Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Renée Sigerson (LaRouche-bevægelsen): I ånden af vor umistelige ret til stræben efter lykke, vil jeg blot tilføje et element til denne diskussion, og vi kan forhåbentlig diskutere dette mere fremover. Men det, jeg gerne vil bringe ind, er, at grunden til, at dette historiske øjeblik er så afgørende, er ikke, at der eksisterer atomvåben; men at atomvåben eksisterer, fordi Det britiske Imperium i løbet af det 20. århundrede, gennem folk som Bertrand Russel og H.G. Wells osv., indså, at, uden sådanne ødelæggende, verdensomspændende supervåben, ultimative masseødelæggelsesvåben, ville de (Det britiske Imperium) blive fjernet fra Jordens overflade; at menneskehedens udvikling var ved at nå et punkt, hvor deres pant var ved at udløbe.

Vi må konstant tale om dette, når vi mobiliserer folk til at gå med i organisationen, og i mine diskussioner med folk er mit mentale billede af Det britiske Imperium en brændende fakkel, hvor – til forskel fra Prometheus – ilden ikke organiseres for at hjælpe menneskehedens fremtid, men at de bliver brændt til sod. Det, de prøver at gøre, er at redde sig selv i tide, før det nye, økonomiske system, som Lyn har skabt, fjerner dem fra Jordens overflade.

Spørgsmålet om Lyns personlige rolle i at bringe historien til et punkt, hvor de, bogstavelig talt, må ødelægge menneskeheden for at de selv … I ved, digteren John Milton (1608-1674) sagde om dette, på tidspunktet for det fremvoksende, venetianske, britiske oligarki, han sagde, de ville »hellere herske i helvede end tjene i himlen«. Og de er virkelig så sataniske. Opiatepidemien, som de har opfundet, som HSBC har opfundet i USA[1] – som vi advarede mod; vi skrev en bog om HSBC i 1979, og vi sagde til folk, hvis I slipper disse svin ind i landet, så har vi inden for én generation en opiatepidemi her i USA. Dette er de folk, der kørte Opiumskrigene mod Kina. Og vi havde desværre fuldstændig ret i, at det skete.

Det fantastiske ved Lyn er, at her stod han i Indien, i 1945-46, og han så alt dette! Og jeg er virkelig overbevist om – han har aldrig sagt det præcist – at det var grunden til, at han besluttede, han måtte blive økonom, for disse unge indere kom hen til ham og sagde, »amerikanske soldat, amerikanske soldat? Efter krigen, vil du så gå ud og skaffe os maskiner? Vil du hjælpe os til at blive industrialiseret? Vil du hjælp os med at afkaste dette åg?« Og han holdt sit løfte til dem om, at han ville hjælpe, men han gjorde det ved at hellige sig opdagelsen af et princip, som er, at roden til økonomisk udvikling faktisk er menneskelig kreativitet. Det er noget ikke-fysisk, som er menneskelig kreativitet, som er den faktiske årsag og rod til økonomisk udvikling.

Og det er spredningen af denne idé i verden, inkl. i det folkerige Kina i dag, som nu er i færd med at bringe Det britiske Imperium, og imperieideen om menneskehedens slaveri, til et punkt, hvor det afgår ved døden.

Så de har intet andet valg end at sprænge os alle sammen i stykker, eller også fortsætte med at drive sig selv bankerot og selv brænde, ligesom denne her bygning, som de nedbrændte i London (Grenfell Tower). I ved, den britiske befolkning har nået enden af sit reb: for, man har disse sociale boligbyggerier, som de beklædte med brandfarlig isolering, så hvis man stryger en tændstik det forkerte sted, brænder bygningen ned på 20 minutter, og 100 mennesker dør. I har sikkert hørt om dette; det er en metafor for, hvor sindssyge, de er! De er fuldstændig sindssyge! Og derfor er de så farlige, men også sårbare.

Og jeg mener, at den ånd, Patrick (en tidligere spørger) eksemplificerer, og som vi alle har i os, er, at vi vil opnå vores stræben efter lykke og bringe disse fyre til fald og blive dem kvit, rent faktisk blive dem kvit, og derfor diskuterer vi dem for at indgyde os selv selvtillid mht., at vi kan formidle dette til folk. Det var, hvad jeg ville sige.

Diane Sare (mødeleder): Virkelig godt. Vil du, Will (Wertz), sige noget som afslutning?

Will Wertz (redaktionen, EIR): Det vil jeg blot støtte. Pointen er, at Det britiske Imperiums eksistens ikke er noget, der bør accepteres som »sådan er tingene«. I så fald har vi det, der hedder et manikæisk (sort-hvidt) univers, hvor godt og ondt sameksisterer. Og der er i realiteten et problem, som udviklede sig efter renæssancen, og som er, at man fik udviklingen af nationalstaten; på den anden side, så fik nationalstaten ikke overherredømmet i hele verden, og imperiesystemet blev ved at eksistere. Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi nu er ved et punkt, hvor denne sameksistens, denne symbiotiske relation, som man ser i den amerikansk-britiske »særlige relation«, må ødelægges. Menneskeheden må nå til et voksenstadie, hvor man ikke har denne imperiepolitik, der har ligeværdig status med menneskeheden. Zeus må ødelægges – Prometheus sættes fri.

Hele videoen kan ses her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjttaTmlA9g

Foto: Relief i marmor af ukendt, italiensk kunstner, 3. årh. e. Kr.: Prometheus skaber mennesket under Athenes ledelse. Athene var i græsk mytologi gudinde for visdom. (Louvre-museet).

[1] Se EIR-artikel, februar 2015: Vil HSBC-skandalen sænke Wall Streets Obama-præsidentskab? http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=5202

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette ikke blot er en vedtagelse i Senatet, eller i Kongressen; men dette handler om præsidenten i amerikansk historie lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. For det, som denne vedtagelse gør, er, at den fuldstændig omstøder den Amerikanske Forfatning, der giver præsidenten beføjelserne til at bestemme udenrigspolitik. I henhold til den aktuelle situation, efter at Kongressen (Repræsentanternes Hus) og Senatet med dette overvældende flertal vedtog at indføre sanktioner, så, hvis præsident Trump ønskede at omstøde dette, skulle han sende et brev til Kongressen; og Kongressen er forpligtet til at svare inden 30 dage for enten at godkende eller afvise det. Det betyder, at Kongressen kaprer beføjelsen til at bestemme politikken fra præsidenten. Jeg tror, det amerikanske folk hellere må se at vågne op til den kendsgerning, at det, der her bliver fjernet, er den Amerikanske Forfatning.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jason Ross: Godaften. Det er fredag, 4. august, 2017. Jeg er aftenens vært, og vi er meget glade for at have med os i studiet som vores særlige gæst, Helga Zepp-LaRouche via video fra Tyskland. Godaften, Helga.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Godaften, hvordan går det?

