partnership, that cooperation, and that
common strategy.  I am convinced profoundly that if Europe and
China know how to establish that goal together, this initiative
could be the occasion of relaunching very pragmatically the
multi-lateralism which is today lacking in concrete realizations.
“I am ready to play a key role in this direction, making
sure that the European countries progress in unity.  Because
China needs to have a solid interlocutor to exchange and build on
its own initiative.  I want the Silk Roads to not limit
themselves to economic questions, but be enlightened in Europe by
a deep comprehension of China.  All resources must be used to
this end; from the publishing world to the world of theatre and
cinema; from the French Sinology school to the world of arts.
These are the roads of exchange that we must build.
“You have understood, ladies and gentlemen, that my will is,
indeed, in this framework.  That France and Europe take up their
full responsibility and meet the proposal offered by China.”
So, that was an excerpt of French President Emmanuel
Macron’s speech in Xi’an in China; just a short excerpt.  It’s a
very elaborated speech in which he also discusses the importance
of not returning to imperialism.  He talked about the need to
create harmony between countries, and not to be competing for
so-called limited geo-strategic interests.  He said, if we equip
ourselves with the means to really cooperate, we can create a new
civilization.  He praised China’s work in Africa, and he said
China has invested heavily in infrastructure and in raw materials
in recent years, with a financial power that European countries
could not have done.  He called for French-Chinese cooperation in
developing Africa; saying that to implement projects that are
really useful and financially sustainable for growth on that
continent, because that’s where the future lies.  We must not
repeat the mistakes of the past, he said, by creating political
and financial dependence under the pretext of development.  He
also said that the West must overcome the “one-sided imperialism”
that has been perpetrated by France and other European powers in
Africa and elsewhere.  Then he commented that China’s example of
lifting 700 million people out of poverty, is the example that
must be taken everywhere.
Now, in the concluding joint press conference between French
President Emmanuel Macron and President Xi Jinping, Emmanuel
Macron elaborated and repeated and emphasized some of the points
that he made in that initial speech in Xi’an.  So, here are a
couple of quotes from that speech during the concluding press
President Macron said, “The last point in the global agenda
is the New Silk Road; the Belt and Road Initiative.  I’m
convinced that this initiative will have a considerable impact
and will provide elements that will stabilize in the regions
crossed by the Silk Road.  We have proposed to work together on
this.  Historically, the Silk Road was shared; shared by the
Europeans and the Chinese because it was a road for trade and
exchanges.  So, it’s important that this New Silk Road in terms
of its philosophy and spirit, that it should revitalize the
balanced exchanges and cooperation between us.  I look for close
collaboration with President Xi Jinping.  We will be working to
ensure that whenever and wherever we implement this initiative,
we fight against corruption and imbalanced forms of development;
to allow societies to benefit fully from the growth thereby
“Finally, you mentioned culture.  Culture is a powerful,
historic element along with language.  And again, this reflects
the quality of our bilateral relations.  I would like us to
strengthen — through multiple initiatives — our cultural
cooperation.  First of all, by organizing several exhibitions to
better understand the mutual influence of our cultures; to better
understand the China of yesterday and today; and also the history
of the Silk Road.”
So, this was an extraordinary strategic breakthrough, and it
did take people by surprise.  However, it should be viewed as a
consequence of the persistent effort by a handful of leaders such
as the leaders of the LaRouche movement and Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche particularly; and Jacques Cheminade in France, and
others, to put this agenda on the table.  It proves that the
winds of change have come.  The New Silk Road is indeed now the
prevailing dynamic worldwide.  The leaders of European countries
who are not committed to being dinosaurs and being stuck in the
past in a failing trans-Atlantic geo-political world, are
recognizing that they have nothing to lose and everything to gain
from reciprocating President Xi Jinping’s offer of mutual benefit
and “win-win” cooperation.
Now, apparently directly following Emmanuel Macron’s trip to
China, the European Union has announced that it is drafting its
own “inter-connection blueprint” for the Eurasian continent.
This “inter-connection blueprint for Eurasia” is intended to
dovetail with the Belt and Road Initiative of China.  This was
stated by the EU Ambassador to China, Hans Dietmar Schweisgut, at
a press conference that he gave this week, which was held
literally within hours of French President Macron’s return from
his state visit to China.  The EU ambassador stated that this
economic blueprint for the interconnection of the Eurasian
continent is something that they are intending to pursue.  Now,
in what form is not clear, and the big question is, will the rest
of the countries of Western Europe get on board — Germany most
of all.  Will Germany abandon some of the failed policies, the
debt break and the anti-nuclear policies and others, that would
hold Europe back from participating fully in this Belt and Road
In response to a question on the announcement of this
so-called EU blueprint for interconnectivity in Eurasia, the
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Lu Kang, said the following:
“The European side is welcome to participate in the Belt and Road
Initiative.  And we are ready to work with them for ‘win-win’
cooperation in interconnection and in other fields.  Based on the
principle of achieving shared growth through discussion and
collaboration, China will join the EU in promoting prosperity and
stability of the entire Eurasian continent, and building a
community of shared future for mankind.”  So, that was the
Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman in response to this EU
interconnection blueprint plan.
Now also in the wake of Macron’s trip — and I think this
really indicates that there’s a seriousness among the French
political and strategic policymaking elite that this is going to
be the directionality for France.  It’s been reported that the
Sorbonne, which is the leading foreign policy university and
institution in France, and really one of the leading foreign
policy institutions in all of Europe, the Sorbonne has announced
that they will be hosting a series of 11 seminars on the New Silk
Road.  The first one is going to be hosted and chaired by the
former Prime Minister of France, Dominique DeVillepin.  So, we
can see I think indications going all the way back to the
attendance by Raffarin at the Belt and Road Forum in China in the
spring of last year, that there was this undercurrent in France.
But it has now taken a really dramatic form, with Macron’s trip.
We see that there are other countries which have also begun
moving very clearly in this direction.  There was a major
conference in Milan, Italy which was called “Belt and Road:
Building a Concrete Roadmap with Italy’s and China’s Joint
Growth”.  This was sponsored by the Italian Industries Ministry
and the Chinese Trade Ministry, and also the Lombardy Association
of Industry.  It was organized by the Italy-China Business Forum.
The coverage of this conference indicates that there are very
strong indications inside Italy also that they move in this
direction.  We do know that the Prime Minister of Italy,
Gentiloni,  and President Macron just had their own summit
meeting on the sidelines of the Mediterranean European countries
summit, where it is very much to be assumed that they discussed
Macron’s trip to China and the necessity for all of southern
Europe and the Mediterranean countries to join the New Silk Road;
exactly what has been the subject of a prolonged campaign by the
LaRouche movement in Europe.
So, this indicates that what France has done is setting the
agenda which the rest of Europe and frankly the United States
must follow.  We even see that the Paris newspaper {Le Monde} is
beginning to understand exactly what time it is when it comes to
the role that China will play in the future of Europe.  They
published an extensive story under the title “China: The
Innovation Dragon”.  They said, “The pace of China’s
transformation over the last four years is unprecedented.  The
country’s GDP grew by nearly 10% per year on average, while
reshaping global trade patterns and becoming the second-largest
economy in the world.  That success lifted 800 million people out
of poverty.  The mortality rate of children under five years old
was halved between 2006 and 2015.  The question now is whether
China, well-positioned to become the world’s innovation leader,
will realize that opportunity in 2018 or soon after.”
So, this is exactly the point.  China has accomplished a
miracle that no other country has accomplished on the entire
planet.  That model of what China has done is the standard which
all other countries now must measure themselves against, and must
become participants in; not in a competitive way, but in a
“win-win” way with this idea of a common destiny for the future
of mankind.  We also know that there was a very interesting
conference that occurred, believe it or not, in Wall Street at
the New York Stock Exchange just this week.  With Chinese leaders
discussing the necessity for a new measurement of economic
prosperity.  Not GDP, which can be a very fraudulent measure of
so-called economic growth; but actually measuring the rate at
which you are increasing the living standards of the population,
the rate at which you are incorporating new technologies and
innovations, and some very important measuring rods that you need
to measure the true success of an economy — not just stock
market bubbles.  That is a lesson which must be taken to heart by
the American people and by President Trump himself.
Now what I would like to do is, share with you the remarks
that Helga Zepp-LaRouche had during her international webcast
from the Schiller Institute yesterday, where she responds
directly to the significance of this trip by President Macron to
China.  This is Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s comments on Macron’s
decision to bring France into the orbit of the New Silk Road.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, this is a real
breakthrough, and I know that many people have different opinions
about Macron, but I must say, if somebody goes in the right
direction, one should be positive about it.  What he did, is he
went on a three-day visit to China.  He was the first European
leader after the 19th Party Congress of the Communist Party of
China; and he went to Xi’an first, which is the place where the
ancient Silk Road started from the Chinese side, and he made a
very remarkable speech. And I would urge all interested political
people, people who are really trying to get to the truth of the
matter, don’t believe what you read in the media, just read the
speech.  It’s a 1 hour and 15 minute speech, and the fact that he
admits some of the most horrible mistakes of Western policy is a
reason why I tend to believe that he really is making a change in
French policy.
For example:  He not only fully endorsed the New Silk Road
of China, he called it a “treasure to civilization”; he said we
must never repeat the mistakes of the past, like Iraq, Libya, and
then he also said he wants to invite China to cooperate with
France in projects in Africa, so that France would not make the
same mistakes of the past of imperial unilateralism in Africa.
He also said that one must make sure that one does not create new
dependencies politically and economically under the pretext of
development aid, but that therefore he invites China, because if
China and France are working together on development of Africa,
these mistakes can be avoided.
So I think there are a lot of other elements in his speech:
He praised the Chinese policy of being a great epic, one of the
great epics of history.  He said, we in the West have become
tired and epics have not been allowed any more, but that is
exactly what is needed.
I think this is a very, very positive development, and on
the plane on the way back to Europe, he was asked by reporters,
but what about the tension between the EU and China?  And he
said, this is not to be blamed on China, it’s entirely the fault
of the EU.
These kinds of statements really convince me that he means
what he says, and I find it highly interesting that today, that
is just three days after his speech in Xi’an — or maybe
yesterday already — the EU put out a statement saying that they
want to come forward with their own plan of connectivity which is
supposed to be linked up with the Belt and Road Initiative of
China.  This was welcomed by the Chinese Foreign Ministry,
praising it, saying this means there will be a “win-win”
cooperation to the benefit of both sides.
So, there is a lot going on, and I think this is very
positive, because this can only be an inspiration for President
Trump, because if even the EU, which has been really against
this initiative, they tried to block it out entirely for years,
if even they move now, one has to see obviously what they do
about financing this, because the famous, or infamous “Juncker
plan,” which supposedly had EU350 billion never materialized
because it was all based on the idea of private investments which
never came.  Because obviously this kind of infrastructure cannot
be financed by private capital, but this is something which needs
a credit system.  And that would mean the EU has to change.  They
would have to abandon their debt brake, which is now in the
constitutions of all member-states, and they would have in
Germany, to, if they would ever join, to abandon the policy of
the so-called “black zero.”  I mean Germany just had a budget
surplus, I think of $38 billion which is quite a bit.  So they
could already start investing some of this money in these
projects, because the infrastructure in Germany is also in a very
pitiful condition, let alone other European countries.
This is a breakthrough and all the various opponents of the
New Silk Road, I think they will realize that the Silk Road is
there, it’s coming, it’s spreading, and it is a new paradigm.
And I think it’s the victorious one, as compared to the outdated
neoliberal model.

OGDEN: ⦠yesterday on her webcast about the
breakthrough of Emmanuel Macron’s trip to China.
Now what I would also like to do is share with you a portion
of a briefing that Paul Gallagher, who is the EIR Economics
Editor, presented last night on the Fireside Chat — the national
activist call.  Paul very clearly puts this breakthrough which
just occurred within the context of the decades-long fight by
Helga and Lyndon LaRouche to conceptualize this idea of what was
originally the Eurasian Land-Bridge and now has become known at
the New Silk Road or the One Belt, One Road initiative; going all
the way back to the collapse of the Soviet Union.  What Paul also
does is he gives some more details on what the agreements were,
that were made between Emmanuel Macron and President Xi Jinping;
most particularly around nuclear power.  There are some very
stunning developments on that question.  Then Paul puts directly
this development within the context of the urgency of immediately
implementing Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws here in the
United States.   So, here’s a portion of Paul Gallagher’s
briefing from last night.

PAUL GALLAGHER: The Belt and Road Initiative
launched by China — and remember, this is a policy first thought
of as bridging the whole Eurasian continent with new rail lines
and communications corridors and lines of new cities going across
from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast; essentially from
the Spanish coast over to the Chinese coast.  These Belt and Road
Land-Bridges were initially the idea of Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche; they were their idea in the late 1980s, when the Soviet
Union began to break up and when the Iron Curtain was being
removed as the absolutely impassable barrier to this kind of
transportation and communications development of the entire
Eurasian continent.  When that was finally being removed, they
immediately came forth with this idea.
Now this is the policy of the Chinese government, as you
know.  In a pretty important development in the last few days,
it’s become the policy of the French government.  This is the
number two economy in Europe.  The President there is a new
president.  He just made a trip to China for a summit meeting.
Out of that came a commitment of France to join into the
development of the Belt and Road initiative.  Macron and the
Chinese President spoke about the fact that this would create
much more space for the economic and technological development of
France, to be part of these Eurasia-crossing great projects of
infrastructure development.  In particular, France is a leader in
nuclear power; the two of them agreed that they had special
responsibilities to cooperate in new fourth-generation reactor
technologies for the nuclear fuel cycle in order to power all the
economies on the New Silk Road and on the Maritime Silk Road.  To
power all those economies increasingly with advanced third- and
fourth-generation nuclear power plants.  France is in the lead in
that.  They are simultaneously going to be building — in China
— a European power reactor which is a new reactor design; it’s
called the EPR [European Power Reactor].  It’s a new design for
which France is largely responsible.  They’re going to be
building that as a model in China; they’re going to be building a
fuel reprocessing facility in China.  For the first time there,
in order to reprocess used nuclear fuel to make new nuclear fuel.
They’re going to assist China in developing advanced breeder
reactors at the same time, to make more fuel.  And also a system
in the certification of the nuclear reactor which China has
developed, which is called the Hwa Hwong 1000.  This is the first
time that China has developed its own domestically built and
sourced nuclear reactor, and they’re trying to get it certified
by the international nuclear authorities like Euratom so that it
can be sold to other countries and this development can take
So, they made this partnership.  They also talked about
partnership in astrophysics, astronomics, and in space
exploration in which China right now has the most aggressive
space exploration program of any of the space-faring nations at
this point.  But France is in there, too.  So, you have the
number two economy, and also as the Chinese President noted,
these two countries are permanent members of the Security Council
of the United Nations.  Therefore, in cooperation, they have a
certain power against the tendency of neo-cons and others in
Britain and the United States and elsewhere to come in with these
crazy resolutions which demand that one or another regime be
overthrown and so forth.  They have a certain stabilizing
authority also in the United Nations Security Council.
So, this is really an extremely important partnership which
has suddenly been concretized between China and France.  It means
that pressure is on Germany, which at present is in some disarray
and has only a caretaker government; the pressure is on Germany
— the number one economy [in Europe] — and it now means that
it’s not only the Eastern European countries like Serbia and
Poland and Hungary and Austria and Greece.  It’s not only all
those Eastern European and Balkan countries which have been
enthusiastically jumping into collaboration on the Belt and Road
Initiative; but now you have the number two Western European
economy and power, which has also jumped in.
Now this really means for the United States, here it is.
Already, China has made this major investment in West Virginia.
The governor yesterday gave a State of the State address in which
he talked about the Chinese investments in his state, which is
the third-poorest state in the United States, as the 800-lb
gorilla in the room.  He had a lot to say about the importance of
this for the prospect of pulling West Virginia out of what it had
fallen into.  Already this is obviously in front of the United
States, and the French move only makes it that much clearer an
offer to the United States.  Everyone is looking for an
infrastructure initiative from the Congress and from the
President; it’s supposed to be occurring in January.  Well, it is
occurring; it’s the Belt and Road Initiative, and it’s coming
right at us both in the now hundreds of freight trains every week
that are crossing Eurasia and all the new lines that are being
opened up. But it’s also coming at us in the development of
high-speed rail across the Bering Strait and the potential that
this will come all the way down to Vancouver and into the
so-called Cascades rail corridor in the United States.
So, it’s there.  The infrastructure initiative is there.
Essentially what we talk about as the third one of LaRouche’s
Four Laws, the third action that’s necessary; the use of the
credit to develop new high-technology infrastructure.  That’s
coming to us; we have to join it as a nation.  Those Four
Economic Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, those four actions that he
specified four years ago, need to be taken.