Ross: Fint! Som en lille indledning til aftenens show, før vi hører fra Helga, så så vi i denne uge, at Donald Trump underskrev loven om sanktioner, der blev vedtaget af Huset og Senatet – HR 3364 – der indfører sanktioner mod Iran, Nordkorea og Rusland. En del af loven hævder som selvfølgeligt, at Rusland blandede sig i det amerikanske valg; en del af loven siger, at USA aldrig vil anerkende Krim som en del af Rusland; og loven binder præsidentens hænder på mange måder mht. sanktioner mod Rusland og mange diplomatiske prioriteringer, diplomatiske krav, der er vedtaget af Huset og Senatet snarere end gennem den udøvende gren (præsidenten). Donald Trump underskrev i denne uge loven og udstedte en erklæring i forbindelse med underskrivelsen, mht. de dele af loven, han finder forfatningsstridige. I går tweetede Trump, at »Vores relation med Rusland er på det laveste og farligste punkt nogensinde. Et meget farligt lavpunkt. Det kan I takke Kongressen for«, siger han.

Rusland responderede ved at kræve udvisning af et vist antal amerikanske diplomater ned til samme niveau som russiske diplomater i USA; noget lignende det, præsident Obama gjorde med russiske diplomater og russisk diplomatejendom, osv. Det betyder overordnet set, at det virkelig øger presset på de amerikansk-russiske relationer og gør det meget vanskeligt for Trump at gennemføre ét af sine kampagneløfter, som var en potentiel opnåelse af detente med Rusland. Med hans berømte ord, »Det er ikke dårligt at komme godt ud af det med Rusland; det er en god ting.«

Jeg vil gerne have Helga på nu for at tale om vores syn på dette. Jeg ved, din mand, Lyndon LaRouche, har sagt, at, hvis dette kup mod Trump lykkes, så vil det virkelig lægge truslen om atomkrig op på bordet. Hvad er din mening om situationen?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette ikke blot er en vedtagelse i Senatet, eller i Kongressen; men dette handler om præsidenten i amerikansk historie lige fra USA’s grundlæggelse. For det, som denne vedtagelse gør, er, at den fuldstændig omstøder den Amerikanske Forfatning, der giver præsidenten beføjelserne til at bestemme udenrigspolitik. I henhold til den aktuelle situation, efter at Kongressen (Repræsentanternes Hus) og Senatet med dette overvældende flertal vedtog at indføre sanktioner, så, hvis præsident Trump ønskede at omstøde dette, skulle han sende et brev til Kongressen; og Kongressen er forpligtet til at svare inden 30 dage for enten at godkende eller afvise det. Det betyder, at Kongressen kaprer beføjelsen til at bestemme politikken fra præsidenten. Jeg tror, det amerikanske folk hellere må se at vågne op til den kendsgerning, at det, der her bliver fjernet, er den Amerikanske Forfatning. Jeg vil tro, at alle amerikanske patrioter, der elsker Amerika – og jeg ved, at det amerikanske folk generelt er meget patriotisk – de må forstå dette moment. For, dette kan ikke være tilfældet, og forblive ignoreret. Dette har så mange implikationer.

Min mand, Lyndon LaRouche, sagde, at, hvis dette består, er vi tilbage til en umiddelbart overhængende konfrontation med Rusland – og også Kina – som vi var under Obama-administrationen og de neokonservatives kontrol; som har kontrolleret USA’s politik under to embedsperioder under George W. Bush, og to perioder under Obama. Det var disse neokonservative, der var fuldstændig oprørt over, at en systemisk ’outsider’, eller en person, der ikke tilhørte systemet – som Donald Trump – vandt valget. Jeg husker klart, at, den 21. januar, havde den britiske avis The Spectator allerede en overskrift, der lød, at det blot var et spørgsmål om tid, før man ville få Trump ud af embedet gennem impeachment (rigsretssag), gennem et kup, eller gennem politisk mord! Processen frem mod impeachment er helt i gang, som I ved. Det er netop blevet offentliggjort, at Robert Mueller, den særlige rådgiver, allerede har en ’grand jury’ (juridisk enhed, der kan undersøge og afgøre, om der er belæg for at anlægge en strafferetssag, -red.), der angiveligt skulle være hemmelig; men der har igen været et læk til The Guardian og andre medier. Så formålet med dette er tydeligvis at fremme en eller anden historie, der viser bånd fra Trump eller hans team til Rusland.

Lad mig understrege dette helt klart. Sandheden om dette her skal ud. Det er rent historisk af den allerstørste betydning, at VIPS-organisationen – Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity – tidligere højtplacerede efterretningsfolk fra diverse amerikanske efterretningsorganisationer, for omkring en uge siden sendte et memorandum til præsident Trump; hvori de fastslog, baseret på deres indiskutable ekspertise og kriminaltekniske beviser, at der ikke fandt nogen russisk hacking sted. I stedet var der tale om et insider-læk; der var nogen, der simpelt hen downloadede data fra DNC-computerne, og som dernæst maskerede det hele, som om det var blevet udført af russerne. At efterforske dette og diskutere disse resultater fra VIPS-memoet, er den vigtigste måde, hvorpå dette kup kan køres af sporet. Heldigvis har ét af de kongresmedlemmer, der var modig nok til at stemme imod denne uhyrlighed – Dana Rohrbacher – allerede kommenteret VIPS-memoet. Jeg mener, at vi må mobilisere den amerikanske befolkning til at kræve, at Kongressen indbyder VIPS-repræsentanterne til at aflægge forklaring, til at fremlægge deres beviser, og ligeledes bestræbelserne fra sådanne personer som kongresmedlem Nunes, der efterforsker, hvem det var, der afslørede dette, hvem, der lækkede. Og ligeledes senator Grassleys bestræbelser for at gøre det samme; det må støttes. Derudover mener jeg generelt, at denne Kongres fuldstændig har bragt sig selv i miskredit. Kongressens anerkendelses-rate er lige nu, iflg. de seneste opinionsmålinger, kun 10 %; det er ligeledes et historisk lavpunkt, mener jeg.

Men jeg mener, det nu afhænger af det amerikanske folk; og man bør finde alle mulige organisationer og institutioner, der repræsenterer folket, og som støtter præsident Trump. Retfærdigheden må ske fyldest; de, der lækkede, må gøres til genstand for efterforskning; og sandheden må genoprettes. Dette er af den største, strategiske betydning. Dette er ikke blot en intern, amerikansk affære; jeg mener, at russernes karakteristik, at dette er en intern kamp, ikke er korrekt. Jeg mener, at dette er noget langt mere dystert. Den tidligere våbeninspektør i Irak, Scott Ritter, som var våbeninspektør under Irakkrigen, kom med en dybtgående karakteristik. Han sagde, den kendsgerning, at der var denne totale enstemmighed i de amerikanske medier, FBI, andre amerikanske efterretningstjenester og næsten enstemmighed i begge Kongreshuse; hvordan får man en sådan fuldstændig – i Tyskland ville man sige »Gleichschaltung«, ensretning – hvordan får man et sådant enstemmigt kor? Scott Ritter peger på spørgsmålet om, at dette peger på en langt mere generel sammensværgelse, der finder sted i det amerikanske samfund. Jeg ved, at folk normalt bliver meget enerverede, når man nævner ordet »sammensværgelse«, men jeg mener ikke, der findes andre ord, der kan karakterisere det, der foregår. Man har det, folk nu om dage kalder »deep state«, og som forsøger at omstøde valget af en amerikansk præsident; og så har man briternes rolle i alt dette her. Jeg mener, at der er en indsats fra Det britiske Imperiums side, efter en genetablering af kontrollen over amerikanske institutioner, for at gå tilbage til det, vi engang havde med de neokonservative i 1992 – Wolfowitz-doktrinen; og som var ideen om, at USA aldrig skulle give noget andet land eller nogen anden gruppe af lande lov til at overgå USA’s militærpolitiske eller militære magt. Det var et kup, udført af de neokonservative efter Sovjetunionens kollaps, og de gik frem for at forsøge at etablere en unipolær verden. Jeg mener, at dette præcist kommer til udtryk i det, Kongressen gjorde med disse sanktioner, og det betyder gennem implikation, at gå tilbage til konfrontationen med Rusland, og selvfølgelig en genoptagelse af spændingen i relationerne med Kina.

Dette er en krigssti. Dette har utrolige implikationer. Jeg vil blot nævne et par stykker af dem. For det første, så reagerede premierminister Medvedev meget skarpere end præsident Putin. Han sagde, at dette afslutter håbet om en forbedring mellem USA og Rusland. Så var der diverse kommentarer i kinesiske publikationer, der tilbød at hjælpe Rusland mod virkningerne af sanktionerne; og som ligeledes sagde, at dette blot vil betyde en meget tættere forhold mellem Rusland og Kina, og sammen har vi en afskrækkelse imod USA. Det var ikke det, kineserne ønskede; de har tilbudt USA at samarbejde omkring Bælte & Vej Initiativet; men det er, hvad det fører til.

Lad mig blot påpege to yderligere sidevirkninger af dette. Det er relationen med Europa, for sanktionerne har som deres primære mål leveringen af russisk naturgas og ideen om at bygge endnu en gasledning – Northstream II; som Tyskland har brug for, fordi olieforsyningerne fra Mellemøsten er meget lunefulde pga. den ustabile situation dér. Oliereserverne i Nordsøen er ved at være udtømt. Sanktionerne ville selvfølgelig, fordi USA fremfører, at de har ekstraterritorial bemyndigelse, ramme alle de firmaer, der producerer materialer og byggetjenester til projekter med russerne. Dette er fuldstændig umuligt. Det ville f.eks. også ramme europæiske investorer i USA, hvis de gør forretninger med Rusland; de kunne blive eksproprieret i USA, eller deres kapital indefrosset, og sådanne ting. Dette skaber ødelæggelse. Den Europæiske Union og den tyske regering har allerede sagt, at de vil overveje modforholdsregler; at dette kunne føre til en handelskrig. Forbløffende nok har en talsmand for en førende tænketank, der står den tyske regering nær, netop sagt, at dette vil give bagslag, for, hvorfor skulle lande, der rammes af sanktionerne, være med til at gennemføre dem? Så han forudsiger, at der kommer en boomerang-effekt for amerikanerne; men det er selvfølgelig en effekt, der er meget farlig. Forskellige tyske industrisammenslutninger er ligeledes kommet frem og har sagt, at dette er fuldstændig uacceptabelt.

På et mere fundamentalt plan bringer dette hele spørgsmålet om international lov (folkeretten) frem. Hvorfor tror USA, at deres amerikanske lov kan træde i kraft i hele verden? Dette er en krænkelse af international lov, og dette er derfor en krise uden fortilfælde. Den har, som jeg sagde, implikationer for den Amerikanske Forfatning, for international lov, for relationerne med Rusland og Kina; den kan, for første gang, bryde alliancen med Europa. Så jeg tror, folk virkelig forstår, at dette må omstødes.

Ross: Fantastisk! Dette sætter virkelig scenen. Kan jeg bede dig om at forklare et bestemt punkt? Du kom med ideen om, at folk har en »deep state« (omtr. ’staten i staten’,-red.), der kører USA. Hvor det altså ikke kun drejer sig om denne enkelte lov, men, at der igennem længere tid har været en voksende magt fra visse agenters side internt i USA. Lad mig stille dig et spørgsmål om måder, hvorpå folk fortolker disse ting. En måde er, at der simpelt hen er en koldkrigsmentalitet, der ikke er blevet overvundet; folk lever i fortiden og ser stadig Rusland som en trussel, hvor de i tankerne sammenligner Rusland med Sovjetunionen. En anden måde er ideen om »deep state«; at efterretningstjenesterne har udviklet et slags begær efter magt for sig selv. Tag f.eks. eksemplet med J. Edgar Hoover; og at disse tjenester ønsker at køre USA af en særlig grund. Du rejste et spørgsmål, som de fleste kommentatorer ikke rejser, og som er briterne; eller, at der er noget uden for amerikansk indenrigspolitik, der udformer denne opposition til samarbejde med Rusland. Og, med dine mange rejser til Kina og med dit arbejde med Verdenslandbroen – Bælte & Vej Initiativet – har du en meget dyb forståelse af et andet paradigme, der i stigende grad slår rod i verden.

Kunne du sige mere til vore lyttere om, hvad du ser som manglerne i ideen om »deep state« eller den Kolde Krig? Med andre ord, hvad er det, der virkelig promoverer denne opposition til samarbejde med Rusland? Hvad kan vi gøre ved det?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, det er en reminiscens af geopolitik, og geopolitik er den idé, at man har en gruppe nationer eller en nation, der har en fundamental interesse imod en anden nation eller en anden gruppe nationer; og, om nødvendigt, så kan man kæmpe for dette i krige. Det var denne tankegang, der førte til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og det er indlysende, at, hvis vi ikke overvinder dette i atomvåbenalderen, så taler vi om faren for den menneskelige arts udslettelse, hvis det kommer til krig. Vi er meget nærmere ved dette, end de fleste mennesker bryder sig om at tænke på. Da Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning mellem 1989 og 1991, opstod der muligheden for at få en varig fredsorden. Kommunismen var blevet besejret, og vi foreslog på dette tidspunkt den Eurasiske Landbro; allerede dengang kaldte vi det, den Nye Silkevej. Det var ideen om at etablere et nyt paradigme med samarbejde i alle deltagende landes interesse. Det ville have været en politik, der i høj grad ville have ændret historiens kurs, men, på det tidspunkt havde man Margaret Thatcher, man havde Bush senior, man havde Mitterand; og de besluttede, at, for at forhindre Rusland i nogensinde igen at rejse sig, fra at reducere Sovjetunionen, der var en supermagt, og til at blive et Rusland, der blot skulle være et tredjeverdensland, der producerede råmaterialer. De besluttede, at, i stedet for at få en fredsorden, så lad os satse på den gamle, angloamerikanske politik med at styre verden som et imperium; og lad os gennemtvinge en unipolær verden. Det var politikken i 1990’erne og begyndelsen af 2000’erne; dette var ideen om regimeskifte, dette var ideen om ’farvede revolutioner’. Dette har ligget til grund for krigene, der byggede på løgne, i Afghanistan, Irak, mordet på Gaddafi; disse politikker har ødelagt Mellemøsten. De har været årsag til flygtningekrisen; de har næsten udløst et sammenbrud af den Europæiske Union, for der er ikke tale om nogen Union, som det blev klart under flygtningekrisens forløb.