OGDEN:  So, that’s our campaign.  We need to make the Four
Economic Laws of Lyndon LaRouche the policy of this Presidency
and the policy of the United States.  That’s the means by which
we can join the New Silk Road dynamic.  Now the pamphlet, which
is “LaRouche’s Four Laws: America’s Future on the New Silk Road”,
has now been printed, it’s in circulation.  Ten thousand copies
are in print form, and are being circulated both in the streets
of cities across the country, in key constituent layers and farm
and industry layers across the United States, including in the
Heartland.  And notably this week, a very successful distribution
of this pamphlet to all of the relevant offices in the United
States Congress.  Volunteers with LaRouche PAC were on the ground
in Washington, DC getting this pamphlet around into the hands of
members of Congress and their key advisors, and having impromptu
meetings right there on the spot.  Including very relevant
questions that were being asked by these policymakers, such as
“Now, how do you turn debt into credit?”  Well, that’s a question
for Alexander Hamilton, isn’t it?  But that’s the question that
is answered in these Four Economic Laws pamphlet.  Notably,
yesterday was the birthday of Alexander Hamilton.  Perhaps that’s
an appropriate way to celebrate Alexander Hamilton’s birthday.
We will continue our mobilization around these Four Economic
Laws, and expect that over the coming 18 days, things will
continue to very dramatically change.  What we would like you to
do is to immediately get the copy of this pamphlet; this is the
link that you can see on your screen where you can get the
digital version of this pamphlet — LPAC.CO/4LYT.  It has to be
circulated everywhere, and this has got the be the subject of
every political discussion in the United States.  The contents of
this pamphlet and “Hey! Did you know that the world changed this
week?  You might not have heard it on CNN; you might not have
heard it on Fox News.  But France, the number two economy of
Western Europe just indicated that they want to join the New Silk
Road.  When will it be {our turn}?”  That’s the question that’s
on the table.
So, we ask you to tune in again on Monday, because first
we’ll have some very important updates to share with you as to
what China has already been doing to bring various states in the
United States into this New Paradigm.  The billions of dollars
that are being invested around the country — Alaska, Iowa, other
states — and most notably, $83.7 billion into the state of West
Virginia.  You heard Paul Gallagher report that Governor Jim
Justice gave his State of the State address this week.  We’ll
have some excerpts of that address, and continue to follow the
inspiration that is coming from China to this state in West
Virginia.  That State of the State really should be the template
for President Trump’s State of the Union.  We should be
discussing the future is on the New Silk Road.
Then also on Monday, we will share with you an initiative
which is being launched by LaRouche PAC.  This is LaRouche PAC’s
intervention into the 2018 Congressional elections.  LaRouche PAC
has issued a statement; it is being prepared for mass
circulation, but it’s also an endorsement.  It’s a call to
action.  All leaders within the American population should
endorse this statement of intent from LaRouche PAC, get on board
with the Four Economic Laws, get on board with the New Silk Road.
So, on Monday we will be launching that officially; and that will
be a campaign that you can immediately join, and you can
immediately assist us in circulating all across the United
With that said, please tune in on Monday for some very
special content, and thank you very much for watching today.
Thank you and please stay tuned to  Good night.

Afslut kuppet; Stop den næste krig;
Byg Verdenslandbroen.
Taler af forfatter til EIR’s Mueller-dossier
Barbara Boyd og VIPS-medlemmerne
William Binney og Ray McGovern.
Video og pdf.

Vi vil lægge ud med Barbara Boyd. Barbara er forfatter af den særlige undersøgelsesrapport, som nogle af jer måske har set; titlen er »Robert er en juridisk lejemorder; Han vil gøre sit job, hvis I giver ham lov«. Hun vil være med her på skærmen. Efter hende har vi to talere; William Binney, der sidder her på min højre side, og dernæst Ray McGovern (begge medlemmer af VIPS). Jeg vil introducere dem hver især, når de taler, selv om jeg ikke ved, om de faktisk behøver ret megen introduktion. Nu til vores første taler.

(Dansk udskrift af Barbara Boyds præsentation)

Download (PDF, Unknown)



Året 2017:
Den Ny Silkevejsånd fejer hen over verden.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
29. dec., 2017

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften, det er den 29. december; jeg er Matthew Ogden, og dette er årets sidste internationale fredags-webcast fra

Som vi nærmer os afslutningen af året 2017, er vi nødsaget til at se tilbage på året, som det udfoldede sig dag for dag, i de seneste 365 dage. Men vi er også nødt til at se fremad, til året 2018, og til forpligtelser og muligheder, som dette år vil bringe os.

Det forgange år, 2017, har selvfølgelig været et af de år, der har budt på flest forandringer i de fleste menneskers levetid. Vi erindrer, at året startede med først, valget, og dernæst indsættelsen af en ny præsident, præsident Donald Trump, og det var helt klart en af de største, politiske rystelser i moderne politisk historie, med valgnederlaget til Hillary Clinton, hvem alle antog for den sikre vinderkandidat til at blive USA’s præsident, og med valgsejren til den nuværende præsident Donald Trump. Men, som hr. LaRouche korrekt sagde på det tidspunkt, så ville det være en fejltagelse at anskue betydningen af dette valg ud fra et rent nationalt standpunkt. Det ville være en fejltagelse at anskue betydningen af denne valgrystelse inden for rammerne af national politik, men det sande perspektiv, man må have, både for årsagerne og også for den følgelige betydning af dette dramatiske, politiske skifte i USA, må snarere være et globalt perspektiv og et perspektiv for en global transformation, der fandt sted på mange, mange måder.

På den ene side har vi afslutningen af en æra, afslutningen af den transatlantiske æra med finansspekulation og med at bringe USA som en del af denne sektor i verden til et punkt for desperation, økonomisk, socialt og på anden vis, her i USA, og som frembragte denne dramatiske, politiske sejr og dette dramatiske, politiske nederlag til Hillary Clinton og det, hun stod for. Og ligeledes den angst, som amerikanerne følte, over, at verden kom nærmere og nærmere til randen af Tredje Verdenskrig, til en konfrontation mellem USA og Rusland, en konfrontation mellem USA og Kina.

Men man må også se den potentielle betydning af denne dramatiske, politiske begivenhed her i USA, ud fra et standpunkt om de muligheder, der er udløst på verdensscenen. Og disse muligheder var, og er fortsat, potentialet for et samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland og USA og Kina, som en relation mellem stormagter for at afslutte æraen med koldkrigs-geopolitik og frembringe et nyt stadie for samarbejde mellem disse store magter i verden, for et nyt paradigme for relationer mellem disse lande, og som ville udløse et hidtil uset potentiale for samarbejde, fredelig, gensidig fordel og »win-win«-samarbejde.

Det er en udfordring for amerikanere at se længere end det daglige melodrama i amerikansk politik og 24-timers nyhedsudsendelser og se, hvad der virkelig har udfoldet sig på verdensscenen i løbet af året 2017. Men, hvis vi ser længere, og vi tager et globalt perspektiv, ser vi, at året 2017 virkelig havde sin historiske betydning med den kendsgerning, at dette er året, hvor hele verden begyndte at blive transformeret af den dynamik, der nu er associeret til den Nye Silkevej, eller Ét Bælte, én Vej-initiativet, som fejer hen over verden fra Kina. Det har haft en transformerende virkning for hele planeten: Hvert eneste kontinent er blevet transformeret, og alle nationer er blevet berørt af Silkevejsånden, inklusive, på signifikant vis, USA. Som vi senere skal tale om, så er Vest Virginia et meget, meget godt eksempel.

Men det, vi har set, er en stor bølge af optimisme, der er blevet udløst. Det er det, der kaldes »Silkevejsånden«, og vi ser, at meget af denne transformation allerede er i gang; men der er selvfølgelig meget tilbage at virkeliggøre.

I dag er tilfældigvis hr. og fr. Lyndon og Helga LaRouches 40 års bryllupsdag, og det er en meget passende dag til at reflektere over den ekstraordinært positive virkning, som disse 40 års frugtbart samarbejde og helligelse til det gode har haft på verden, gennem disse to, ekstraordinært verdenshistoriske personer: både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Dette forgangne år 2017 har på en meget virkelig måde været en meget stor modning af disse 40 års utrættelige arbejde på begges vegne, og ligeledes på vegne af dem i bevægelsen, der er blevet inspireret af dem.

I det kommende år må vi sætte os for, og træffe vore nytårsforsætter om at se konsolideringen af denne vision. Alt det, der nu er blevet virkelighed, mht. potentiale i året 2017, nu må konsolideres og krystalliseres i året 2018. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche har karakteriseret det: 2018 må være afslutningen af geopolitik og lanceringen af et nyt paradigme for den menneskelige race, baseret på win-win-samarbejde mellem alle folkeslag og blomstringen af en renæssance, bestående af det bedste i alle kulturer, civilisationer bragt i dialog med hinanden, og som drager fordel af det bedste af det, alle nationer har at tilbyde det almene vel for menneskeracen som helhed.

Det kunne være nyttigt at tage et snapshot af et par af de mest afgørende vendepunkter i året 2017 for at beslutte den transformerende virkning, der har fundet sted i løbet af dette år. Hvis vi ligesom tager et forskudt tidsbillede af året 2017, selv om alle udviklingerne, der har fundet sted, kan have syntes at være næsten for meget og for dramatisk til at holde trit med; hvis vi ser tilbage, ser vi, på hvor absolut dramatisk vis, verden er blevet forandret af denne Silkevejsånd i dette år, 2017.

Vi begyndte året her på LaRouche PAC med en appel, der blev cirkuleret bredt og faktisk havde en ret intens virkning, og som krævede, at præsident Trump, med sin indtræden i embedet, tog alle sine kampagneløfter og hele sin diskussion om at genopbygge USA’s industri, genopbygge USA’s varefremstilling, genopbygge USA’s infrastruktur alvorligt, men også at tage en ny holdning over for verden og en samarbejdende relation med Rusland og endda med Kina; og denne appel krævede, at præsident Donald Trump rakte en hånd tilbage mod Kina. Det, som Obama havde afvist mht. et samarbejde, et samarbejdende partnerskab med det, Kina havde påbegyndt, Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank, den Nye Silkevej, Bælte & Vej Initiativet, og så i stedet række en ånd frem til Kina for samarbejde og blive en del af dette.

Det har endnu ikke helt båret frugt, og det er opgaven for året 2018, men vi er kommet meget, meget langt.

Lad og se på et par af de meget vigtige vendepunkter i løbet af det forgangne år:

I april – 6. og 7. april, for at være helt nøjagtig – blev præsident Xi Jinping af præsident Trump budt velkommen i USA til et meget vigtigt statsbesøg, der fandt sted på præsident Trumps Mar-a-Lago ferieresort i Florida. Vi har set billederne og videoerne af deres diskussioner og deres moddage i løbet af disse to dage på Mar-a-Lago. Det var under dette topmøde, dette præsident Xi Jinpings statsbesøg, at præsident Trump og præsident Xi begyndte at skabe det, der nu er blevet til en meget nær, personlig relation.

Dette var en meget dramatisk vending af præcis det, præsident Obama gjorde mht. en politik for militær konfrontation, en politik for at omringe Kina og en politik for at forsøge at ophede konflikten over det Sydkinesiske Hav og andre ting, mht. at anbringe USA i en konfronterende holdning over for Kina.

På trods af sit meget krigerske sprog under valgkampen, tiltrådte præsident Trump embedet og besluttede at vende denne Obamas politik og i stedet skabe en, i det mindste på det personlige plan, varm og nær personlig relation mellem ham selv og præsident Xi Jinping. Det begyndte på Mar-a-Lago-topmødet den 6. og 7. april i år.

Den følgende måned, den 9. maj, begyndte LaRouche PAC en meget koncentreret kampagne og en slags nedtælling til det, der tydeligvis skulle blive et meget afgørende topmøde, der skulle finde sted i Kina. Dette var Bælte & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde, der skulle finde sted 14.-15. maj. Så i begyndelsen af maj indledte LaRouche PAC en to uger lang nedtælling og lagde ekstraordinært pres på præsident Trump for at acceptere præsident Xi Jinpings invitation til personligt at deltage som USA’s repræsentant på Bælte & Vej Forum i Kina. Som en del af denne kampagne udgav vi en video, en meget kort men meget fyndig video, med Jason Ross som fortæller, ved navn »Bælte & Vej Initiativet: Vort århundredes afgørende projekt«.

Denne video blev meget hurtigt cirkuleret bredt og er nu blevet set af 50.000 mennesker; den udlagte video har 50.000 visninger.

Jeg vil gerne tage jer tilbage til dette historiske øjeblik og afspille et kort klip af denne videofortælling af Jason Ross for jer. Den hedder altså »Bælte & Vej Initiativet: Vort århundredes afgørende projekt«.

Her følger resten af udskriftet på engelsk:

[Begin Video]
JASON ROSS:  It would be the biggest mistake ever, if the
U.S. didn’t take advantage of the Belt and Road Forum that’s
taking place in a week in Beijing, China —  the biggest mistake
ever.  This event is going to bring together representatives of
over 100 nations on this planet, including the direct
participation of almost 30 heads of state, and they’re going to
discuss the greatest project of our generation, the Belt and Road
Now, so far, there’s no indication or announcement that
President Trump or other U.S. representatives will attend, but

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: “If we can convince President Trump to
take up the offer to join with China and the other nations in the
New Silk Road, he can become one of the greatest Presidents of
the history of the United States….”

ROSS:  This initiative, the Belt and Road Initiative, was
launched officially by China in 2013.  It’s a program of mutually
beneficial connectivity, of infrastructure, of common development
programs.  So far, the proposals and works in progress embrace
over 60 nations, affecting over 4 billion people, the majority
of humanity, with plans for $20 trillion in infrastructure
spending.  That’s two or three times what would be needed to
fully revitalize U.S. infrastructure; it’s 20 times the $1
trillion that Trump has called for so far.  This is a huge
These programs have got the potential to eliminate poverty,
on the globe, within a generation
, completely and totally
eliminate endemic poverty everywhere.
Already over the past few decades, China has seen phenomenal

SECRETARY OF STATE REX TILLERSON: “And China really began to
feel its oats about that time, and rightfully.  They have
achieved a lot: They moved 500 million Chinese people out of
poverty in to middle-class status….”

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: “OK, it’s a great thing, thank you.
And I met with the President of China, at great length in
Florida.  And we had long, long talks.  Hours and hours and hours.  He’s a good man.”

ROSS:  China is springing ahead with its own development,
and working together with its neighbors.  Through Chinese
investment, by the nation, by the corporations, and through new
financing from institutions like the Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank, the New Development Bank, and the Silk Road Fund
— these are mechanisms created since 2013 — major projects of
enormous scope are made possible.

RICHARD TRIFAN [The Eurasia Center]: “This is an historic
project, as you all know.  It is probably the biggest global
achievement which is analogous to our reaching out into space,
and to the Moon and other planets.  It’s probably the most
comprehensive initiative that many nations will be working
together on….”

ROSS:  So let’s take a tour:  Starting in Asia, there are
six development corridors proposed by China, for road, rail,
water, electricity, communications, along with soft
infrastructure such as education, customs standardization,
cultural exchange.  These corridors are currently under way to
varying degrees.  So much of the world is currently working
together for aims of common development, and a shared future of
advancement, of dignity, and of scientific achievement.  Will the
U.S. join in?  We’re invited with open arms.

ZHANG MEIFANG [Deputy Consul Chinese Consulate, New York]:
“Last, but not the least, I want to quote President Xi as saying
that China welcomes the United States to participate in
cooperation within the Belt and Road framework.  Both countries
should really seize the opportunities….”

ROSS:  Let’s accept this invitation.  The U.S. of a hundred
years from now, looking back, will be so glad that we did.

OGDEN:  Now, that video was released on May 9th, and as I
said, quickly received tens of thousands of views on YouTube, a
very rapid circulation.  And despite the fact that almost no one
in the United States at that time was discussing, or frankly had
even heard of the idea of the Belt and Road Initiative or the New
Silk Road, or the One Belt, One Road policy of China, all of a
sudden this project and this idea asserted itself in a very large
way and was thrust into the center of U.S. political debate.
Almost seemingly out of nowhere, three days after the release of
that video, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer was asked
multiple times during the White House press briefing about the
One Belt, One Road policy and whether or not President Trump was
going to be sending a representative to the Belt and Road Forum
in Beijing, and whether the United States was going to join the
New Silk Road.  So here’s that press briefing from May 12th of
this year:

Q: “I wanted to ask you about the One Belt, One Road summit
that starts on Sunday in China.  You announced yesterday, or
Secretary Ross said that you’re going to send a delegation to
that summit.  Could you talk about how you came to that
conclusion, why it’s important for the U.S to be represented at
what’s ostensibly a major trade initiative by a foreign country?”

PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: “As you point, it’s a major
trade initiative.  There’s a lot of ports and infrastructure that
they’re going to do, and through those discussions that Secretary
Ross and Secretary Mnuchin and others had at Mar-a-Lago, and part
of this is that this is something they’ve done; we’re going to
continue to work with them.  Obviously, trade is a major issue
for us and what they’re looking to do is of great importance to
our economic and national security, and they’ve asked us to send
people to that.  And we have them attend things that we’re doing
as well.  And I think that’s, as the President has shown in terms
of the relationship that he’s built with President Xi, and the
rest of the team has built with their delegation, those
relationships are clearly paying dividends both on the national
security front and on the economic front.

Q: “…is the U.S. going to participate in the One Belt, One
Road initiative?”

SEAN SPICER: “We’ll have a readout. At this point that’s all
we have on One Belt, One Road….”

OGDEN:  So, as you saw, it was announced that President
Trump had really at the last minute, decided to send a high-level
representative to the Belt and Road Forum.  This is very much,
largely due to the campaign that we waged here in the United
States, and that high-level representative from the State
Department was sent to the Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, Matt
Now, also in attendance at that historic summit in Beijing,
with multiple heads of state and representatives from all around
the world {was}:  Helga Zepp-LaRouche herself.  And that was
really poetically just that she should be there.  Because the
fact is, she is recognized in China as the “Silk Road Lady,” and
the efforts of herself and her husband Lyndon LaRouche and the
movement which has been inspired by them, really has laid the
groundwork for what became in the year 2017, the great
flourishing of the New Silk Road.  So, Helga Zepp-LaRouche
attended this Belt and Road Forum; she was present there in the
proceedings, and she also conducted numerous other meetings.  She
was a speaker at some of the roundtable discussions and break-out
sessions on the side, and then followed that with a two-week tour
of China.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche gave a report back on her
presence, on her participation in the Belt and Road Forum, and
during that report she gave a wonderful overview of the 40 years
of effort that she and her husband, Lyndon LaRouche, have
invested into bringing this vision into actuality.  Going all the
way back to Lyndon LaRouche’s proposal in 1971 for an
International Development Bank and the development of the entire
planet.  You’ll see that she goes through that entire sweep of
history.  So, obviously, reviewing this sweep of history is a
very appropriate thing to do on the occasion today of Mr. and
Mrs. LaRouche’s 40th wedding anniversary that we’re observing
So, I’d like to play for you a short excerpt from that
report back, that very immediate report that Helga LaRouche had
upon her return from this historic Belt and Road Forum on May 14
and 15 of this year.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I just wanted to make sure that you
get a first impression from me from my trip, because the worst
mistake we could make is to respond to the absolutely incredible
propaganda coming from the US mainstream media and the new
liberal media in Europe; like Der Spiegel underlined, the chief
editor piece which was really out of this way.  It is very clear
that people who are primarily relying on such media, have a
completely, totally 100% wrong idea what the reality is that’s
going on.  We should really get that out of our heads and not try
to swim within the fish bowl of an artificially created
environment.  Because from my standpoint, the world looks very
First of all, I said this already and I reiterate it.  With
the Belt and Road Forum, the world has dramatically consolidated
the beginning of a new era.  I don’t think at all that short of
World War III, this is going to go away, because the majority of
the world is moving in a completely liberated way.  This was the
highest level I ever participated in; there were 28 heads of
state speaking one after the other.  Obviously, the speech by Xi
Jinping was absolutely outstanding.  Whoever has time to listen
to it, should really do it; because it was a very Confucian
speech which set the tone for the two-day conference in a very
clear way.  So, please listen to it when you have some time.
I think the way people have to understand what is going on,
is you have to really think what this organization, and Lyn in
particular, did for the last almost 50 years.  The first time
when Lyn in 1971 recognized what the significance of the
dismantling of the Bretton Woods system was, and then all the
many things we did in the last over 40 years.  Lyn coming back
from the Iraqi Ba’ath Party celebrations in 1975 when he proposed
the IDB as an International Development Bank to foster a New
World Economic Order.  The fact that we for one year campaigned
with this IDB proposal which then basically became part of the
Colombo, Sri Lanka resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in ’76.
Then at the end of the ’70s when we worked with Indira Gandhi on
a 40-year development plan for India.  We published a whole book
about the industrialization of Africa.  We worked with López
Portillo on Operation Juárez.  We put out a 50-year Pacific Basin
Development Plan.  Lyn had already proposed the Oasis Plan.  And
then naturally when the Wall came down and the Soviet Union
disintegrated, we proposed the Productive Triangle and the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.  All of these proposals — and just think
of the many, many activities we did — conferences on five
continents; all of this was on the level of ideas.  But only
after Xi Jinping put the New Silk Road on the agenda in 2013 and
in the four years of breathtaking developments of the One Belt,
One Road Initiative since, these ideas are becoming realized; and
the genie is out of the bottle.  You have now the bi-oceanic
railway discussion and the tunnels and bridges connecting the
Atlantic and Pacific around Latin America.  You have all these
railways now being opened up in Africa.
This is unprecedented; this was not done by the IMF or the
World Bank.  They suppressed it with the conditionalities.  But
with the AIIB [Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank], the new
Development Bank, the New Silk Road Fund, the Maritime Silk Road
Fund, the direct investment of the Chinese Ex-Im Bank, the China
State Bank; all of these projects are now proceeding, and they
have completely changed the attitude and the self-confidence of
all participating countries.
The way people in China look at President Trump is
absolutely different than what the media is trying to say.  They
are very positive about Trump, in the same way that people in
Russia think Trump is somebody you can absolutely have a decent
relationship with; and that is reality.  Forget the media; forget
these whores of the press who are really just prostitutes for the
British Empire.  Don’t pay any attention to what they say, and
don’t allow other people you are talking with to do that either.
When Trump promised $1 trillion investment, this was the
right thing, and we put out the right program saying the United
States must join the Silk Road.  That should be our focus and
nothing else.  Everything else should be a subsumed aspect of
that.  This is the strategically important thing.  And the fact
that the head of the China Investment Corporation, Ding Xuedong,
said it’s not $1 trillion, but $8 trillion that the United States
needs; this is absolutely on the mark and you know it yourself
from the condition of the roads and the infrastructure in all of
the United States.  The fact that this same organization has now
set up an office in New York, advising Chinese investors how to
invest in the United States, and vice versa how US investors can
invest in China; the fact that the Chinese are invited to
participate in this infrastructure conference in June; all of
this is absolutely going in the right direction.
What happened in the Belt and Road Forum and the many
meetings I had afterwards — after all, I spent two full weeks in
Beijing, in Manjing, in Shanghai.  But it’s the fact that in the
many interviews, many quotes, we were treated with the highest
respect possible.  People are fully aware of Lyn’s significance
as a theoretician of physical economy; his ideas are highly
respected.  People treated me as we should be treated; namely, as
people who have devoted their entire lives to the common good of
humanity.  This is in absolute stark contrast to the shitty
behavior that we are getting normally from the neo-liberals in
the trans-Atlantic region.  You should understand that what the
attack on Trump is supposed to do, is to make it so difficult for
him to focus on the positive aspects; and there are quite some
many of them, including his working relationship with Russia and
China, which is strategically the most important.  Basically, he
has to defend his staff, and everybody thinks they have to spend
all the time to defend themselves.  So, don’t fall for it.  The
idea that we are losing is completely off; mankind is on the
winning track, and we have to pull the American population up to
create the kind of ferment so the implementation of the
infrastructure program as a first step is on the agenda and on
everybody’s mind and nothing else.
I have the strong conviction that by the end of this year,
the world will look completely different because the development
perspective is so contagious that I think all the efforts by the
British Empire to somehow throw in a monkey wrench will not work.
So, take the winning perspective; take the high ground.  Think
strategically and realize that what is happening in reality in
many development projects around the world is what this
organization has been fighting for, for almost half a century.  I
just wanted to tell you that, because the worst thing we could do
is look at it from inside the United States, from within the box,
when the whole world has moved out of the box decisively with the
Belt and Road Forum, which is not going to be stopped by
anything.  That is my view I wanted communicate.

OGDEN:  This is an inexorable, almost irresistible dynamic;
this is a dynamic which is not going to be stopped by anything.
Of course, the subsequent months saw a very dramatic attempt to
escalate the campaign to undermine and overturn the Presidency of
the United States; largely because of President Trump’s
willingness and commitment to working together with these
countries which were supposed to be our enemies and our
adversaries under the Obama view of the world.  But also, we saw
the continued expansion of the Silk Road.  This was almost an
unstoppable march of this development perspective to every corner
of the planet.
Perhaps most significantly, we saw the development of
Africa.  This is a continent which for centuries had been kept in
an enforced state of backwardness, poverty, miserable famine
across the entire continent of Africa; with no development.  What
China has done just in the last few months, has been
unbelievable; in terms of the railroads that have been built, the
power projects that have been built, the water projects that are
now under consideration such as the Transaqua project.  But
already, just in the latter portion of this year, we’ve seen the
dramatic transformation of the continent of Africa and the change
in the attitude of the African people; who now are — as Helga
LaRouche has repeatedly noted — have a renewed sense of optimism
and self-confidence because of what China has done to bring
development to that continent.
We’ve also seen the nations of South and Central America
begin to embrace the Silk Road spirit.  We’ve seen increasing
collaboration between China and Russia, with the integration of
the Silk Road and the Eurasian Economic Union idea.  We’ve seen
barriers that have been erected geopolitically between nations in
South and Southeastern Asia crumbling as we speak.  We saw the
forging of a new partnership between Japan and China; two nations
which have historically been at each other’s throats.  We’ve seen
the Philippines join enthusiastically the New Silk Road dynamic
and reach out a hand of collaboration to China in friendship.
And we’ve even seen nations in Europe — most notably southern
and eastern Europe — enthusiastically become part of the New
Silk Road dynamic.  So, you’ve had an almost unstoppable rhythm
of developments, month after month, week after week of nations
embracing this New Silk Road spirit.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche said at the conclusion of that report
that she delivered immediately after her attendance at the Belt
and Road Forum in Beijing in May of this year, she said, “I am
confident that, by the end of this year, the world will have been
transformed in a very dramatic way by the New Silk Road dynamic.”
Indeed, now we sit at the end of this year, and what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche said at that point is very true.  So, if we fast
forward from May, those dramatic developments leading into and
then leading out of that Belt and Road Forum in Beijing, China;
if we fast forward from May all the way up to November, and take
a look at the historic trip by President Trump to China — the
“state visit-plus” that he made — which occurred in the
immediate aftermath of the historic Chinese Communist Party
National Congress; where President Xi Jinping was elevated to
another term as President of China.  The Silk Road idea was
literally written into the Chinese Constitution.  This historic
trip that President Trump made to China, which was in the context
of his grand tour of Asia, of southern and southeastern Asia as a
whole; this trip consolidated an entirely new era in US-China
Again, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is a unique voice in terms
of her analysis, because she’s not just a commentator looking at
this from the outside; but again, is speaking as somebody who has
been on the ground for years if not decades in bringing this Silk
Road reality into existence.  Helga Zepp-LaRouche, in the
aftermath of President Trump’s historic state visit-plus to
China, gave her analysis and her report on what the significance
of President Trump’s visit to Beijing and his continued, very
warm special relationship with President Xi Jinping of China.
So, here’s what Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to say in the immediate
aftermath of President Trump’s historic visit to China in
November of this year.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think it is the beginning of a new era of
strategic relationships between the United States and China, as
Xi Jinping had said.  What they did in order to receive Trump and
give him the best possible honors, the characterization was that
this was a “state visit-plus” and President Xi Jinping even said
that this was a “state visit-plus-plus”.  They rolled out the red
carpet, so to speak, in a way that they have never done for any
other foreign dignitary before since the existence of the
People’s Republic of China. What they did is, they had a first
day of introducing President Trump to the ancient culture of
China.  For that purpose, they closed down the Forbidden City for
an entire day; then they had a gala dinner in one of the palaces.
They showed him three different Beijing operas, they showed him
the restoration of art, crafts, and similar things.  Obviously,
President Xi Jinping was the tour guide for all of this.  Anybody
who has ever read or listened to his speeches knows that he is
very well-cultured in Chinese history, but also in universal
history.  So, this is really an incredible thing.  Naturally,
there were other aspects like trade deals for $253 billion.  When
President Trump came back from the Asia trip, he said that he had
deals for about $300 billion, but that would only be the
beginning.  Soon this figure would be three-fold.
But I think much more important — as much as the economic
deals are important; I don’t want to neglect that — but I think
much more deeply was the deep human accord between these two
Presidents.  So, I am confident that the chance to have a new
renaissance, to have an uplifting of people where the best
traditions of all nations and cultures of this planet are being
revived; and out of that, a new renaissance can be created.  I
think that that is an absolutely realistic possibility.  So, be
happy and join us.

OGDEN:  And indeed, an immense optimism was unleashed around
the world after seeing this very successful trip that President
Trump made to China.  There was an optimism from inside the
United States; notably, most conspicuously, the case of West
Virginia.  If we take a look at West Virginia Governor Jim
Justice, who announced in the immediate aftermath of President
Trump’s return from this historic trip to China, he [Justice]
announced an $83.7 billion investment deal that was signed
between China and the state of West Virginia.  This is $10
billion more than West Virginia’s entire annual GDP for the year
2016, which was only $73.4 billion.  So, this investment is $83.7
billion into one of the most impoverished and really despairing
states in the entire United States.  Just take a look at the
optimism and the sheer enthusiasm that Governor Jim Justice of
West Virginia showed in this press conference that he gave, upon
announcing this investment by China into his state.

GOVERNOR JIM JUSTICE:  Who in the world can even begin to
describe what $83.7 billion of money and investments is?  Well,
I’ll tell you what it is.  Do you realize it’s 83,700 $1 million
investments?  Now just think about that.  83,700 $1 million
investments.  I don’t know if you could actually pull this off,
but you could maybe be able to rebuild every city in the state of
West Virginia with $83.7 billion.  I would say to all of y’all
that may be doubters that this could become a reality.  Don’t
get on the wrong side of it, because really and truly, it’s a
comin’; it’s coming.

OGDEN:  So, “Don’t get on the wrong side of it,” this is a
reality.  And “really and truly, it’s a comin’|”.  I think that
perfectly describes this inexorable irresistibility of the New
Silk Road.  I think it encapsulates the year 2017 in just a few
phrases.  2017 truly was the year that the Silk Road spirit swept
the globe; including the state of West Virginia.  It’s indeed,
the perfect optimism out of the mouth of Governor Jim Justice
there in West Virginia.  It’s the perfect expression of the
sentiment that we, as Americans, should all have as we reflect
back on the year 2017 and look ahead at the year 2018.  Don’t get
on the wrong side of this, because it’s a comin’.
So, to conclude our broadcast, and to conclude this year, I
would like to play a short video message by Helga Zepp-LaRouche,
which is really her end of the year message.  This is her appeal
for the year 2018, which she says must be the year that we see
the end, once and for all, of the idea of geopolitics, and the
consolidation of the “win-win” collaboration of all nations in
this New Paradigm.  So, here’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s end of the
year message.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  … [T]hat in the almost four and a half
years now that Xi Jinping, the President of China, has put the
Belt and Road Initiative, the New Silk Road on the table, you see
a dynamic which is unbelievable.  First of all, China naturally
is economically exploding with development, with optimism, with
absolute ambitious infrastructure projects — we should talk
about that in detail in a minute — and many other countries, I
think well above 70 countries and 40 international large
associations and institutions are cooperating with the New Silk
Road.  And all of these countries have been gripped by an
enormous sense of optimism, which some people call the “Silk Road
Spirit,” which is the sense of entering a new era of mankind; and
the rest of the Europeans and Americans don’t know it!  The only
people in the United States who have an inkling, are those from
West Virginia and some other states who travelled with President
Trump on his recent trip and came back with enormous deals; like
West Virginia having a deal of $83 billion over the next 10
years.  And people really see that the United States could
absolutely join and be a part of it.
But I think that the key battle in which the world really
is, that you have the old neo-cons, the neo-liberals, who want to
stick, with geopolitics, who want to keep the image of China and
Russia as enemies and want to continue the British Empire game of
divide and conquer, playing one section against another section;
versus what is clearly the winning strategy and that is what Xi
Jinping has put on the agenda, with a “win-win” cooperation of
all nations of the world, and with the idea of a new paradigm, a
“community for a shared future of mankind,” a community of
destiny: The idea that geopolitics can be overcome.  And more and
more countries are joining with this new conception.
So, the battle really is, can we in time, before a new
financial crash comes down on us — you know, it’s hanging over
our heads like a Damocles’ Sword — can we in time get the kinds
of changes in the United States in particular, but also in
Western Europe, to join in this New Paradigm, or will this battle
for civilization be lost?  I’m very optimistic it can be won, but
it requires activity:  We’re not experiencing dialectical
materialism, or historical materialism, where positive events are
just taking on a life of their own; because it is always the
subjective factor which plays a very large role, and one place
you can see this very clearly is in the person of Xi Jinping, who
has really given an already positive Chinese development, a
complete upgrade, and a complete transformation into a New
Paradigm. And we would need such people in the West to do
The Schiller Institute is absolutely committed to doing
everything possible that we can get the United States and Europe
to cooperate with the New Silk Road, because that will be the
decisive battle for the coming year….
So this is the perspective that has to happen in the year
2018, because I think the present status quo is not going to
last.  I appeal to all of you, use this New Year to get the
United States and European countries in the New Silk Road Spirit.