Denne politik står nu for at eksplodere. Alan Greenspan, af alle personer – den person, der igen og igen advarede mod overstrømmende irrationalitet – er netop trådt frem og har sagt, at der er en ny nedsmeltning af en gældsboble på vej, og at dette vil udløse et krak på aktiemarkedet. Dette imperium er i færd med at kollapse, og jeg mener, det er grunden til, der hersker en sådan desperation for at forhindre Kinas fremvækst; selv om Kina har tilbudt en totalt anden model, der ikke bygger på geopolitik, men derimod bygger på »win-win«-samarbejde; og hvori alle nationer, der samarbejder i Bælte & Vej Initiativet, ville få gavn af det.

Jeg mener, at det, som virkelig står på spil her, er: Går vi tilbage til Det britiske Imperium? Og folk, der kender amerikansk historie, ved meget vel, at Det britiske Imperium aldrig har opgivet ideen om at generobre USA. Kong George III mistede forstanden på tidpunktet for den Amerikanske Revolution, og de forsøgte at vinde Amerika tilbage; først i Krigen i 1812, og dernæst i Borgerkrigen, hvor Det britiske Imperium var allieret med Konføderationen (Sydstats-udbryderstaterne). De finansierede Konføderationen gennem Østkystbankerne. Efter dette indså de, at dette ikke kunne gøres militært, så dernæst forsøgte briterne at underminere det amerikanske establishment og overbevise dem om at styre verden som et imperium, der byggede på den angloamerikanske, særlige relation.

Ser man på hele operationen imod Trump, som i realiteten begyndte længe før Trump vandt valget; det var britisk efterretning, der initierede dossiererne, som fabrikerede efterretninger. Men, de blev så selvfølgelig hjulpet af amerikanske efterretningstjenester, hvor strukturen fra Obama-perioden stadig eksisterede. Så man har virkelig – »deep state« er for kort en formulering, for det inkluderer ikke den kendsgerning, at dette er et britisk kup. Det aftalte spil er ikke med Rusland; det aftalte spil er med Det britiske Imperium. Amerikanere må forstå, at hele deres revolution står på spil; Forfatningen – der stadig, med hensyn til forfatninger, er et af de mest fantastiske dokumenter i verden – den er totalt i fare. Det er allerede blevet overtaget, og dét må det amerikanske folk omstøde.

Ross: Stærke ord. Mange tak. Jeg tror, vores mission står temmelig klart på dette tidspunkt. Vi ser nogle muligheder for, hvad der kan ske, hvis vi skaffer os af med denne mentalitet om global konflikt. Blot et enkelt eksempel ville være, at præsident Trump stoppede Obama-programmet for at bevæbne de såkaldte syriske »oprørsgrupper«. Alene en sådan handling ville være en ændring af den retning, vi har gået i det seneste halvandet årti med de krige for regimeskifte, vi har haft. At sige, det gør vi ikke mere. Vi siger, OK, der kunne blive ting, som hvis vi opgiver dette fremstød for konflikt.

Jeg vil gerne afslutte vores show med nogle ideer til, hvad folk kan gøre, og nogle rapporter om, hvad folk har gjort. Én ting er dette VIPS-memo, som vi har diskuteret og dækket meget på vores webside. Der har været meget aktivitet i landet; vi kan vise jer nogle billeder herfra om et øjeblik, af den form for aktiviteter, vi har været engageret i – stævner på gaden her i New York City. Her er ét til. Det er meget vigtigt, at denne historie kommer ud, for det er absolut eksplosivt; og det virker, det kommer ud. Det er et spørgsmål, som, som vi nævnte, kongresmedlem Rohrbacher har rejst; dette er noget, som bliver rejst af mange af de nye, alternative kilder. Oliver Stone har for nylig igen rejst spørgsmålet, og folk i hele landet rejser det på steder som under møder, der afholdes af kongresmedlemmer. For eksempel havde Ted Lew for nylig et borgermøde i sit valgdistrikt, og han blev af en LaRouche PAC-aktivist spurgt, »Hej, hvis DNC-computerne blev hacket, hvorfor har FBI så aldrig efterforsket dem?« Bare pil denne historie fra hinanden. Der er kommet breve i et pænt antal til avisredaktioner, og som bliver publiceret i aviser i hele landet. Der har været folk, der har indsat annoncer i de lokale aviser, og som siger, at I skal kende til denne historie om, at den russiske hacking var et inside job. Læs VIPS-memoet; gå ind på LaRouche PAC websiden.

Vi har en tilhænger, der har holdt gårdudsalg for at rejse midler til LaRouche PAC. Vi har folk, de afholder stævner i deres hjemby. Et eksempel fra Connecticut, hvor en LaRouche-tilhænger sagde, »Jeg laver et stævne foran mit rådhus«. Det gjorde han, og vi havde et succesfuldt stævne dér, som blev dækket af lokalaviserne og det hele. Byråd, radiointerviews. Der foregår en masse aktivitet. Vi var f.eks. uden for Chuck Schumers kontor i New York; vi spurgte folk, hvor de syntes, vi skulle ’smide’ (chuck) Schumer hen, hvilket ville være en vidunderlig idé. Der er rigtig meget at gøre. Ordet om dette må absolut spredes i sammenhæng med, hvad alternativet kunne blive.

Jeg vil gerne takke Helga Zepp-LaRouche for at være med os her i dag. Jeg vil gerne spørge dig, om du har yderligere kommentarer som afslutning af showet?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg mener, at dette er et af de historiske øjeblikke, hvor det er det enkelte individ, der tæller. Jeg ved, mange mennesker er blevet deprimeret, fordi de ikke tror, man kan gøre noget alligevel; men jeg mener, at vi er lige så tæt på Tredje Verdenskrig lige nu, som vi er på et fuldstændig nyt paradigme. Forestil jer blot en fremtid, hvor Amerika igen vil være venner med andre lande. De fleste folk kan godt lide amerikanere; de kan ikke lide det aktuelle kup, og de kan ikke lide de britiske politikker, der er kommet fra den amerikanske regering i de seneste 16 år. Men, det amerikanske folk har givet udtryk for noget meget vigtigt med valget af præsident Trump. Hvis det amerikanske folk omgående ville gribe muligheden for at støtte denne præsident – Trump har indledt en forbedring af relationen med Xi Jinping; han har fundet et godt samtaleniveau med Putin på G20 i Hamborg. Kina har tilbudt at hjælpe med ved genopbygningen af USA’s infrastruktur og indbudt USA til at tilslutte sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet i hele verden. Hvorfor kan USA, Rusland og Kina, som de tre, mest betydningsfulde nationer, ikke arbejde sammen? Hvis dette kan opnås, kan I så forestille jer, at vi kan få en tryg fred i verden? At vi kan arbejde sammen om at fjerne fattigdom, ikke alene i USA, men overalt? Jeg mener, at dette er de spørgsmål, vi bør tale om, og jeg er enormt overbevist om, at der er noget meget godt i det amerikanske folk, der vil sejre.