OGDEN:  That is the task for the year 2018.  The key battle,
as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, is that of the old paradigm of
geopolitics versus the New Paradigm of “win-win” collaboration
and this idea of a community of common destiny for all mankind.
We, as we sit now at the threshold of a new year — 2018 — we
find ourselves at the most crucial decisive inflection point in
that battle.  Everything hinges on victory in bringing the United
States into that New Paradigm; victory in instilling the Silk
Road Spirit into our fellow Americans; and finally, decisively,
the United States abandoning geopolitics once and for all, and
joining the New Silk Road.  Joining the One Belt, One Road
So, we have a crucial piece of material for securing that
victory.  This has just been released; just in time for the New
Year.  This is the new pamphlet from LaRouche PAC — “The Four
Economic Laws of Lyndon LaRouche; The Crucial Physical Economic
Principles Needed for the Recovery of the United States.
America’s Future on the New Silk Road.”  You can see on your
screen there, the link that you can obtain the digital copy of
this, and it’s also circulating in the streets of the United
States as we speak in this pamphlet form.  So, what your task is
for the remaining days, the remaining hours of 2017, is to get a
hold of a copy of this pamphlet.  If you have not yet caught the
contagion of the New Silk Road Spirit, that’s your task for the
remaining hours of this year.  And to hit the ground running as
we enter into this New Year — 2018 — which must see, finally
once and for all, the end of geopolitics and the consolidation of
this community of shared destiny for all mankind.
Thank you very much for joining me here today.  We would
like to thank you for being so active over the course of this
past year — 2017 — which has seen many victories and many
advancements towards victory.  But what we have to do now as we
enter into this New Year is to redouble our efforts.  I think the
perfect way of celebrating and observing the 40th wedding
anniversary of Helga Zepp-LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche, and
honoring the work that the two of them have done over the last 40
years, is to rededicate ourselves to consolidating a victory for
this vision once and for all during the course of the coming
year.  So, Happy New Year to you, and we will see you again as
you tune in next year to  Good night.

Afsæt Mueller og vedtag de Fire Love
som politisk, økonomisk program.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
22. dec., 2017.


Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er den 22. dec., 2017, og jeg er vært for vores faste udsendelse fra med vores strategiske gennemgang her ved ugens afslutning.

Der er nu 40 dage til præsident Trumps planlagte ’State of the Union’-tale for den samlede Kongres den 30. januar. Hen over de kommende 40 dage vil vi se en kamp af hidtil usete proportioner udspille sig på verdensscenen og den internationale scene; en kamp om selve dette præsidentskabs sjæl. Selv om dette har taget form af en angivelig juridisk kamp mht. den såkaldte Mueller-efterforskning, må vi aldrig fortabe os i den konstant udviklende histories ugræs, med alle disse ’connectos’ og skikkelser i denne virkelig tragiske komedie af meget dramatiske proportioner. Vi må aldrig glemme, at det, der til syvende og sidst står på spil her, er en krig, der raser på højeste niveau af politisk beslutningstagning i dette land om, hvad USA’s fremtidige politik skal være. Dette gælder især for vore relationer med resten af verden, og i særdeleshed med Rusland og Kina. Spørgsmålet er, om USA vil fortsætte med at vedtage det 20. århundredes fejlslagne geopolitik, der har bragt verden på randen af Tredje Verdenskrig? Eller vil vi forkaste hele denne fejlslagne ideologi og i stedet vedtage en vision for verden, hvor suveræne nationer ikke blot arbejder for deres egne snævre egeninteresser og i relationer, der udgør en slags imperialistisk blok, som vi har været så vant til under den Kolde Krig; men derimod arbejder for alles fælles fordel.

Sammenhængen i hele dette kupforsøg, som nu udspiller sig og er ved at blive optrævlet, blev fremlagt i det oprindelige dossier, som vi nu genoptrykker – 2. oplag på 10.000 eksemplarer.

Hvis man ser på det afsmit, der hedder, »The True Origins of the Coup Against the President« (Den virkelige oprindelse til kuppet mod præsidenten), så fremlægger det præcis, hvad den globale, politiske sammenhæng var, for fremkomsten af de operationer, der medgik til skabelsen af det såkaldte »Steele-dossier« og lagde fundamentet for det, der har fået betegnelsen »Russiagate«. Som forfatteren af dette dossier (EIR’s Mueller-dossier) gennemgår, så er den virkelige historie her spørgsmålet om krig og fred og involverer hele spørgsmålet om det, der voksede frem fra det tidspunkt, hvor præsident Xi Jinping annoncerede Bælte & Vej Initiativet i Kasakhstan i 2013, hvor han fuldstændig styrtede den eksisterende, geopolitiske verdensorden og fastslog en fuldstændig ny vision for et potentielt »win-win«-samarbejde mellem alle verdens nationer, til alles gensidige fordel.

Som dette dossier gjorde det meget klart, så er og var »disse begivenheder i 2013-2014 en direkte udfordring af det britiske imperiesystem. De udfordrer direkte det monetære system, som er kilden til den angloamerikanske verdensdominans. De udfordrer direkte fundamental, britisk, strategisk politik, der har eksisteret siden Halford Mackinders dage. Under initiativet for ’Ét Bælte, én Vej’, og i forening med Ruslands Eurasiske Union, vil Mackinders ’verdensø’, bestående af Eurasien og Afrika, blive udviklet, gennemkrydset af nye højhastigheds-jernbaneforbindelser, nye byer og vital, moderne infrastruktur, baseret på den gensidige fordel for alle de derværende nationalstater. Under den britiske, geopolitiske model«, har krig, ustabilitet og udplyndring af råmaterialer været virkeligheden for hele dette område i århundreder. »Xi Jinping har også angrebet de geopolitiske aksiomer, ved hvilke USA og briterne har opereret« i årtier. »Han foreslog i stedet en model for ’win-win’-samarbejde, hvor nationalstater samarbejder om udvikling, baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål.«

Så igen, dette er sammenhængen for hele denne krig over det amerikanske præsidentskabs sjæl. Spørgsmålet er altså, om USA vil opgive disse geopolitikker og i stedet vedtage dette totalt anderledes paradigme med menneskehedens fælles ’win-win’-mål?

Dette blev meget klart formuleret af præsident Xi Jinping, faktisk før det nylige Bælte & Vej Forum (maj 2017); dette går tilbage til FN’s Generalforsamling i 2015. Præsident Xi Jinpings tale dér havde titlen, »At arbejde sammen for at udarbejde et nyt partnerskab for ’win-win’-samarbejde og skabe et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid’. Så dette er ikke blot en abstrakt idé. I sin historiske tale for FN’s Generalforsamling fremlagde præsident Xi Jinping især, hvad denne idé med et ’win-win’-samarbejde og et «fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid« i virkeligheden vil sige. Her er et par uddrag fra Xi Jinpings tale. Han sagde:

»Verden gennemgår en historisk proces med accelereret udvikling: Fredens, udviklingens og fremskridtets solskin vil være stærkt nok til at trænge igennem krigens, fattigdommens og tilbageståenhedens skyer.

Som et kinesisk mundheld lyder, ’Det største ideal er at skabe en verden, der i sandhed er fælles for alle’. Vi bør indgå en fornyet forpligtelse til at ’bygge en ny form for internationale relationer med win-win-samarbejde og skabe et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid’.

Vi bør vedtage en ny vision, der søger win-win-resultater for alle, og afvise den forældede tankegang, at ’den enes død er den andens brød’ eller ’vinderen tager alt’.

Vi bør ’opgive koldkrigsmentaliteten i alle dens manifestationsformer og skabe en ny vision for fælles, omfattende, samarbejdende og vedvarende sikkerhed’.

Vi må ’arbejde sammen for at sikre, at alle er befriet for nød, har adgang til udvikling og lever med værdighed’.

I deres interaktioner må civilisationer acceptere deres forskelligheder. Kun gennem gensidig respekt, gensidig læring og harmonisk sameksistens kan verden bevare sin diversitet og trives. Hver civilisation repræsenterer sit folks enestående vision og bidrag. De forskellige civilisationer bør have dialog og udvekslinger i stedet for at forsøge at udelukke eller erstatte hinanden. Vi bør lade os inspirere af hinanden for at styrke den menneskelige civilisations kreative udvikling.«

Så igen, det er den vision, som Xi Jinping fremlagde i sin tale for FN i 2015, med titlen, »At arbejde sammen for at udarbejde et nyt partnerskab for ’win-win’-samarbejde og skabe et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid«. Denne tale i 2015 ligner faktisk temmelig meget den vision, som Lyndon LaRouche fremlægger i sin bog, der blev udgivet i 2005, med titlen Earth’s Next Fifty Years (Jordens kommende 50 år). I denne bog definerer han rammen for denne nye form for relationer mellem landene. Hvis man går tilbage til denne bog af Lyndon LaRouche fra 2005, så var det en samling af flere artikler, han skrev, og ligeledes nogle taler, han tidligere havde holdt under en turne, han foretog i Europa og Eurasien. Men i denne bogs hovedartikel, der havde titlen, »Den kommende eurasiske verden«, forklarer Lyndon LaRouche detaljeret ideen om, hvad denne vision for en ny form for relationer mellem lande bør være. Og faktisk, hvad er det princip, det videnskabelige princip, ud fra hvilket nationer kan relatere til hinanden ud fra standpunktet om den højeste fællesnævner, i modsætning til det laveste.

Her er den vision, som Lyndon LaRouche fremlagde. Han sagde, »Tag en anden fremgangsmåde. Denne anden fremgangsmåde er menneskehedens fælles interesse. Det, vi bør tilsigte med kulturen, er ideen om menneskets natur; at mennesket har en vis, iboende rettighed, der adskiller mennesket fra dyret. Lad os individuelt og kollektivt bekræfte regeringsstyrelsens forpligtelse over for menneskets værdighed, som det kommer til udtryk i dette menneskes, denne families, rettighed til, for deres børn og børnebørn, at have udsigten til forbedrede livsbetingelser, en meningsfuld fremtid og en anerkendelse af deres personlige identitet som en person, der i sin levetid har fået muligheden for at bidrage til menneskehedens fremtid som helhed; til ære for fortiden og til fordel for fremtiden. Vi må indse, at intet folk kan være funktionelt suverænt mht. forpligtelsen over for sit eget folks overbevisninger, med mindre de er fuldstændigt suveræne mht. deres nationale anliggender. Denne suverænitets afgørende funktion må erkendes som værende kulturel i sin essens. For at regere sig selv må et folk have et fælles grundlag af viden. Relationerne staterne imellem må finde sted efter princippet om en platonisk, sokratisk dialog om ideer. Der er almene principper, der forener nationer omkring et fælles mål, men denne almenhed må udarbejdes i udviklingen af ideer; af nationale kulturer i dialog med nationale kulturer. De principper, der står frem som fornødne, fælles mål, er hovedsageligt sådanne principper som videnskaben om fysisk økonomi. Processen med udvikling af missionsorienteret samarbejde mellem denne planets kulturer må ses som en fortsættelse af en fortsat proces henover de fremtidige generationer.«

Dette var et kort uddrag af en meget omfattende bog, udgivet af Lyndon LaRouche i 2005. Men man ser harmonien mellem den vision, som Lyndon LaRouche her fremlægger, og så det, Xi Jinping siger i sin tale for FN ti år senere, i 2015. Men imellem de to ser man en vision, og nu ser man virkeligheden i det, som denne idé om et ’win-win’-paradigme for relationer mellem landene faktisk repræsenterer; i modsætning til den fejlslagne form for vision, vi kender fra den Kolde Krig, og som har bragt verden til punktet, hvor vi har haft flere verdenskrige, og nu til punktet, som kunne være truslen om en atomar konflikt mellem nationer.

Ser man på, hvad Lyndon LaRouche sagde i denne bog, og ser man dernæst på, hvad Xi Jinping så smukt sagde i sin tale for FN, og sætter man det i kontrast til det katastrofale, beskæmmende, nationale sikkerhedsdokument, der netop er blevet offentliggjort af Trumps Hvide Hus; så ser man et meget signifikant problem mht. den kamp, der stadig raser omkring dette præsidentskabs sjæl og politik. Dette er på ingen måde en sort/hvid eller fuldført kamp. Vi ser, at, på højeste niveau, inkl. internt i administrationen, foregår der stadig denne kamp over, hvilken retning USA vil tage. Vil vi fortsat vedtage geopolitik? Eller, vil vi gå i retning af denne idé med ’win-win’-relation mellem lande, som det er blevet forklaret af præsident Xi Jinping og Lyndon LaRouche?

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet.  

So, let me just give you a little taste of some of the
attitude that is represented in this national security policy
document.  Here are two short quotes.  Let’s start with this one:
“After being dismissed as a phenomenon of an earlier century,
great power competition returned.  China and Russia began to
reassert their influence regionally and globally.  Today, they
are fielding military capabilities designed to deny America
access in times of crisis, and to contest our ability to operate
freely in critical commercial zones during peace time.  In short,
they are contesting our geopolitical advantages and trying to
change the international order in their favor.”  Here’s another
short excerpt:  “Although the United States seeks to continue to
cooperate with China, China is using economic inducements and
penalties, influence operations, and implied military threats to
persuade other states to heed its political and security agenda.
China’s infrastructure investments and trade strategies reinforce
its geopolitical aspirations.  Its efforts to build and
militarize outposts in the South China Sea endanger the free flow
of trade, threaten the sovereignty of other nations, and
undermine regional stability.”  Etc., etc., etc.  Those are just
two very short excerpts from a document which is very lengthy;
but you can see from those two quotes that the inclination of the
authors of this report is to continue to view the world from the
standpoint of geopolitics, geopolitical competition between
nations and blocks of nations.  And you can even see a
not-so-veiled reference to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative
right there in that quote where they said China’s economic and
trade agenda is only being used to try to advance its
geopolitical advantage.
So, that’s a view straight out of the think tanks in
Washington and the {Economist} magazine of London.  It’s very
curious, because it actually goes contrary to exactly what
President Trump himself has represented on the world stage;
including on his recent “state visit-plus” to China, where he
talked very positively of the initiatives that China has taken
and has forged a very close personal relationship with President
Xi Jinping.  Exactly contrary to this view that China is somehow
our economic and strategic rival, and that we have to compete
with them on the geopolitical world stage.
People have pointed out that when President Trump presented
this national security policy, in a highly unusual way; it’s very
unusual for the President himself to make the speech presenting
the policy document.  But when he did make that speech, he used
very different language, especially in regards to China.  He
spoke about the importance of sovereign nations that are
respecting each other and are working together.  He did not use
some of the more egregious and inflammatory language which is
contained within this document.  But still, the very fact that
this document was published shows you that we have a lot of work
to do to continue to wage this battle inside the United States
over what our policy will be.  Will we continue to embrace
geopolitics, or will we embrace this new “win-win” paradigm which
is emerging now as a replacement to that failed Cold War mode of
I’d like to play for you just a short excerpt from the
webcast that Helga Zepp-LaRouche conducted yesterday, where she
spoke about her reaction to this national security policy
document.  So, here’s what Helga Zepp-LaRouche had to say:

(Hele Helgas tale kan ses på dansk her)

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  This document is clearly
looking at the world from the standpoint of, as you said,
geopolitics, and if you look at it from that standpoint,
naturally, then China and Russia, but especially China which is
rising, are regarded as rivals or enemies.  And I think that this
paper — Trump, which is very unusual — insisted that he present
the paper, and not the National Security Advisor who normally is
presenting such a report; and obviously, it seems that he did
that in order to soften certain formulations.  For example:
Apart from going through some of the language of the report, he
also said that he wants to build a very strong partnership with
Russia and China, and for example, this had the ridiculous effect
that some European newspapers would say, “he can’t even read the
paper, because he said things which are different than in the
report.”  And I think it reflects the fact that the faction fight
in the Trump administration is far from being over, that there is
still the effort by the neo-cons and by leftovers of previous
administrations, in various aspects of this administration, which
expressed themselves in this report.  And Trump, who after all
had a very successful state visit to China a little while ago and
who has talked successfully on the telephone with Putin in the
last week, defeating a terrorist attack which was planned for St.
Petersburg and similar very productive things; so I think Trump
still has the inclination that he wants to work with Russia and
But I think if you look at the very sharp, extremely sharp
reactions coming from the Russian Foreign Ministry, from Peskov,
the spokesman of the Kremlin, from {Global Times}, from the
Chinese Foreign Ministry, from the Chinese Embassy in Washington,
they all basically say this doctrine reflects an outmoded kind of
thinking; they point to the fact that there is a completely new
era shaping especially the West Pacific, because in this paper,
there are six regions, one of them being the western or eastern
Pacific, and obviously this is one of the areas which is
completely changed through the Belt and Road Initiative, where
all the countries in the region are cooperating with China in a
“win-win” cooperation to the mutual benefit of each of them; and
that therefore, and since the offer was made many times to the
United States, and to Europe to cooperate with the Belt and Road
Initiative, there is actually no reason to go into such an
adversarial position.  The Russians basically called it an
“imperial document,” insist it still reflects the desire to still
insist on a unipolar world, which is long gone, so it’s a
completely futile effort.  And the Chinese also were extremely
critical and saying this is an “outmoded way of thinking” and
cannot lead to anything positive.
But it shows you that the world is very far from being out
of danger zones, and I’m normally giving credit to Trump because
unlike his predecessors, Bush and Obama, he has stretched out his
hand to Russia and China, and he still has the potential to move
the world into a different direction.  But nevertheless, when he
does something which I’m not so happy about, I also take the
liberty to say soâ¦.
But I think we are in one of these areas, and one of the
commentaries in one Chinese paper said, that there are many
different conceptions how the future of mankind should be shaped,
and that is not yet a settled question.  And I think that that is
absolutely true, but that is why it is so absolutely important to
overcome this geopolitical view which has the idea that you have
groups of countries, or one country which has a legitimate
interest against the others, I mean, that is the kind of thinking
which led to two world wars in the 20th Century, and I think it
should be obvious to anybody, that in the age of thermonuclear
weapons, that thinking can only lead to the possible annihilation
of the human species: We should get rid of it.

OGDEN:  So, as you just heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche say, we
are in the midst of a continued battle over really what will be
the soul of this Presidency.  This national security study report
reflects a very bad and failed geopolitical mode of thinking.
Those who are the authors of that represent a leftover aspect of
this kind of neo-con approach to the world which has gotten us
into endless wars, and has really brought us to the brink of a
possible world war conflict between the United States and Russia,
or the United States and China.  In fact, we need to embrace the
new “win-win” paradigm of thinking, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche just
said.  On that note, there is a continued development on the
front of this battling against this attempted coup against this
Presidency, and to try to create the conditions where President
Trump can remain true to what is clearly his personal commitment
to a positive relationship between the United States and Russia,
and the United States and China, to solve the world’s problems.
To take problems which are common problems to the entire world —
terrorism, economic crises, other things such as that — and to
work together in a great powers relationship to resolve those
Now, a couple of updates on the continued unravelling of the
so-called “Mueller-gate” as we continue to see that there was
really, as it’s been characterized, a fifth column inside this
apparatus; who really before Trump was elected, already had made
it clear through those text messages from Peter Strzok and others
for example, that they were completely opposed to the election of
Donald Trump and politically biased beyond hope.  But then have
allowed that political bias to be continued in after his
election, and even after his inauguration to try to bring down
this Presidency from the inside.  More and more people are now
beginning to see that there was an actual collusion between the
intelligence agencies and the Obama administration and the
Clinton campaign to try and set this thing in motion.  That has
continued to operate.  Here is an article from a news publication
called {The Tablet} magazine.  The title of this article is “Did
President Obama Read the Steele Dossier in the White House Last
August?”  The question that they have is a very legitimate
question.  The beginning of this article reads as follows, and I
think it raises some very important aspects of exactly how this
collusion operation worked.  Here’s the beginning of the article.
It says:
“To date the investigation into the Fusion GPS-manufactured
collusion scandal has focused largely on the firm itself, its
allies in the press, as well as contacts in the Department of
Justice and FBI. However, if a sitting president used the
instruments of state, including the intelligence community, to
disseminate and legitimize a piece of paid opposition research in
order to first obtain warrants to spy on the other partyâs
campaign, and then to de-legitimize the results of an election
once the other partyâs candidate won, weâre looking at a scandal
that dwarfs Watergate — a story not about a bad man in the White
House, but about the subversion of key security institutions that
are charged with protecting core elements of our democratic
process while operating largely in the shadowsâ¦.
“Understanding the origins of the ‘Steele dossier’ is
especially important because of what it tells us about the nature
and the workings of what its supporters would hopefully describe
as an ongoing campaign to remove the elected president of the
United States. Yet the involvement of sitting intelligence
officials — and a sitting president — in such a campaign should
be a frightening thought even to people who despise Trump and
oppose every single one of his policies, especially in an age
where the possibilities for such abuses have been multiplied by
the power of secret courts, wide-spectrum surveillance, and the
centralized creation and control of story-lines that live on
social media while being fed from inside protected nodes of the
federal bureaucracy.”
Then the story goes on, using public-source documentation to
link together this entire apparatus going all the way back to the
origins of the Steele dossier.  But this question — Was a
sitting President involved using his intelligence agencies to try
to bring down a political opponent?  That is a story that rises
to the level of Watergate and beyond.  What Helga Zepp-LaRouche
has pointed out, is that this entire thing — that as an example
— the questions are now being asked; including by members of the
United States Senate and United States House.  Devin Nunes,
Grassley, Trey Gowdy, Jim Jordan.  And she acknowledges that
there has been a full mobilization of activists here in the
United States to distribute this Mueller dossier that’s been
circulated in the Congressional offices and the Senate offices.
There’s been very in-depth interest from the relevant people
involved in this counter investigation into what’s contained in
this dossier.  As Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in her webcast
yesterday, “The tide is now beginning to turn.”
So, let me play another short excerpt from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s webcast from yesterday:

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  There are rumors circulating that
Trump may come out with a “Christmas surprise.”  Now if that
would happen, it would be an interesting thing, and it obviously
would be somebody to investigate this whole complex in the form
of a special investigator.  But I think also, already now, these
Congressmen and Senators you mentioned, Nunes, Grassley in the
Senate, Gowdy, and Gaetz, and various others, I think they’re
quite fired up already about what they’re finding.
And even the media are not entirely covering it up any more.
There was a quite good article in Denmark, in the conservative
daily {Berlingske Tidende}, which said:  Obama bureaucrats
conspired to prevent the election of Trump and after that failed
they’re trying to topple him; and then they go through the whole
story of who are the culprits.  So it is coming out.  Even the
[major German daily] {FAZ} could not avoid reporting it, even
though, in their typical way, they tried to downplay it and say,
all these people who say “Deep State,” these are conspiracy
theorists, and so on.  But the truth is coming out.
Now, we in the United States that is, our colleagues from
LaRouche PAC, they made a full mobilization with a lot of
activists; they distributed the dossier about Mueller in all the
Congressional offices and all the Senate offices, and as they
were saying they had many in-depth discussions where the interest
about what is happening has been increasingly there.  Because it
seems that some people in the Congress realize that what’s at
stake is the Constitution of the United States.  Congress has
oversight rights against the intelligence agencies, and if these
agencies are loyal to a previous administration who was involved
in such incredible schemes, they are aware of the fact that if
they don’t act right now, then you can throw the Constitution of
the United States in the wastepaper basket.
But I think it will require a continuous effort and
mobilization, because these people are quite desperate.  Because
they see that their whole system is coming down, and if this
investigation continues, I mean, there were several people who
said what was done by the Department of Justice, or some people
in it and in the FBI, were felonies.  So they are trying to twist
the situation to avoid the consequences of their doing, but I
think it’s reaching a very, very serious point where the tide is
turning already.  But it is a fight, so stay tuned with us, and
don’t be complacent, don’t eat too many cookies over Christmas:
Stay tuned and stay mobilized.

OGDEN:  Well, as Helga LaRouche said, the tide is indeed
turning, and we’re seeing evidence of that.  But the sense of
urgency has to be there.  Over this next 40 days, through the
holiday period, all the way up to this State of the Union, the
fight to protect the constitutionality of the US Presidency and
the integrity of that, is definitely something which is
continuing to rage.  However, at the same time, we have to
continue to have a sense of urgency around the fight for the
economic program.  The positive economic solutions to the crisis
that we face, which is this Four Economic Laws campaign.  To
bring the United States into this New Paradigm of development.
That sense of urgency for a victory on that Four Economic Laws
package came into stark perspective again this week with this
horrific tragedy, this horrific train derailment that occurred up
near Tacoma, Washington.  The Amtrak train that jumped the tracks
and came over the bridge and onto the I-5 interstate below.  An
absolutely horrific tragedy.  President Trump actually responded
quite properly to that horrible accident by issuing the following
tweet.  As you can see on the screen here, he said “The train
accident that just occurred in Dupont Washington shows more than
ever why our soon-to-be-submitted infrastructure plan must be
approved quickly. $7 trillion spent in the Middle East, while our
roads, bridges, tunnels, railways and more crumble.  Not for
Indeed, this brings the attention to the necessity for a
massive infrastructure plan.  And as President Trump said all the
way back to the beginning of his administration, he’s called for
a $1 trillion infrastructure plan.  Now, we don’t know what that
infrastructure policy will be once it’s finally submitted, and
once it finally becomes public.  We don’t know what kind of
funding mechanisms the Trump White House is thinking about; we
don’t know what kind of form that’s going to take.  But the form
that it must take is the form that’s contained in those Four
Economic Laws by Lyndon LaRouche.  There can be no variation,
there can be no compromise.  We need to have an immediate
Glass-Steagall reorganization in order to erect a firewall
between productive credit that should be going into
infrastructure and productive employment, and speculative
gambling that takes place on Wall Street.  But we need to have a
national bank; we need to go back to what Hamilton originally
conceived when he created the first national bank.  And we can
apply it in the way that Hamilton did, or we can apply it in the
way that Franklin Roosevelt did.  He had an idea for a national
infrastructure bank.  But you need to have this kind of direct
Federal credit that is directed into these projects and into
productive employment.
Unfortunately, we haven’t seen anything from President Trump
in now almost a year, even though he’s professed that his number
one agenda item was infrastructure.  According to some accounts,
the reason why President Trump won the Rust Belt was because of
his commitment to infrastructure.  These areas of the country
where infrastructure has been crumbling, responded to what
President Trump was talking about with $1 trillion of
infrastructure investment.  However, under the current situation,
first President Trump’s attention was completely focussed on
repealing Obamacare; now it’s completely focussed on the
so-called tax reform package, which has done nothing.  It’s done
nothing but continue to delay the follow-through on President
Trump’s stated, professed agenda of $1 trillion for
infrastructure investment.  It’s also, by the way incidentally,
set the stage for Paul Ryan and others of that ideological bent,
to admit that they’re already setting things in motion to come
right on the heels of the so-called tax reform package with major
cuts to Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid — so-called
“entitlement reform”.
But this is a distraction.  This so-called GOP agenda is a
distraction and we must stay focussed on exactly what the agenda
must be.  And it’s these Four Economic Laws.  As Helga LaRouche
said in her webcast yesterday, she was asked directly by the
moderator what her reaction was to this so-called tax reform
package.  She stated unequivocally that this much ballyhooed tax
bill will do nothing without the full package of Glass-Steagall,
national banking, and the rest of the Four Economic Laws.  So,
I’d like to actually play for you in her own words what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche had to say yesterday in response to this tax reform
bill during her webcast.  Here’s Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  obviously, this is celebrated as the
first big victory of President Trump.  I don’t think it will
solve anything, if you don’t put it in the package of other
measures, like for example Glass-Steagall, a credit system, like
Roosevelt’s Reconstruction Finance Corp. or like the National
Bank of Alexander Hamilton; and basically ending the speculation
in the derivatives sector.  If you only lower the taxes under
these circumstances without curbing the other factors I just
mentioned, what it probably will do, it will attract some
investment in the United States for sure.  But people in Germany
already say, “well, we have to protect ourselves, take
countermeasures against it,” so it will lead to an increased
tension internationally; and probably in the United States, the
present big corporations and banks will just use these tax cuts
to invest more in the stock market, in buying up their own
shares, what they have been doing since the crisis of 2008 with
quantitative easing and the zero-interest-rate policy.  And I
think one reason why this is to be feared is Jamie Dimon, for
example, laughed, and said: This is wonderful, this is
quantitative easing four.
I think it just requires a continuation of our mobilization.
I know our colleagues in the United States from LaRouche PAC,
they have produced a new pamphlet with the demand to implement
the Four Laws of my husband, of Lyndon LaRouche, and why the
United States must join with China in building the New Silk Road,
both domestically and internationally.  This pamphlet
[“LaRouche’s Four Laws & America’s Future on the New Silk Road”]
is out.  I would encourage you, our viewers and listeners to get
ahold of this document:  Read it, because it has all the
solutions, what are the correct economic conceptions for the
United States and the rest of the world to get out of this
present crisis.
This is all extremely urgent, because we could have a
meltdown of the system any minute.  And just to mention it
briefly, this bitcoin mania which is going on, is really a
reminder of the Tulip Bubble [in 1637] before it burst.  China
has recognized that danger, they’re basically banning speculation
in bitcoins.  And all of these crazinesses make just clear, the
urgent need to implement Glass-Steagall, and the entire Four Laws
of Mr. LaRouche, which especially includes a massive increase in
the productivity of the workforce through a crash program in
fusion technology, in space cooperation, in high-tech investments
in general; and unless that is done, including high-technology
infrastructure — and the recent Amtrak accident in Washington
State just underlines that this absolutely is necessary — unless
this is all done as a package, I don’t think the world will get
out of this crisis.

OGDEN:  So, as you just heard Helga Zepp-LaRouche state, we
have in fact published a new pamphlet.  This is LaRouche PAC’s
newest pamphlet, called “The Four Economic Laws: The Physical
Economic Principles To Create a Recovery in the United States.
America’s Future on the New Silk Road”.  This is available both
in print form and in digital form; it’s on the LaRouche PAC
website.  You can see the front cover there, also the back cover
which has got a map of some of the key nodal points of the
connectivity of the planet through this idea of a World
Land-Bridge.  This is what would happen if the United States were
to join the New Silk Road.  Then, there listed in summary form,
are the Lyndon LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws.  So, the contents
of that pamphlet, as LaRouche said, absolutely must be studied;
must be emulated by the citizens of the United States; and must
be made the policy of the United States Presidency.  That’s in
fact how we started this program with the 40-day countdown to
President Trump’s State of the Union address on January 30th.
As you heard, there is a battle which is raging for the soul
of this Presidency.  The role that the LaRouche movement is
playing is indispensable.  We have not achieved victory yet.  We
have very clear indications that victory is close at hand on many
fronts, and that victory is indeed attainable.  But it must be
viewed from the highest possible standpoint; not just piecemeal
victories here and there.  We have to view this from the
standpoint of a total policy shift in terms of how the United
States sees itself in the world.  We have to abandon geopolitics;
we have to embrace the new paradigm of “win-win” relationships
between countries.  We have to return to the Hamiltonian
principles of economics — credit creation for high technology
investment.  And we have to join the New Silk Road.  This is our
job over the next 40 days; and we can take encouragement from the
standpoint of the fact that indeed, we have absolutely gained
major victories in the past period.  Both in terms of the
victories against this attempted coup against the Presidency of
the United States, but also victories in terms of securing the
New Paradigm abroad.  We should take a look at what President Xi
Jinping said in that speech to the United Nations General
Assembly, and continue to keep that vision in mind.  In fact, we
should continue to go back to what Lyndon LaRouche himself said
in 2005 in that historic document, {Earth’s Next Fifty Years}.
That’s our mission.  We have 40 days between now and the
State of the Union.  With the new pamphlet that’s just been
issued — that “The Four Economic Laws: The Physical Economic
Principles To Create a Recovery in the United States.  America’s
Future on the New Silk Road” — we have everything that we need
to gain a victory over the course of the next 40 days.
So, thank you very much for watching, and please stay tuned
to  We wish you a Merry Christmas, and we will
continue to be bringing you breaking developments over the coming
days.  Thank you very much, and please stay tuned.  Good night.

Kinas initiativ: Fra undergang gennem
selvdestruktion til velstand og fremgang.
Tale af Natalia Vitrenko, leder af Ukraines
Progressive Socialistparti, på Schiller
Instituttets konference, 25-26. nov., 2017

Den eksisterende verdensorden er forældet. Så længe, den fortsætter, vil menneskeheden være truet af spredningen af konflikterne i Mellemøsten, Ukraine og Nordkorea til en atomar Tredje Verdenskrig, og af det verdensomspændende, spekulative finanssystems krak, som vil blive lige så destruktivt. Det er mislykkedes de internationale, globaliserede institutioner, skabt af de førende, kapitalistiske lande under USA’s auspicier – Den internationale Valutafond, Verdenshandelsorganisationen, NATO, Verdensbanken og den Europæiske Bank for Genopbygning og Udvikling (EBRD) – at løse ét eneste af de mest presserende problemer, menneskeheden konfronteres med: hungersnød, milliarder af menneskers manglende adgang til lægehjælp og uddannelse, narkoafhængighed, handel med mennesker og deres organer og grasserende terrorisme på alle planetens kontinenter. Det er grunden til, at 15.000 videnskabsfolk fra 184 lande udgav deres anden Advarsler til Menneskeheden den 13. nov., 2017 (den første var i 1992), hvor de identificerer globale trusler og foreslår måder til deres løsning.