Ross: Vidunderligt! Godt. Mange tak. Tak til alle for at være med os i dag. Vi beder om, at I bliver medlem af LaRouche PAC; at I følger denne YouTube-kanal og sørger for at modtage besked om alle vore videoer, alt det, vi udgiver. Og det materiale, vi har diskuteret – VIPS-memoet fra Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, og videoerne, vi har fremstillet om spørgsmålet – kan ses på din YouTube-kanal. I finder mere i videobeskrivelsen, og vi har her et link til en af disse videoer til jer. (dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=20816)

Tak for at se med; lad os se at komme i gang!

Jason Ross: I dag vil vi dække et spørgsmål, der er af største betydning for nationen. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Diane Sare fra New York, fra Manhattan-projektet i New York.

Emnet, vi i dag vil beskæftige os med, er »Russia-gate». Vi har så ofte og så meget hørt sagt om de uigendrivelige, angivelige beviser på, at Donald Trump blev anbragt i Det Hvide Hus gennem Vladimir Putins rænkespil, at det næsten bliver taget for givet. Alle formoder, at det fandt sted; faktisk var det indført i loven om russiske sanktioner, der netop er blevet vedtaget i Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet, som en antagelse, at vi ved, Vladimir Putin fik Trump valgt til embedet. At Putin beordrede en indflydelseskampagne mod det amerikanske valg.

Det er ikke sandt.

Mandag i denne uge offentliggjorde en gruppe ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, eller VIPS, et memo med titlen, »Var russisk hacking et inside job?« I dette memo piller de den centrale påstand om hele historien med Russia-gate ned. Denne centrale påstand er, at russiske hackere var involveret i at få materiale fra Demokraternes Nationalkomite, DNC, materiale, der var meget pinligt for Hillary Clinton, og offentliggøre det via WikiLeaks. Dette har det centrale internet-individ, kendt som Guccifer 2.0, som omdrejningspunkt; den vurdering fra en efterretningskomite, der blev udgivet 6. januar, 2017, i Obama-administrationens sidste dage. Dette er den rapport, som alle har citeret, og som angiveligt alle efterretningstjenesterne er enige i.

Det er ikke sandt.

Kun en håndplukket gruppe af efterretningstjenester var overhovedet involveret i denne vurdering, og deres vurdering er ikke enstemmig. Denne centrale bevisfaktor er, hvad vi i dag, mht. VIPS-memoet, vil tale om.

Vi var så heldige at kunne interviewe et af de stiftende medlemmer af VIPS, Ray McGovern, der er tidligere CIA-analytiker på topniveau, og som i løbet af sin karriere dagligt udarbejdede briefinger til præsidenten, og som talte med os i går aftes. Vi bad ham om at fremlægge, hvad implikationerne af det memo, de har fremstillet, er, og her er, hvad han sagde:

Ray McGovern: Den 12., 15. juni? Så snart, de opdagede, at Julian Assange havde e-mails med forbindelse til Hillary Clinton, hvad gør man så? Jamen sådan, som jeg har rekonstrueret det, så siger vi, »Det kommer fra russerne«. Så Crowdstrike – der arbejdede for DNC – meddeler, »Der er skadelig software, og vi mener, det var russerne«. Dernæst siger Guccifer, omgående, den samme dag, »ja, ja! Vi gjorde det, og vi arbejder for Julian Assange«.

Ideen – det er selvfølgelig, som vi fortolker det – ideen var den, at, eftersom Julian Assange ville offentliggøre e-mails på et eller andet tidspunkt; måske gør han det lige før Demokraternes Nationalkonvent. Gud, det ville være forfærdeligt. Så vi siger, han fik det fra russerne, og på denne måde kan vi aflede opmærksomheden fra det, der står i disse e-mails; for himlen må vide, hvor meget han har; han kunne måske vise, at vi stjal nomineringen fra Bernie Sanders. Det er jo sikkert i materialet. Så lad os foretage dette lille, forebyggende træk; lad os – her i juni, før han overhovedet får dette her ud; før – Julian forfalsker ikke disse ting, han gør det, at han fremlægger dem så man kan søge på dem – det kommer til at tage lidt tid. Så vi har lidt tid, seks uger eller så; de vidste ikke, hvor længe, men lad os gøre det med det samme. Så, når Julian Assange kommer ud med det, er det forberedt til, at de alle siger, »Aha! Det var russerne, der hackede«.

Dette var storslået – jeg husker den gamle film eller bog, Magnificent Obsession (da. Titel ’Den store læge’); dette var storslået afledning. For, så snart Julian Assange kom ud med disse e-mails med relation til Hillary Clinton – det var den 22. juli – tre dage før Demokraternes Nationalkonvent begyndte; så var de forberedt. De var forberedt til at sige, »Aha! Russerne gjorde det; Rusland gjorde det!« Man kan se dem ligesom sidde rundt om et bord. Hillary siger, »Min Gud! Hvad skal vi gøre? Hvad vil Bernie sige? Han har allerede sagt, at han indvilliger, men hvad vil han nu sige?« En eller anden siger, »Jeg ved, hvad vi gør. Vi giver russerne skylden«. »Men det var ikke russerne, det var Julian Assange.« »Det er OK. Vi siger, at Julian Assange arbejdede for russerne.« »Ja, men hvad skulle logikken være?« »Hør nu her! Russerne ønsker, at Trump skal vinde, fordi han har sagt pæne ting om Putin; det bliver nemt at bevise. Nogen bedre ideer?« »OK, det gør vi.« Det virkede perfekt.

Ross: Så her har vi sammenhængen. En kronologi for vore seere, for dette er blevet så tilsløret i tidens tåge, at det ligesom er blevet svært at se de enkelte dele. Vi genopfrisker, at, i juni meddelte Julian Assange, stifteren af WikiLeaks, at han havde fået materiale fra DNC, og at han ville offentliggøre det. I løbet af få dage meddeler DNC’s IT-firma Crowdstrike, at de har beviser på, at Rusland hackede deres computere. Ligeledes er der en internet-hacker, der kalder sig Guccifer 2.0, der dukker ud af det blå og siger, at han er hackeren bag DNC; han kom ind i deres system, og han siger, »Jeg vil bevise det. Her er noget af det, jeg stjal«. I juni blev der offentliggjort dokumenter af denne Guccifer-skikkelse, der omfattede de mest klodsede falske spor, du nogen sinde har set. Disse dokumenter blev med overlæg forfalsket til at indeholde – med kyrilliske bogstaver – »Felix Edmundovich« som dokumentets ’sidst redigeret af’. Se, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzjinskij (død 1926) var stifteren af det sovjetiske hemmelige politi. Man kunne måske mene, at, hvis russiske hackere gør noget, gør de det ikke så åbenlyst som at markere sig på deres computere med dette navn; det er simpelt hen et åbenlyst falsk spor, man skal finde. Der kom yderligere, angivelige beviser med Guccifer 2.0, der forsøgte at skjule sin identitet og foregav at være rumæner, selv om han faktisk ikke kunne tale rumænsk; så folk kunne sige, »Aha! Han skjuler sin identitet. Vi fandt disse absolutte beviser« – som i virkeligheden var ’røde sild’ (misvisende ledetråde) – »disse russiske navne i dokumenterne. Dokumenterne var indstillet til det russiske sprog. Aha! Dette er bevis.«