På denne baggrund kan fornuftige mennesker ikke undgå at forstå behovet for et radikalt skifte i paradigmet for internationale relationer og modellen for globalisering. I det historiske forløb er det nu sket, at Kina har foreslået det nye paradigme. Denne fem tusind år gamle civilisation, der på kreativ vis har vedtaget den nyeste model for en socialistisk økonomi.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Hvad Europa bør yde af bidrag til det globale paradigme.
Af Jacques Cheminade; tale på Schiller
Instituttets konference i Frankfurt, Tyskland

Det bør stå helt klart, at den nuværende Europæiske Union er baseret på et forræderi af de bedste historiske og kulturelle kilder i Europa – og jeg mener kilder, ikke rødder, der klamrer sig til jorden. Men det bør ligeledes stå helt klart, at de europæiske nationer og deres ledere, og ligeledes deres såkaldte populistiske opponenter, også har skænket deres sjæl bort. Hvor ligger håbet så? Hvad kunne vore europæiske bidrag være? Det ligger selvfølgelig i en fornemmelse af at forstå, hvad en nationalstat er, noget, der er latent, om end skjult, i alle sande europæeres hjerte. Det er vores opgave at inspirere til, at den sovende fornuft vågner.

En nationalstat er meget mere end et territorium eller en befolknings givne tilstand, eller endda en religion eller en tradition. Det er en idés dynamik, som udvikler sig og vokser i magt og omfang i historiens løb.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika.
Tale af Hussein Askary på Schiller Instituttets
konference i Tyskland, 25. nov., 2017

Der er intet urealistisk ved det, jeg her fremlægger om Sydvestasien og Afrika. Grunden til, at jeg er forhåbningsfuld, er, at det nye paradigme inden for internationale relationer har fået fodfæste, og den gamle imperieorden blegner. Den anden, mere subjektive grund til at være optimistisk er, at vi vil fortsætte med at kæmpe for at få dette til at ske.

Imperiet lurer stadig farligt, som en såret tiger, og kunne angribe. Imperiets ideologi med dets aksiomer og overbevisninger om forholdet mellem menneske og natur, mellem menneske og menneske og mellem nation og nation, vil fortsat være en kilde til fare for den menneskelige race. For eksempel, den overbevisning, at penge får ting til at ske. Eller miljøforkæmpernes idé om, at menneskelige aktiviteter for at hæve samfundets levestandard altid har en negativ virkning på naturen og miljøet, og at menneskene simpelt hen bør forhindres i at vokse i antal, og i en voksende levestandard.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Schiller Institute Special Report:
Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia (Middle East) and Africa:
A Vision of an Economic Renaissance,

This 246-page special report was released in November 2017. It was authored by Hussein Askary and Jason Ross and a Schiller Institute team.
Here is the introduction to the report, followed by the Table of Contents.
Order information:
Please order from The Schiller Institute in Denmark.
Tel: 53 57 00 51; 35 43 00 33,
Printed version: 400 kr.  regular mail; 425 kr.via Quickbrev
Pdf: 200 kr.
Payment to The Schiller Institute
Homebanking: 1551-5648408
Giro: 5648408
The report can also be picked up at our office:
Sankt Knuds Vej 11, basement left, 1903 Frederiksberg.
Please call or write to arrange: 53 57 00 51; 35 43 00 33,




Download (PDF, Unknown)


Table of Contents:


A New Global Paradigm 11

China’s Role in the Economic Renaissance of West Asia and Africa 14

What is Win-Win Philosophy? 16

The Age of Mega-Projects Is Back 21

Redefining ‘Sustainable Development’ 22

‘Helping’ or Empowering Africa 24

The African Union Aims High 25

Africa Must Leap Ahead, Not Crawl Forward! 28
Chapter 1: West Asia: The Silk Road’s Crossroads to the Mediterranean and Africa 29

Egypt: A Bridge between Asia, Europe and Africa 30

Chapter 2: The Silk Road Reaches Africa 33

China in Africa: Myths or Facts 36

Europe, not China, Is Engaged in Land Grabbing in Africa 37

Defining an African Future 40

Chapter 3: The Economic Science Behind the World LandBridge 41

What is Infrastructure, Really? 41

Economics: The Ultimate Science 41

Platforms: Artificial Environments 44

Energy Flux Density 45

Power and Energy 45

Promethean ‘Fire’ 46

Aspects of the ‘Synthetic Environment’48

Materials 48

Water 49

Transportation 50

Energy 53

Space 55

A Future Platform: Nuclear Fusion 56

Nuclear Power: Fission and Fusion 56

Benefits of Fusion 58

New, Unique Applications of Fusion 59

Conclusion 60

Chapter 4: Financing Regional and National Infrastructure 63

Money vs. Credit 63

Credit and Productivity 64

Invariance of Historical and Modern Examples 66

President Roosevelt’s RFC 68

A Southwest Asia/Africa Regional Infrastructure Bank 69

Cooperation with International Development Banks  70

Public-Private Partnerships Cannot Substitute 73

Appendix: Egypt: Internal financing of development 74

A National Reconstruction and Development Bank 74

Appendix: “LaRouche on Money vs. Credit” 75

Chapter 5: Demography and Development 77

Case Study: Egypt—Myth of Overpopulation 79

Moving Forward and Outward 80

Egypt Reclaims the Desert 81

The New Nile Valley 82

Chapter 6: Integration of West Asia with the New Silk Road 85

The Bridge Among Continents 85

Completing the Land-Bridge Westward 87

Proposed Corridors Integrating Arab States 90

A Common Enemy: The Desert 91

Attacking the Desert from the Fertile Crescent 91

Petrochemicals: Industry of the Future 99

Plastics 100

Appendix—Case Study: Syria’s Reconstruction Project Phoenix 103

Financing Reconstruction in a Nation Ruined by War? 105

Physical-Economic Development 106

Syria and the New Silk Road 106

Conclusion 108

Chapter 7: Africa — Transport Network Integration 111

Colonial Legacy 113

Dependency on Roads 114

Landlocked Nations 116

Turning a Crisis Into an Opportunity 118

A. The Nile Basin and East Africa  119

Creating a Powerful North-South Axis 119

East Africa’s Economic Corridors 125

B. Southern Africa  134

Roads, Rails and Ports in Southern Africa 134

The South African High-Speed Rail Project 135

Gautrain 137

When Will South Africa Convert to Standard Gauge?138

Africa’s North-South Corridor 138

Africa Tomorrow 142

C. West and Central Africa  142

Fast Track Development Perspective for West and Central Africa 142

Ports Connecting to the BRI 144

Development of West Africa 145

Development of Central Africa 147

Mechanized Agriculture: Africa Can Feed Itself and the Rest of the World 147

D. North Africa 147

Dreams and Setbacks 149

Highway Networks 149

Maghreb Railway Networks 151

Trans-Maghreb High-Speed Rail 152

Morocco Joins the BRI: Tanger-Med Port and Technopolis 154

Algeria Joins, Too156

Bridging the Gap Between Europe and Africa 157

Chapter 8: Africa — Water Resources Development 161

Managing the Water Cycle as a Cycle 163

Category 1: Management of Land Flow 165

Into the Future: How Africa Can Lead the World 169

Category 2: Weather Control 170

Category 3: Desalination of Ocean Water 174

Africa’s Water Future 175

Case study: The Nile Basin 175

The Linear Facts 176

Lost to Evaporation 177

Hydropower, Water Management, Agricultural Development 181

Chapter 9: To Power Africa, Go Nuclear! 185

Energy Requirements 185

An African Visionary: Diop 189

Chapter 10: Africa — Food Security: Realizing Africa’s Vast Agricultural Potential  193

Land and Yield 195

China’s Contributions 197

Lake Chad Basin 198

Sudan 200

Commitment to Transformation 200

Chapter 11: Africa in Space 203

New Space Nations 204

Space as a Driver for Development 205

A World-Class Science Project

206 Case Study — South Africa: Looking to the Heavens to Develop the Continent  208 Scientific Orientation 209

Imagination and Wonder 211

Space Technology Can Support Africa’s Development Goals 212

Working with China and the BRICS 213

Chapter 12: Conclusions and Recommendations 215

The Political and Economic Context 215

Some Necessary Axiomatic Shifts 217

Recommendation: Understanding Physical Economics 218

Recommendation: Financing Infrastructure 219

Recommendation: Science and Technology 220

Recommendation: Transport 220

Recommendation: Power 221

Recommendation: Water 221

Recommendation: Agriculture 222

Chapter 13: Selection of Proposed Mega Projects in Africa 225

Pan-African High-Speed Rail Network 225

Regional and Continental Corridors 227

New Suez Canal and Industrial Zone 229

Transaqua: The Centerpiece of Africa’s Development 231

Grand Inga Dam Project 237

South African Nuclear Program 239

Sicily–Tunis Connector — TUNeIT 242

Gibraltar Euro-African Tunnel 245


Se alle taler på Schiller Instituttets konference,
»At opfylde menneskehedens drøm«

Se alle taler på Schiller Instituttets konference, »At opfylde menneskehedens drøm«, i Bad Soden, Tyskland, 25.- 26. nov., 2017, her.

Opdateres løbende.

Europæisk appel til præsident Trump
om at indføre Glass/Steagall.
Liliana Gorini fra konferencesalen,
Frankfurt, Tyskland, 25.-26. nov., 2017

I sidste måned besluttede vi, fordi den Europæiske Union forbyder diskussionen, at bringe diskussionen fra Italien til USA. På hvilken måde? Vi skrev et brev til præsident Trump for at minde ham om det løfte, han gav under valgkampagnen, om at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven. Et hundrede treogtredive parlamentsmedlemmer underskrev brevet – fra det italienske parlament, det Europæiske Parlament, inklusive hr. Zanni, der indsamlede otte underskrifter fra parlamentsmedlemmer på dette brev, samt fra nationale parlamentsmedlemmer: regionale rådsfolk fra Lombardiet, Veneto og folk fra Syditalien.

Liliana Gorini: Mit navn er Liliana Gorini, og jeg er forkvinde for Movisol, LaRouches organisation i Italien og en nær medarbejder til fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche og hr. LaRouche gennem 40 år. Jeg siger dette, fordi jeg af fysiske årsager ikke har deltaget i konferencer, og nu er jeg her endelig: Så mange mennesker kender mig måske ikke.

Jeg vil gerne kommentere, hvad Zanni netop sagde om situationen i Europa, og især i mit land, Italien, og fuldt ud bekræfte det, han sagde om virkningerne på befolkningen af den Europæiske Unions vanvittige politik, og især om bail-in. Der er allerede ofre i Italien for denne bail-in-politik og Bankunionen: To pensionister tog deres eget liv, fordi de mistede hele deres opsparing. Dette var ikke rige mennesker. Dette var almindelige mennesker, der havde sparet op i hele deres liv, og deres penge blev ganske enkelt stjålet med denne bail-in (ekspropriering af bankindskud). Det er ikke en løsning; der skaber faktisk flere problemer.

Efter problemet med bankerne i Veneto har vi nu også et problem med de væsentligste samarbejdsbanker i Genova, Carige, der er ved at gå fallit, og folk er bange. De ikke alene mister deres jobs, og økonomien synes at fortsætte udelukkende, fordi folk lever af deres opsparede midler. Italienere har tendens til at opspare penge; men hvis de også mister deres opsparinger, vil de ikke alene ikke have et job, men de vil heller ikke være i stand til at overleve. Så det græske mareridt er ved at komme meget, meget tæt på for alle italienere.

Men, i den Nye Silkevejsånd findes der en løsning, så jeg vil gerne overbringe de gode nyheder til alle i den optimistiske ånd, som fr. LaRouche gav udtryk for i sin åbningstale: I Italien har vi haft en diskussion, som vi begyndte for mange år siden, baseret på LaRouches Fire Love, og især den første lov, Glass/Steagall. Den debat, som Movisol – vi – skabte, har nu bragt otte lovforslag ind i det italienske parlament; i mellemtiden debatteres det i fire regionale råd. Der var for nylig en diskussion i Finanskomiteen om dette.

I sidste måned besluttede vi, fordi den Europæiske Union forbyder diskussionen, at bringe diskussionen fra Italien til USA. På hvilken måde? Vi skrev et brev til præsident Trump for at minde ham om det løfte, han gav under valgkampagnen, om at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven. Et hundrede treogtredive parlamentsmedlemmer underskrev brevet – fra det italienske parlament, det Europæiske Parlament, inklusive hr. Zanni, der indsamlede otte underskrifter fra parlamentsmedlemmer på dette brev, samt fra nationale parlamentsmedlemmer: regionale rådsfolk fra Lombardiet, Veneto og folk fra Syditalien.

Mange andre mennesker underskrev dette: Betydningsfulde økonomer, journalister, ledere af aviser, jeg selv – jeg var selvfølgelig blandt de første underskrivere.

Vores idé er at bringe dette brev til Kongressen i januar måned for at fremme de tværpolitiske lovforslag, der er blevet foreslået i den amerikanske Kongres. Som I ved, har et par republikanere og mange demokrater introduceret [eller medsponsoreret] lovforslag. Glass/Steagall-loven var i partiprogrammet for både det Republikanske og det Demokratiske Parti, ligesom det også er i de fleste italienske partiers partiprogram. I Italien afholder vi parlamentsvalg, sandsynligvis i maj. Alle [forslagene] om bankopdeling og Glass/Steagall er i alle disse italienske partiers partiprogrammer, fra venstre til højre.

Dette skyldes alt sammen vores kampagne i Italien. Jeg vil særligt gerne introducere denne unge mand – der er årsag til, at jeg er her, for han kørte mig – Massimo Coldamassaron. Det var ham, der indsamlede alle underskrifterne, opsøgte politikere og slog dem oven i hovedet og sagde, »Jeg vil redde mine børns fremtid, og I må vedtage Glass/Steagall, ellers vil vi meget snart stå uden et land.« Han har denne samling appeller, og han spurgte – og jeg gør dette, eftersom vi er her – om der er nogen af jer, som helt sikkert Hussein Askary, Ulf Sandmark, Jacques Cheminade, alle, der har en position, en eller anden fremtrædende politisk rolle, og vi vil gerne tilføje flere navne til disse 130 italienere, et par mennesker fra Frankrig, fra Tyskland, fra Sverige, fra Danmark, således, at når vi tager til Washington, vil det stå klart, at, ikke alene Italien, men hele Europa, hele Europa ønsker LaRouches Fire Love og Glass/Steagall.

Så kom hen til mig eller Massimo, og vi vil tilføje din underskrift, og vi vil sørge for, at denne appel ender i præsident Trumps hænder: Vi vil sørge for det. Mange tak. [applaus]

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg vil gerne fuldt ud støtte denne idé. Jeg mener, det er et meget nyttigt forslag, så alle fra alle lande, der ønsker at støtte dette initiativ, bør kontakte Liliana og Massimo. Jeg mener, at europæerne ikke har forenet deres stemmer, og jeg mener, at det, MP Zanni udtrykte, at der er denne diskrepans mellem den Europæiske Unions politik og så de europæiske landes evne til at forsvare deres egen interesser, er meget klar. Jeg mener, at denne konference kan være et godt udgangspunkt for at optrappe et sådant krav.

Jeg vil opfordre jer alle til at henvende jer til Liliana og hjælpe med i denne kampagne, ikke blot ved at levere en underskrift, men ved at forpligte jer til at gøre det, Massimo gjorde. Vi kan alle sammen henvende os til politikerne, til borgmestre, til parlamentsmedlemmer og kræve, at de forsvarer det almene vel.

For blot at styrke det, der blev sagt om finanskrisen: Vi sidder på en total krudttønde. Tegnene på, at krisen i 2008 gentager sig i langt større skala, er overvældende. Gældskrisen er større end i 2008; alle parametrene – derivaterne, de forgældede stater, selskaber, studenters gæld, krisen på ejendomsmarkedet – alle parametrene er omkring 40 – 80 % værre end i 2008. Og den Europæiske Union har netop udstedt retningslinjer, der går ud på, at de ikke har nogen værktøjer ud over at stjæle borgernes penge. Dette er virkelig et meget farligt øjeblik, som vi bør bruge som udgangspunkt for at gå ind i en regulær mobilisering for at få disse Fire Love gennemført.

Foto: Forkvinde for Movisol, den italienske LaRouche-bevægelse, Liliana Gorini.

Vi er vidne til indvielsen af
en helt ny æra på planeten.
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Webcast, 1. dec., 2017

Vært Matthew Ogden: Godaften; det er 1. dec., og dette er vores strategiske fredags-webcast fra

Vi har meget stof at gennemgå i aften, for vi bliver i øjeblikket vidne til indvielsen af en helt ny æra på denne planet. Det, vi bliver vidne til, især i løbet af den seneste uge, siden afslutningen af den ekstraordinært historiske Schiller Institut-konference, der fandt sted nær Frankfurt, Tyskland, i sidste weekend, er den kendsgerning, at den Nye Silkevejsdynamik – denne dynamik med store projekter og »win-win«-samarbejde, der er blevet initieret af Kina – denne Nye Silkevejsdynamik er nu den dominerende og virkelig uimodståelige dynamik på denne planet. Dette er noget, der fuldstændig er i færd med at omforme alle nationers politik på denne planet. Og tyngdecentret er skiftet væk fra det gamle paradigme, som vi har set i det transatlantiske system, og til dette Nye Paradigme, der nu har fået overtaget pga. de initiativer, som frem for alt Kina har taget.

Jeg vil gerne lægge ud med at afspille et kort uddrag af Helga Zepp-LaRouches ekstraordinære hovedtale, som hun holdt på denne konference, der var sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet nær Frankfurt, Tyskland, i sidste weekend. Konferencens titel var »At opfylde menneskehedens drøm«, og titlen på Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale var »Den Nye Silkevej; Den nye model for internationale relationer«. Her er et kort uddrag af Helgas tale:

(Se hele Helgas video og tale i dansk oversættelse her:

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet)


:  So, let me start with an idea
of Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.  He said that we are actually
living in the best of all possible worlds.  This is a very
fundamental ontological conception.  It’s the idea that we are
living in a developing universe; that what makes the universe the
best of all possible ones is its tremendous potential for
development.  It is in such a way created, that every great evil
challenges an even greater good to come into being.  I think when
we are talking about the New Silk Road and the tremendous changes
which have occurred in the world, especially in the last four
years, it is actually exactly that principle working.  Because it
was the absolute manifest lack of development of the old world
order which caused the impulse of China and the spirit of the New
Silk Road having caught on that now many nations of the world are
absolutely determined to have a development giving a better life
to all of their people.
Now, I think that the New Silk Road is a typical example of
an idea whose time had come; and once an idea is in that way
becoming a material reality, it becomes a physical force in the
Now the Chinese Ambassador to Washington, Cui Tiankai,
recently made the point, that there were 16 times in world history,
when a rising country would surpass the dominant country up to
that point.  In twelve cases it led to a war, and in four cases
the rising country just peacefully took over.  He said that China
wants neither, but we want to have a completely different system
of a “win-win” relationship of equality and respect for each
Obviously, the most important question strategically, if you
think about it, is that we can avoid the so-called Thucydides
trap.  That was the rivalry between Athens and Sparta in the 5th
Century BC, which led to the Peloponnesian War and the demise of
ancient Greece.  If this were to occur today between the United
States and China in the age of thermonuclear weapons, I think
nobody in their right mind could wish that; and therefore, we
should all be extremely happy that Trump and Xi Jinping have
developed this very important relationship.  I stuck my neck out
in the United States in February of this year by saying, if
President Trump manages to get a good relationship between the
United States and China, and between the United States and Russia, he
will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents of the
United States.  Naturally, everybody was completely freaked out
because that is not the picture people are supposed to have about
Trump.  But I think if you look at what is happening, you will
see that Trump is on a very good way to accomplish exactly that.
So, he came back from this Asia trip with $253 billion worth
of deals with China.  I watched the press conference of the
Governor of West Virginia, Jim Justice, where he said that now,
because of China, there is hope in West Virginia.  West Virginia
is a totally depressed state; they have unemployment and a drug
epidemic.  But he said now we can have value-added production, we
will have a bright future.  So, the spirit of the New Silk Road
has even caught on in West Virginia.  Obviously the United States
has an enormous demand for infrastructure, especially now after
the destruction of all these hurricanes; which just to restore
what has been destroyed requires $200 billion, not even talking
about disaster prevention.  So, this is all on a good way that
China will invest in the infrastructure in the United States, and
vice versa; US firms will cooperate in projects of the Belt and
Road Initiative.
So, just think about it, because almost everything I’m
saying goes against everything you hear in the Western media.
But think:  From whom comes the motion for peace and development?
Is it coming from those who attack Putin, Xi, and Trump?  And
those who side with Obama?  It’s obviously time for people to
rethink how the Western viewpoint is on all of these matters.  Or
change the glasses which they have to look at the world.

OGDEN:  So, as you heard from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, that was
just a short excerpt from her speech, but she said we have to
change the glasses through which we look at the world.  That’s
what she did really with the entirety of her keynote address;
which was an hour long.  It is available on the website right now; but she
really did change the glasses, through which people should see the
world; both by reviewing what the strategic breakthroughs have
been in terms of the New Silk Road dynamic which has been
sweeping the planet and supplanting this outmoded and failed
geopolitical world order which has brought the world really to
the edge of what she said; this Thucydides trap and the danger of
thermonuclear war.  But she also did some very extraordinary; she
took the audience back through the history of the relationship
between the Confucianism of China and the Leibnizian philosophy
of Europe.  This was the best of European culture, and really the
consolidation of the Renaissance culture of Europe.  What
Gottfried Leibniz was able to do in his time, recognizing the
failures of European culture due to the kinds of rivalries
between these warring empires and what had really turned into a
corruption and a rot at the core of the European system at that
time; he said the future can be secured if we recognize the best
of European culture — the Christianity and the heritage of the
Greek philosophy which built European culture; but put this
together with the aspects of Chinese Confucianism which are in
fact harmonious with the best of the ideas of European
philosophy.  He pointed out, that the idea of an understanding of

the pre-established harmony between man’s creative mind and the
created universe is something, which indeed is recognized in
Leibnizian European philosophy; but is also at the core of
Confucian philosophy.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche said that in a very real way, Xi Jinping
has reflected a profound understanding of this kind of harmonious
relationship between man and the created world, and also between
the nations of this planet, and has given it a substance;
actualized this idea through the form of the New Silk Road.  She
also reviewed the history of her husband’s — Lyndon LaRouche’s
— role in creating the basis of the ideas that are now taking
their form in this New Paradigm of development coming out of
China and the Belt and Road Initiative.  She traced it all the
way back to a paper that Lyndon LaRouche had written in the 1970s
about the development of Africa, and the fact that his ideas —
which were at the core of that vision — are now what are
actually taking place in Africa and other nations that are being
touched by the Belt and Road Initiative.  Again, this is an
extraordinary keynote address, and we would encourage you to
watch the speech in its entirety.
But after Helga LaRouche’s keynote, the conference — which
was a two-day conference — unfolded; and it was a series of
extraordinary panel after extraordinary panel.  The first panel
was titled “The Earth’s Next Fifty Years”; obviously taking that
from the title of a wonderful book that was published by Lyndon
LaRouche over a decade ago.  But this panel began with a keynote
by Professor He Wenping, who’s the Director of African Studies at
the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.  The speech
was “President Xi’s Perspective for the Year 2050 and the
Perspective of African Development”.  That was followed by the
former Transport Minister of Egypt, who gave a speech called
“Integration of Egypt’s Transportation Plans 2030 with the New
Silk Road Project”.  Then, there was a statement from George
Lombardi, who is the former social media consultant to President
Donald Trump; and his speech was titled “The Trump
Administration: Impending Economic Policies and Media Discord”.
Then that panel concluded with a speech by Marco Zanni, who is a
member of the European Parliament from Italy.  His speech was
titled “A Future for Europe after the Euro”.
Panel I was followed by Panel II, which was the second panel
of the first day, which was titled “The Need for Europe To
Cooperate with China in the Industrialization of Africa and the
Middle East; Transaqua as the Rosetta Stone of the Continent’s
Transformation”.  This began with an extensive speech by Hussein
Askary, who is the Southwest Asia coordinator for the Schiller
Institute.  This was on “Extending the Silk Road into Southwest
Asia and Africa; A Vision of an Economic Renaissance”.  The bulk
of this is also actually included in a new Special Report that is
just been published by the Schiller Institute, that was jointly
written by Hussein Askary and Jason Ross.  He was followed by the
Foreign Director of the Bonifaca S.p.A., Italy, company, which is
actually involved with China in building this Transaqua project.
It’s called the Italy-China Alliance for Transaqua.  Then, the
General Consul to Frankfurt from Ethiopia spoke — Mehreteab
Mulugeta Haile.  The title of his speech was “The Need for Europe
to Cooperate with China in the Industrialization of Africa”.
Then that panel concluded with a speech by the Executive Manager
of Pyramids International called “Egypt’s 2030 Mega Projects:
Investment Opportunities for Intermodal and Multimodal
The third panel took place on the second day of the
conference, and that panel was titled “Europe As the Continent of
Poets, Thinkers, and Inventors: An Optimistic Vision for the
Future of Europe”.  It was keynoted by Jacques Cheminade, who’s
the former Presidential candidate in France.  His speech was
titled “What Europe Should Contribute to the New World Paradigm”.
Then, Dr. Natalia Vitrenko, who’s the chairwoman of the
Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, gave a speech — “China’s
Initiative from the Doom of Self-Destruction, to Prosperity and
Progress; A View from Ukraine”.  Then, a speech from a
representative from Serbia; an author and journalist named Dr.
Jasminka Simic.  Her speech was titled “One Belt, One Road — An
Opportunity for Development in the Western Balkans”.  Then that
panel concluded with a speech from Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Professor Mariana Tian — “Bulgaria’s Contribution to the Belt
and Road Initiative”.
There were also two other speeches; the chair of the
Anglo-Hellenic and Cypriot Law Association, and the founding
Director of the China Africa Advisory.
Then, the concluding panel of the entire conference, Panel
IV; “The System We Live in Is Not Earthbound — Future
Technologies and Scientific Breakthroughs”.  This was keynoted by
Jason Ross, scientific advisor to the Schiller Institute.  His
speech was titled “The Scientific Method of LaRouche”.  He was
followed by Prof. Dr. Helmut Alt, from the University of Applied
Sciences in Aachen; who gave a speech — “Energy Transition; From
Bad to Worse”.  Then that concluded with Dr. Wentao Guo, from
Switzerland — “Current Situation of High Temperature Gas-Cooled
Reactors in China”.
Then there was an extensive Q&A period after that, in which
there was very important input from the audience.  The attendees
at this event — which you could see just from the speaker’s list
alone — represented countries from Western Eurasia, from Central
Europe, from Africa, from the United States, from Western Europe,
from Scandinavia, from really literally all over the world.  This
was an extraordinary conference.
There was a resolution that was adopted at the concluding of
the conference that I’d like to put on the screen here [Fig. 1].
The resolution is taking a note from what China has committed
itself to — eliminating poverty by the year 2020 in China.  So,
this is the resolution adopted by the Schiller Institute
conference in Bad Soden, Germany:

“At this conference, with the title ‘Fulfilling the Dream of
Mankind,’ we discussed the incredible transformation of the world
catalyzed by the Chinese initiative of the New Silk Road. The
Belt and Road Initiative, which is creating optimism in Asia,
Africa, Latin America, more and more states in Europe, and after
the state visit of President Trump in China, in several states
within the United States.
“The Belt and Road Initiative has the concrete perspective
on how poverty and underdevelopment can be overcome through
investment in infrastructure, industry and agriculture, based on
scientific and technological progress. The Chinese government
which uplifted 700 million out of poverty in the last 30 years,
has now proclaimed the goal to lift the remaining 42 million
people living in poverty out of their condition, and create a
decent living standard for the entire Chinese population by the
year 2020.
“Within the European Union, there are living approximately
120 million people below the poverty line, according to our own
criteria characterizing the costs of life. Given the fact that
Europe is still an economic powerhouse, there is no plausible
reason why Europe cannot uplift these 120 million people out of
poverty by the year 2020, as well. The best way to accomplish
this is for the EU, all European nations, to accept the offer by
China to cooperate with China in the Belt and Road Initiative on
a ‘win-win’ basis.
“We, the participants of the Schiller Institute conference,
call on all elected officials to join this appeal to the European
governments. Should we in Europe not be proud enough to say, if
the Chinese can do this, we can do it, too?”