Det, det i virkeligheden betyder, er, at disse dokumenter blev kunstigt forfalsket. Det er, hvad VIPS gennemgår i dette memo ved navn, »Var det russiske hack et inside job?« Dette memo er tilgængeligt på nærværende videodeskription, såvel som med links på LaRouche PAC’s webside. Som hr. McGovern sagde, så fulgte der en stor udgivelse af dokumenter fra Guccifer engang i september, 2016. Disse dokumenter afslører, iht. de kriminaltekniske analyser, som VIPS har gennemgået, at dokumenterne ikke blev hacket; men de blev derimod lækket; de blev kopieret. Hastigheden i datatransmissionen, hastigheden af skabelsen af filerne, indikerer en hastighed, der overgår, hvad det er muligt at opnå over internettet, hvis man hackede ind i en computer og dernæst udtrak filer. De konkluderer så, at dette indikerer, at disse filer simpelt hen blev kopieret og dernæst offentliggjort, forfalsket med dette Guccifer 2.0 individ for at give det skær af russisk involvering i hackingen. Kendsgerningen er, at der ingen som helst beviser er blevet præsenteret, der kan vise, hvorfra WikiLeaks fik deres materiale. Stifteren af WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, sagde, dette var et læk, det var ikke et hack; det kom ikke fra Rusland, det kom ikke fra en statslig russisk aktør. Det var et læk. Som hr. McGovern sagde, så var der mange mennesker i DNC, der ikke var glade for den måde, man håndterede primærvalgene på. Der mangler ikke motiver for at udgive sandheden om, hvordan DNC havde opereret.

Men, oven i disse fabrikerede beviser, har vi nu en situation, hvor dette anti-russiske hysteri er fænomenalt. I går vedtog man en lov om anti-russiske sanktioner i Huset og Senatet. Denne lov, HR3364, tager det for givet, at Rusland hackede de amerikanske valg og påtvinger meget strenge sanktioner i flere tilfælde, og den forbyder præsidenten at ændre dem. Med andre ord, så fjerner loven præsidentens evne – i dette tilfælde, præsident Trump – til at indlede udenrigspolitik; hvilket rent faktisk er en del af præsidentens job. Sådan arbejder vi i dette land.

Så en af de mest chokerende ting om alt dette er, at denne angivelige handling fra Ruslands side, som er blevet kaldt en krigshandling af flere kongresmedlemmer – folk siger, at, pga. dette, bør Donald Trump afsættes ved en rigsret (impeachment); dette har kongresmedlemmer sagt. For noget af denne størrelsesorden, en krigshandling, der fører til sanktioner og et potentielt udbrud af konflikt med verdens mest magtfulde atommagt ud over os selv, mon dog ikke, man ville have gennemført en solid efterforskning? Det skete ikke. Ja, faktisk, efter DNC-computerne blev hacket, hvem efterforskede dem? Efter den angivelige hacking, hvem efterforskede dem? Ikke FBI. Et privat firma – Crowdstrike – med politiske forbindelser, der gør dets resultater meget mistænkelige.

VIPS afsluttede deres memo med at spørge, hvem er Guccifer 2.0? De siger, »Vi bør måske spørge FBI«. Så jeg spurgte Ray McGovern, »Hvorfor bør vi måske spørge FBI?«

McGovern: Efter det blev afsløret, at DNC var blevet, om jeg så må sige, ’hacket’, ville det, der normalt ville ske, med mindre jeg skulle tage meget fejl, være, at FBI ville blive indbudt til at se på det og finde ud af, hvem, der gjorde det. Eller DNC ville sige, »Vil I ikke nok komme og se, hvem der gjorde dette?« Men ved I hvad? Ingen af dem syntes at være særligt interesserede i at se på det. Så, med al respekt – og vi skylder faktisk ikke meget respekt – James Comey er skyldig i embedsmisbrug, og ikke blot embedsmisbrug. Folk skriger, at dette er en krigshandling, og han læner sig tilbage og siger, »Jeg ønsker ikke at sende mine teknikere ind her«? Hvorfor? Ja, jeg kan fortælle jer, hvorfor. Det ser for mig ud, som om, at, når man er efterretningsanalytiker, så har man tendens til at forbinde punkter; det er, hvad vi kalder en analytiker af alle kilder. Man ser ikke kun på de tekniske detaljer, de kriminaltekniske data, vi nu har, men også på, hvad der sker udenfor; hvad man finder ud af gennem aviserne. Og derfra ved vi, at CIA, med hjælp fra NSA, havde udviklet – det tog dem 15 år – en utrolig evne.

Ross: Denne evne, McGovern henviser til, er det, WikiLeaks afslørede i marts, med Vault 7-programmet. Ét aspekt af dette program hed Marble Framework; noget, CIA udviklede, og som gjorde det muligt at sløre kilden til cyber-angreb. Med andre ord, så havde CIA brugt en enorm indsats – hr. McGovern skønner det til milliarder af dollars, der blev brugt – til at udvikle evnen til at udføre hack, og dernæst at kunne tilskrive dem til andre nationer, til andre aktører. Han siger, at dette Marble Framework gjorde det muligt for CIA med overlæg at plante falske beviser for russisk involvering. De havde tekst med kyrilliske bogstaver, der kunne indsættes; med andre ord, så var det muligt at få det til at se ud, som om angriberne kom fra Rusland. Spørgsmålet er så, er dette blevet efterforsket? Har Trump med sine efterretningstjenester diskuteret en efterforskning for at finde ud af, om denne type evner blev brugt? Hr. McGovern siger, at det er blevet afsløret, at de blev brugt i 2016. Var det dette, de blev brugt til? Det ville en efterforskning kunne vise.

Dette rejser også spørgsmålet: Hvorfor denne fjendtlighed imod Rusland? Er dette en kynisk kampagneplan fra Demokraterne for at komme sig over et valg, som de tabte, og forsøge at afsætte Trump og forsøge at få magten i landet tilbage? Eller hvad andet er der i spil her? Hvorfor blev denne lov om sanktioner vedtaget så enstemmigt, med kun tre kongresmedlemmer (i Huset), der stemte imod, og kun to senatorer? Vi spurgte Ray McGovern, hvad han mente om dette:

McGovern: Det kommer mest fra Demokraterne, sært nok. Og det var oprindeligt, som jeg før forsøgte at forklare, et forsøg på at sværte russerne for at hjælpe Hillary til at blive valgt. Da hun så ikke blev valgt; »Hovsa! Vi kan stadig bruge dette her.« Hvordan kan vi bruge det? Til at vise, at Hillary ikke tabte valget; det kunne ikke skyldes, at hun ikke var en særlig god kandidat, eller at ingen stolede på hende. »Det er russerne!« Så nu tror de fleste amerikanere – ifølge opinionsundersøgelserne – at denne her fyr, Trump, som vi nu har som præsident, er der, fordi Vladimir Putin hjalp ham med at blive valgt. Det er dårligt! Det er virkelig dårligt.