As you can see here,, that
is the location of the proceedings of this conference which will
be published as they’re prepared; but also, that resolution that
I just read to you, is available on that website — and it’s collecting
signatures.  It’s something that you can add your name to and you
can circulate that.  Obviously, it applies not only to Europe,
but applies to the United States as well; this goal of
eliminating poverty by building infrastructure and high
technology projects to increase the living standards and the
productivity of our populations; as China is doing through the
Belt and Road Initiative.  This is what can be accomplished in
the United States.  We’ll review a little bit of that.
I do want to note that Helga Zepp-LaRouche made a special
notice of the statement by West Virginia Governor Jim Justice
after he secured $87 billion in joint investment into the state
of West Virginia; which is greater than the entire GDP of that
state.  This accomplishment is really the spirit of the New Silk
Road, which is now sweeping through the world and has even taken
hold in our very own state of West Virginia here in the United
Now, let’s look at the extraordinary rate of developments
that have occurred since this conference happened in Frankfurt,
Germany last weekend.  This is part of putting on those new
glasses that Helga LaRouche talked about in order to see the
world as it really is; not to see the world through the kind of
spin and propaganda that you’re inundated with on a daily basis
by the media.  If you were following the media, you would think,
that the only issue on the table, are the series of sex scandals
that are coming out from celebrities and news anchors and so
forth and so on.  And you would miss the fact that we are
literally living in the absolute epicenter right now in history
of a total paradigm shift in the history of mankind.
So, let’s look at this extraordinary rate of developments.
This conference, obviously, in Europe — the Schiller Institute
conference — took place right on the heels of President Trump’s
extraordinarily successful trip to Asia; where he had his state
visit-plus visit with President Xi Jinping in China.  And the
$250 billion worth of deals that were signed there for joint
investments, the fact that President Xi Jinping put directly on
the table the idea of the United States and US businesses
collaborating with the Belt and Road Initiative, and the fact
that President Xi Jinping and President Trump solidified a very
close personal relationship and really ushered in a new era of
US-China collaboration.  After that, just during the course of
the last five days, you’ve seen what was just mentioned there in
the resolution from the Frankfurt conference; that nations of
Europe are now beginning to reach out and reciprocate the hand of
friendship that’s coming from China to participate in the Belt
and Road Initiative.
This is taking place most significantly in the more
impoverished countries of Eastern and Central Europe.  We have
the just-concluded 16+1 talks, which occurred in Budapest,
Hungary.  This is the meeting of the so-called CEEC, or the
Central and Eastern European Countries — those are the 16; and
then the +1 is China.  So, this is the 16+1, the Central and
Eastern European Countries plus China.  What was discussed at
this conference was the further coordination between these
countries of Eastern Europe and the Chinese, especially on the
idea of the Belt and Road Initiative; the New Eurasian
Land-Bridge as it was termed by Helga and Lyndon LaRouche back in
the 1980s.  The core feature of that proposal back in the end of
the 1980s, which gave birth to this idea of the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, was the idea of taking these Eastern European
countries — what had been formerly part of the Soviet Union or
the Soviet space — and taking what was an under-developed area
of Europe and developing it through bridging Western Europe with
Russia and then beyond through these kinds of transportation
corridors and high technology development grids.  That’s exactly
what China was discussing with these countries in Eastern Europe
during the 16+1 conference.  These are mainly countries such as
Hungary, Serbia, Poland, which really this is their conception of
themselves; they serve as Europe’s front door onto the New Silk
Road.  As the New Silk Road comes westward across Eurasia, the
front door to Europe are these Eastern European countries.  They
have gone from being on the margins of Europe with
under-development and poverty and prolonged unemployment and
these other crises, they’ve gone from being on the margins to
being at the very center of this new dynamic which is sweeping
from the East.
This is referred to in Hungary as their “eastward opening”;
that Hungary’s future is to orient towards this new era of
development which is coming from Eurasia, rather than orienting
towards the collapsing system of Western Europe and the failed
EU.  Zhang Ming, who’s China’s ambassador to the European Union,
published an article that was published immediately prior to the
16+1 meeting on November 27th, in which he emphasized the central
role of the Belt and Road Initiative in China’s policy towards
Europe.  He said, “As China and Europe work together to synergize
the Belt and Road Initiative, the 16 CEEC countries will play a
more prominent role as a hub which connects Asia and Europe.
Faster development in CEEC countries contributes to a more
balanced development across Europe and European integration.”
So, in other words, the faster development of these impoverished
countries in Central and Eastern Europe will be a “win-win” for
everybody involved.  He used these words, that these countries
will serve a “prominent role as a hub which connects Asia and
Then as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban stated a few
weeks ago — and he was the host of this meeting in Budapest,
Hungary obviously — but this was a statement that he made back
in October.  This is absolutely to the point of what we’re
discussing on this webcast today; this idea that the Belt and
Road Initiative is now the irresistible and dominant dynamic on
this planet.  This is a quote from Prime Minister Orban:  “The
world’s center of gravity is shifting from West to East.  While
there is still some denial of this in the Western world, that
denial does not seem to be reasonable.  We see the world
economy’s center of gravity shifting from the Atlantic region to
the Pacific region.  This is not my opinion, this is a fact.”
Now incidentally, that quote, that statement by Prime
Minister Orban, is exactly the point that Lyndon LaRouche made in
this book; this very prescient book that he published over a
decade ago called {Earth’s Next Fifty Years; The Coming Eurasian
World}.  In that book, Mr. LaRouche said the dominant dynamic of
the world is going to be the rising countries of Asia; these are
where the most concentrations of population are, this is the
fastest rates of growth.  And this is where the world’s center of
gravity is shifting economically; the coming Eurasian world, or
the Pacific-centered world.  So, this is a direct echo of exactly
what Lyndon LaRouche said way back when before any of this
economic miracle took place.  But Mr. LaRouche was very prescient
on that fact.
Now, while a number of leading European press outlets have
been doing exactly what Viktor Orban said — denying this fact;
trying to deny this inevitable fact that the center of gravity
has shifted from West to East.  You had, for example, the
{Financial Times} ran an extensive article headlined “Brussels
Rattled As China Reaches Out to Eastern Europe”; obviously just
hysterical that these Eastern European countries are now oriented
towards the Belt and Road Initiative.  Despite that fact, there
are some leading circles in Europe who are, indeed, recognizing
that Europe’s future lies in joining this New Paradigm.
Obviously, that could be seen from this extensive speaker’s list
at the Schiller Institute conference in Frankfurt; but there was
another very significant conference that occurred just a few days
later this week in Paris.  This was the first annual Paris Forum
on the Belt and Road Initiative; so it’s going to take place very
year.  This is the first annual event.  It was co-organized by
the Chinese embassy and the French Institute for International
and Strategic Affairs — IRIS is their acronym.  This is the
third largest think tank in Paris.  The founding director is
Pascal Boniface, who is very positive in terms of his attitude
towards this idea of France and Europe as a whole joining with
the Belt and Road Initiative.  There were some 400 people in
participation at this very important event.  There were think
tanks, there were civil servants, people from the French
government, there were heads of different French companies —
CEOs — retired military, there were cultural figures, and there
were media who attended.  Among them, the forum was addressed by
the Chinese Ambassador to France, Zhai Jun.  He put directly on
the table, France, Europe should join this new emerging paradigm,
this Belt and Road Initiative.  This goes directly along with the
attendance by Raffarin, the former Prime Minister of France to
the Belt and Road Forum that occurred this past Spring in
Beijing.  There have been other prominent figures inside France
who have done exactly what these people have done at this very
significant event, and said “Look, this is the future of the
world economy.  The center of gravity has shifted, and we better
get on board.”  This was also the subject, by the way, of Jacques
Cheminade’s speech at the Schiller Institute conference; and this
is something that he’s been in extensive conversation with, with
numerous leading figures inside France as part of his
Presidential campaign.  He even met with the former President of
France, Francois Hollande, while he was President at the Elysée
Palace and discussed exactly this idea.
So, as you can see, the movers and shakers behind this, the
ideas which are driving history, are really the leaders and the
collaborators of the LaRouche Movement worldwide.
Let me shift focus now.  We’re continuing to catalog the
extraordinary rate of developments that have occurred just over
the last five days since this extraordinary conference in
Frankfurt.  Let’s shift focus now to Latin America.  We had the
11th China-Latin America-Caribbean Business Summit, which
happened in Uruguay; actually it’s still happening.  It started
yesterday, and it’s going through this Sunday, so it’s a four-day
conference.  This was to discuss the idea of how Western
Hemisphere countries, especially countries in South and Central
America, can participate in China’s One Belt, One Road
Initiative.  Whereas this is the 11th annual conference between
the Central and South American countries and China, this was by
far the largest of these conferences to have taken place.  There
were over 2500 people in attendance, which included high-level
businessmen, government officials, and policymakers from all over
Latin America.  One of the plenary sessions which took place at
this conference was titled, “A New Vision of Collaboration Among
China, Latin America, and the Caribbean in the Framework of the
One Belt, One Road Strategy”.  So, that’s explicit; this is the
idea of Latin American joining the New Silk Road.
Just because we’re discussing Latin America, there was a
wonderful sentiment which was voiced by Chilean President
Michelle Bachelet.  This was a speech that she gave on November
23rd at the celebration of the 10th anniversary of the founding
of the Confucius Institute in Chile.  She said, “The world is
orienting more than ever towards China and the Pacific Basin.
Therefore, we know very well that our relationship with China and
the Asia-Pacific in particular, is crucial for us to fulfill our
destiny.”  She said, “Chile’s relationship with China goes well
beyond trade ties.  It is one of our primary political partners
on the path to opening integration and cooperation for progress.”
Then Michelle Bachelet said after she retires as the President of
Chile, she intends to study the Chinese language in depth.  So,
that’s a commitment that perhaps all heads of state should make,
as we recognize that the center of gravity of the world’s
strategic and economic reality is shifting towards China.  We did
see that from President Trump’s granddaughter, Arabella Kushner
— that’s Ivanka’s daughter — where she recorded the song in
Mandarin Chinese.  A video of her singing a song in Mandarin
Chinese, and sent that as a goodwill offering to President Xi
Jinping in China.
And one more item I should just note.  This is a
yet-unconfirmed report, but it’s very credible, that Japan — now
we’ve shifted from Europe to Central and South America, and now
we’re in the Asia Pacific.  Japan is actively considering joint
projects with Chinese companies on building the One Belt, One
Road.  This is hugely significant, judging by the historic
conflicts between Japan and China, which have been played on by
these Western geopoliticians for decades; to try to keep these
two extraordinarily significant countries from collaborating.  If
Japan and China collaborate on the Belt and Road Initiative, this
is a dynamic which is absolutely unstoppable.  There was an
article in a Japanese paper titled “Government To Help Japan,
China Firms in Belt and Road”.  It reports that the Abe
government is considering supporting companies to carry out joint
projects with Chinese companies along the Belt and Road.  I think
underscoring this fact, as I stated in the beginning of today’s
broadcast, that the Belt and Road is an absolutely unstoppable
and irresistible dynamic; which has now become dominant and is
something which cannot be ignored.  Underscoring that fact that,
indeed, this New Silk Road is the dominant irresistible dynamic
on this planet, here’s a statement from the {Global Times} which
is absolutely to the point.  It says “Generally speaking, Japan’s
economy has been always greatly dependent on overseas markets.
So, for the sustainable development of its economy, Japan needs
access to the business opportunities offered by the vast
infrastructure projects along the Belt and Road route.”
So, this is the sentiment that’s being expressed by
everybody.  We go from the hosts of this first annual conference
on the Belt and Road Initiative in Paris.  Look at what Viktor
Orban said at the 16+1 conference in Budapest, Hungary.  Look at
what Michelle Bachelet said in Chile at the Confucius Institute.
Look at the statements that were made at this Central and South
American-China Business Forum.  Look at what’s now being said in
Japan.  Look at the statements that were made at the Schiller
Institute conference in Frankfurt.  And look at what was done by
President Trump during his trip to China, and the summit that he
had with President Xi Jinping.  Everything is being shaped by
this initiative, by the New Silk Road; by this initiative which
is coming out of China for “win-win” mutually beneficial
cooperation on great project development for the entire planet.
This is the dominant of the future.
As Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, you need to put on the new set
of glasses to be able to see reality as it really is; not through
the skewed mirrors and the propaganda which is coming out of the
Western media.  I think that perhaps the best statement, and the
most candid statement of all — of all of these statements about
the reality of this future dynamic — and why the United States
and Europe and South America and Asia need to jump on board with
the New Silk Road, need to join with this new dynamic and catch
this spirit of the New Silk Road; probably the best and most
candid of those statements came out of Governor Jim Justice from
West Virginia during his press conference that he gave there at
the state capital, announcing this extraordinary $87 billion deal
between China and the state of West Virginia.  Here’s what
Governor Jim Justice had to say:


:  And I would say to all of you
all that may be doubters that this could become a reality, “Don’t
get on the wrong side of it.”  Because, really and truly, it’s a
comin’.  It’s a comin’.”

OGDEN:  “It’s a comin’.”  I would say to all the doubters,
“this could become a reality, ‘Don’t get on the wrong side of
it.’  Because it’s a comin’,” he said.  “It’s a comin’.”   So,
that was actually from the conclusion of a really wonderful and
important video that was just put on the LaRouche PAC website
this week, all about West Virginia.  West Virginia, which as
Helga LaRouche said, is known across the country right now as the
epicenter of poverty, unemployment, drug epidemic overdoses, and
just general backward economic conditions.  West Virginia could
now become the cutting edge and the economic driver of the entire
Appalachian region here in the United States because of this
“win-win” investment that came from China.  So, I would encourage
you to watch that video in full on the LaRouche PAC website.
But let me just say, this is an extraordinary rate of
development of events that have occurred over the past five days.
I think that anybody who is looking at the reality soberly and
with clarity will see that, indeed, the efforts of the LaRouche
Movement over the past several years to put this question on the
table; to put this idea of a New Paradigm of economic cooperation
and “win-win” development, this New Silk Road — this Eurasian
Land-Bridge, this World Land-Bridge idea.  Put that on the table
and to shape all of the discussions that are occurring at the
highest levels of policymaking worldwide around that idea.  I
think that truly is becoming the dominant dynamic, and it’s a
testament to the fact that a small handful of people with very
powerful ideas, can indeed be very successful in shaping the
course of world history.
Now, I would say that what Helga LaRouche began, those
remarks that I played at the beginning of the show; this idea of
the greatest, the best of all possible worlds — what Gottfried
Leibniz had to say.  This is an understanding of how the universe
corresponds to the creative will of mankind.  That there is a
principle of good that is behind the creation, the creation of
the universe; and that principle of good corresponds with the
creative nature of mankind.  And when mankind acts on that
creative quality, and acts for the benefit of the greatest number
of possible people, the greatest possible General Welfare; acts
on the basis of this principle of good, that the universe
corresponds and, indeed, responds.  Because of this harmony, this
pre-established harmony which Leibniz discussed.  That was at the
core of his understanding of the best of all possible worlds.
So, with that axiomatic understanding of the philosophical
nature of what this effort is all about — to bring about a New
Paradigm of human relations on this planet — let’s conclude with
the concluding quote from Helga Zepp-LaRouche during her keynote
at that Schiller Institute conference in Germany.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche said the following:  “If we revive the Classical
culture of all nations, and enter a beautiful dialogue among
them, mankind will experience a new renaissance and unleash an
enormous creativity of the human species like never before.
“So, it is very good to live at this moment in history and
contribute to make the world a better place.  And it can be done,
because the New Paradigm corresponds to the lawfulness of the
physical universe in science, Classical art, and these
principles.  What will be asserted is the identity of the human
species as {the} creative species in the universe.”
So, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it is very good to live at
this moment, and to contribute to this New Paradigm which is now
emerging on this planet, and to contribute to the good of
So, thank you very much for joining us here today.  We
strongly encourage you to not only watch Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
keynote address in its entirety, but to stay tuned to that
Schiller Institute channel as all of these panels, all of these
videos, all of these presentations are produced and put up on the
website for you to watch in their entirety.  So, thank you for
joining in, and let’s continue to spread the spirit of the New
Silk Road.  Thank you and good night.

»Europa må ende fattigdom for sine 120
millioner fattige frem til år 2020« og
»For en afslutning af krigen og den
humanitære krise i Yemen«.
Vedtaget på Schiller Instituttets
internationale konference, 25.-26. nov., 2017

I den Europæiske Union lever omkring 120 millioner mennesker under fattigdomsgrænsen, ifølge vore egne kriterier, der karakteriserer leveomkostningerne. I betragtning af, at Europa stadig er et økonomisk kraftcenter, er der ingen acceptabel grund til, at Europa ikke også skulle kunne løfte disse 120 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom frem til år 2020. Den bedste måde, hvorpå dette kan opnås, er ved, at EU og alle europæiske nationer tager imod Kinas tilbud om samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet på en »win-win«-basis.

RESOLUTION: »Europa må ende fattigdom for sine 120 millioner fattige frem til år 2020«

Resolution vedtaget på Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Bad Soden, 26. nov. 2017.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Hvis der ikke er flere spørgsmål, vil jeg gerne oplæse mit forslag til denne resolution, som jeg gerne vil have, I vedtager – eller én af dem.

På denne konference, der havde titlen, »At opfylde menneskehedens drøm«, drøftede vi den utrolige transformation i verden, der er blevet katalyseret af det kinesiske initiativ for den Nye Silkevej; Bælte & Vej Initiativet, der skaber optimisme i Asien, Afrika, Latinamerika, flere og flere stater i Europa og, efter præsident Trumps statsbesøg til Kina, i flere stater i USA.

Bælte & Vej Initiativet har det konkrete perspektiv for, hvordan fattigdom og underudvikling kan overvindes gennem investering i infrastruktur, industri og landbrug, baseret på videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt. Den kinesiske regering, der i løbet af de seneste 30 år har løftet 700 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom, har nu bekendtgjort målet om at løfte de tilbageværende 42 millioner mennesker, der lever i fattigdom, ud af denne tilstand og skabe en anstændig levestandard for hele den kinesiske befolkning frem til år 2020.

I den Europæiske Union lever omkring 120 millioner mennesker under fattigdomsgrænsen, ifølge vore egne kriterier, der karakteriserer leveomkostningerne. I betragtning af, at Europa stadig er et økonomisk kraftcenter, er der ingen acceptabel grund til, at Europa ikke også skulle kunne løfte disse 120 millioner mennesker ud af fattigdom frem til år 2020. Den bedste måde, hvorpå dette kan opnås, er ved, at EU og alle europæiske nationer tager imod Kinas tilbud om samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet på en »win-win«-basis.

Vi, deltagerne på Schiller Instituttets konference, opfordrer alle folkevalgte personer til at tilslutte sig denne appel til de europæiske regeringer. Skulle vi i Europa ikke være stolte nok til at sige, at, hvis kineserne kan gøre dette, så kan vi også? [applaus]


RESOLUTION: »For en afslutning af krigen og den humanitære krise i Yemen«

  1. nov., 2017 – Deltagerne på Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Bad Soden, Tyskland, vedtog enstemmigt følgende resolution om krigen i Yemen:

»I betragtning af den dokumenterede kendsgerning, at krigen mod Yemen, der er blevet ført af den saudiskledede koalition siden marts 2015, har været årsag til en humanitær krise uden sidestykke i dette land som resultat af bombardement af landets infrastruktur og den totale blokade til lands, til vands og i luften, der er gennemført, kræver deltagerne på Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Bad Soden, Tyskland, den 25.-26. nov., 2017:

  1. En øjeblikkelig våbenstilstand mellem alle parterne;
  2. Ophævelse af blokaderne mod landet, især mod havnen i Hodeida og den internationale lufthavn i Sana’a, og som muliggør omgående humanitærhjælp til landet;
  3. En tilbagevenden til den nationale forsoningsproces og dialog, som var i gang, men som blev afbrudt af krigen. (Denne forhandlingsproces må føres under FN-regi og udelukkende mellem nationale, yemenitiske grupperinger uden indblanding fra regionale eller globale magter, men sponsoreret af Rusland, Kina og USA som garanter for gennemførelse af det sluttelige resultat af dialogen.) Formålet med sådanne forhandlinger er at finde en politisk løsning på krisen i Yemen.
  4. At hjælpe Yemen med en hurtig og storstilet genopbygningsproces, der fokuserer på infrastrukturprojekter for at genvinde nationens levebrød og Yemens integration i Bælte & Vej Initiativet.«

Rapport fra Schiller Instituttets konference
i Frankfurt, Tyskland, 25.-26. nov. 2017:
“At opfylde menneskehedens drøm”

Jason Ross interviewer Harley Schlanger på den første dag af konferencen, “At opfylde menneskehedens drøm”.


Den dybereliggende proces bag
Alma Deutschers musikalske geni (på dansk).
Af Michelle Rasmussen

Jeg ønsker at skrive skøn musik musik, som gør verden bedre. Alma Deutscher.

… Vores politiske bevægelse (Schiller Instituttet og LaRouche-bevægelsen) er dedikeret til ideen om, at alle børn kan blive genier, hvis deres kreative potentiale udvikles. Dette er Alma et bevis på.

Vi er overbevist om, at menneskehedens vigtigste udfordring består i at udvikle en strategi for udløsning af kreativiteten hos alle mænd, kvinder og børn, og at en afgørende metode til at opnå dette er gennem at genopleve fortidens kreative opdagelser. Også dette er Alma et bevis på.

Og vi er fast besluttet på at skabe en ny, global renæssance, for hvilken renæssance nye musikkompositioner, baseret på principperne for den mest storslåede, klassiske musik, vil være med til at vise vejen. Og igen, Almas unge, musikalske sind og sjæl beviser allerede, at dette er muligt. 

See also the english version of the article here.

Download (PDF, Unknown)