Hvad er så målet nu? Jamen, målet er ikke alene at gøre Trump illegitim, men også at blive ved at fyre op under spændingerne med Rusland, så der ikke kan komme en reel detente; så vi kan sværte russerne og sige, »Se så dér!«

Ross: Det andet mål, eller den anden begivenhed, der forårsagede hele dette Ruslands-hysteri, var det, der skete i Ukraine; hvor et kup i 2014 væltede den valgte præsident af Ukraine og installerede en ny regering. USA’s involvering i dette kup var helt åbenlys; det var klart som dagen. De af os, der så med, så på YouTube videoerne, der dækkede audio-optagelserne af amerikanske regeringsfolk, der planlagde, hvordan den nye, ukrainske regering skulle se ud. Victoria Nuland var involveret i at være med til at etablere en ny regering i Ukraine. Som resultat af hele denne udvikling kom Krims gentilslutning til Rusland. Dette er blevet brugt til at sige, »Vi får aldrig fred med Rusland, før Rusland giver Krim tilbage til Ukraine« – hvilket med sikkerhed aldrig vil ske – »sanktionerne vil fortsætte. Rusland er alles fjende.«

Med dette in mente, at det var USA’s indblanding i Ukraine, der skabte betingelserne for destabilisering i den østlige del af Ukraine, som sluttelig førte til Krims gentilslutning til Rusland, kan vi stille os selv spørgsmålet, »Hvad vej går dette, hvis denne udvikling ikke stoppes?« Her er, hvad hr. McGovern havde at sige om det:

McGovern: Læg alt dette sammen, og man får en syntetisk; en slags kunstig konstruktion af Vladimir Putin som selveste Djævelen. Hele pressen foretager denne ’meme’ (indforstået information), og alle går med på det – især Demokraterne – og det er det mest besynderlige, jeg nogen sinde har set. Her har vi Donald Trump. Han vil gerne tale med Putin; og hvad sker der? De får en aftale om våbenstilstand (i Syrien). Det er ikke det hele, men en lille del af Syrien. Bliver det rapporteret i pressen? Nej, måske på en side inde i avisen.

Ross: De siger, det er at bøje sig for russerne.

McGovern: Så, hvis nogen af os har interesse i at stoppe blodbadet i Syrien, hvilket vi burde gøre; vi burde applaudere Trump for enhver anden indsats for at arbejde sammen med de andre styrker i spil. Ikke alene russerne, men også syrerne, tyrkerne og iranerne. Hvis vi ikke har et fælles mål imod ISIS, hvem har vi så et fælles mål imod?

Så al denne bagtalelse – og det, som nu bliver interessant; Trump besluttede i denne uge, at der ikke kommer mere støtte, ikke flere våben og penge til de såkaldte »moderate« oprørere. De oprørere, som USA har støttet i Syrien. Det er stort! Det er CIA’s pose; det er milliarder af dollar, der er investeret i det. Hvad vil der ske? Jamen, Trump er nu gået op imod CIA i dette spørgsmål. Og jeg genkalder nu, at ingen har arbejdet i Washington længere end senator Chuck Schumer, højest-rangerende Demokrat i Senatet. Han gav et interview til Rachel Maddow –

Rachel Maddow: Han tager disse skud og modsætningsforhold –

Chuck Schumer: Jeps.

Maddow: – som håner efterretningstjenesterne.

Schumer: Lad mig fortælle dig, at, hvis man går op imod efterretningssamfundet, så har de hundrede og sytten måder, hvorpå de kan hævne sig på dig.

McGovern: Rachel Maddow siger, »Åh, vi skal pause.« (McGovern) Giv mig mikrofonen! Hvis det var dig, ville du så ikke sige, »Siger du, at USA’s præsident bør frygte efterretningssamfundet?« Det er selvfølgelig, hvad han sagde. Hvorfor refererer jeg til dette? Juryen er ude. Han er gået lidt op imod dem. Om han gør det mht. det russiske hack, ved jeg ikke. Måske er [CIA-direktør Mike] Pompeo bange for at spørge disse fyre; eller bange for at spørge … Men, hvis han er bange, vil han så følge sin forgængers eksempel? For, Obama var dødsens ræd for John Brennan; det er derfor, han forsvarede ham, da Brennan hackede ind i Senatets computere. Det er derfor, han forsøgte at forhindre offentliggørelsen af memoet fra Senatet om CIA-tortur; for det viste, at Brennan og de andre havde løjet gennem tænderne om effektiviteten af torturteknikker. Så Obama forsvarede i høj grad sig selv, eller forsvarede dem, for sluttelig at forsvare sig. Om Schumer har ret, får vi sandsynligvis at se, snarere før end siden.

Ross: Vi finder ud af det snarere før end siden, baseret på, hvordan præsidenten, og hvordan det amerikanske folk, responderer til dette pres. Prøv lige et minut at tænke: Hvad ville det betyde, hvis Trump blev smidt ud af embedet baseret på noget, vi ved er en fabrikering, en løgn, skabt af efterretningstjenesterne? En løgn, der siger, Vladimir Putin anbragte ham i embedet? Hvis USA’s præsident kan fjernes fra embedet, baseret på nonsens, skabt af efterretningstjenesterne, har vi så en valgt regering i USA? Jeg tror, det er det spørgsmål, som vi må rejse, som en hastesag, ved at få de eksplosive nyheder om dette memo ud, som kommer fra Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

DIANE SARE:  We are going to ask everybody watching this
program to mobilize to break this story.  I first want to address
some of the questions that people may raise:  “Of course we know
the Russians didn’t hack the election. I voted for Trump; and I
wasn’t told to vote for Trump by Vladimir Putin.  So, what’s new
about this?”  Or people say, “We’re used to being lied to all the
time.  Why does this make a difference?”
First I just want to say a little bit about who some of
these people are.  In case you missed it, Ray McGovern is a
former US Army and former CIA intelligence; I believe he is
fluent in Russian and has a great deal of knowledge on this.
Bill Binney, who is the co-author of this report, is the former
NSA Technical Director for World Geopolitical and Military
Analysis, the co-founder of NSA Signals Intelligence Automation
Research Center — that is the data-mining.  But he designed in
part the technology to be able to spy on everyone; he knows this
very well.  The expert who did the forensics on these so-called
hacks which turned out to be a leak, is someone named Skip
Holden; who’s a retired IBM Program Manager for Information
Technology.  He’s the one who looked at this, who came to the
conclusion — as has been reported earlier — that there was no
hack.  That what happened was that 1976MB of data were copied in
only 87 seconds; which cannot be done over the internet.  That
cannot be done through cyberspace, but only by using some kind of
thumb drive or USB port, some kind of storage device that is
actually inserted into the computer to copy this data.  And that
this was done by someone operating in the Eastern time zone; so
an insider.  Then this was blamed on Russia.
The point is, we have in hand in this report by a group of
certified experts, proof, the documentation that this thing is a
[inaud; 23:49] fraud from the beginning.  That is extremely
important.  We discovered when going to the Congress yesterday,
four LaRouche PAC organizers took about 1000 copies of the VIPS
report to Congress and discovered that nobody there had heard
anything about this; which is outrageous.  You might remember
before the elections that President Obama and others had promised
there was going to be a classified briefing from the Congress,
presenting the alleged proofs that the Russians were hacking into
the Democratic Party and sabotaging the elections; and then such
briefing never occurred.  There never was any evidence presented.
I just want to take a step back for a second, because on the
other hand, to understand this.  When Lyndon LaRouche heard about
Comey’s testimony and the story about Russia, he said “The people
pushing this want thermonuclear war.  If they succeed, we’re
going to have thermonuclear war with Russia.”  I’d like to remind
people that what happened in Ukraine was the direct result of a
deliberate policy, as Jason said.  You remember it was economic,
in terms of whether Ukraine was going to orient economically
towards Russia or Europe.  They were put in a position where they
were allegedly being forced to choose one or the other; as
opposed to working with both.  So, a false crisis was created in
order to bring in virtual actual Nazis.  We can just show one
picture [Fig. 1], the first one which I think has their Svoboda
party, which looks like swastika armbands.  They violently
overthrew the government with $5 billion laundered through the US
State Department; largely from George Soros.  Victoria Nuland,
who was under Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  In other
words, we were provoking war with Russia; deliberately moving
NATO eastward, putting Nazis — actual supporters of Hitler and
Stephan Bandera — in power in Ukraine on Russia’s border.  Why?
Because the trans-Atlantic system is on the brink of total
disintegration.  The British Empire, this empire monarchy, is in
its final agony; it will not survive.  They’ve printed trillions
of dollars, they’ve bailed out the banks time and again, they’ve
created a gigantic bubble; it’s going down.  Therefore, there is
a push to expand the ability to loot and to either bluff or
directly have what they think could be  a limited nuclear war
with Russia.
The same thing in Syria. People may remember, Hillary
Clinton was proposing a no-fly zone over Syria so that we could
shoot down Russian planes in defense of ISIS.  As Ray McGovern
mentioned in the interview, one of the positive developments of
the Trump Presidency — a very significant one — is he met with
Putin, got a ceasefire; and we are no longer arming the so-called
“moderate” groups who are running around chopping people’s heads
off and filming it.  It’s a huge breakthrough.
So, I just want to underscore that the fact that we have in
our hands, by a group of highly competent professionals, the
proof that the entire story about Russia hacking the elections
was a fraud, is critical.  What Jason described about this new
round of sanctions against Russia, which is based on crimes that
were never committed.  Russia did not start the violence in
Ukraine; that was launched under Victoria Nuland with funding
from George Soros and the State Department.  It’s a bunch of
Nazis.  They did not illegally annex Crimea.  The people of
Crimea, who are predominantly Russian and Russian speaking, held
a referendum where they voted to leave Ukraine so they wouldn’t
be burned to death in buildings for speaking Russian; which is
what these Nazis did to people in Odessa, for example.  There was
a legitimate vote in Crimea; and there was no hack of the DNC
computers.
The evidence that came out, as Putin said “Why are people so
concerned?  You should be concerned that what was leaked was
actually true”; which was that the Hillary Clinton campaign had
ripped off Bernie Sanders in every imaginable way, and there was
nothing honest or upfront about the way she conducted her
campaign.  People suspected it, and that was then proven.  People
remember that Wasserman-Schultz had to resign.
The point is, we have this in hand; and what we are asking
you to do is several things.  One, obviously the Congress should
stop being a bunch of sold-out, gutless wonders, and they should
hold hearings with the actual evidence.  That is, Ray McGovern,
Bill Binney, Skip Holden; they should be invited to testify in
hearings in the Congress.  You can call into the Congressional
switchboard, which is (202) 224-3121.  You can see on the screen
the petition [Fig. 2] being circulated by the LaRouche Political
Action Committee.  Everybody should sign the petition, but you
should also circulate it on social media.  As I mentioned, what
we discovered in Washington is that no one had even heard of this
report.  We have to change the so-called narrative; that’s one
thing that we’ve run into in DC.  Everyone talks about narrative
this, narrative that, as if there’s no such thing as truth.
Well, the narrative right now is that somehow Vladimir Putin is
responsible for every evil that’s occurred on the planet in the
last 10 years at least; and that therefore, we should impose
sanctions on Russia and even risk a war with that country.  This
is completely insane; it is not true.  The truth of the matter is
that there is a New Paradigm which is being led by China; which
the US can join with China and Russia.  It has the potential, as
President Trump has expressed his intent to make American great
again.  The way we make America great again, is by collaborating
with China, with Russia to go back to a Hamiltonian system of
political economy.
So, our job, as Mrs. LaRouche put it, is we have to get the
truth out on this story.  The Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity — VIPS — have given us a weapon.  She said,  “You
know the phenomenon where people are marching across a bridge at
such a frequency that the footsteps resonate with the
construction of the bridge; and it creates a vibration that
causes the bridge itself to collapse.  What we want to do with
this mobilization is break the back of this lie.”  The American
people have been lied to for a very long time.  We were lied to
about the Kennedy assassination with devastating consequences to
our republic.  We were lied to about 9/11; we were lied to about
the Saudi and British role in 9/11 explicitly.  We are now being
lied to about the election; and these lies could have the
consequence of running a coup d’etat against a legitimately
elected leader and putting us on a trajectory for World War III.
We can break the back of this by circulating this report.
So, I would urge people to take the material from the
LaRouche PAC website, get it out on your Facebook accounts, send
it out through Twitter.  Call the White House and urge President
Trump to appoint special counsel to launch a Presidential
investigation of what happened in the DNC computers.  That we
have evidence that someone, as Ray McGovern asked, What does the
CIA know about this?  What does Brennan know about this?  What
does the FBI know about this?  Who was it who went into the DNC
computer and tried to make it look like Russia had done this?
President Trump, as President of the United States, has a
legitimate right to demand such an investigation.  You should
call the White House and demand this.  Call your Congressman and
say “Have you read the report from the Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity?  Have you read that report?  Don’t you
think there should be hearings?  We have to investigate this.”
Get this out to all of your friends; it’s absolutely urgent.
Because when we break the back of this, then we can transform the
nation.
So, I would just say that it is very important that people
take action.  The LaRouche PAC website will be the center of this
mobilization; giving you the ammunition that you need and the
resources that you need to get to your elected officials.

ROSS:  Absolutely!  And that ammunition is available for you
right here.  In the video description you’ll find a link to the
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity memo —
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/07/24/intel-vets-challenge-
russia-hack-evidence/. The full interview with Ray McGovern
will be available on our website over the weekend; we’ll be
posting it soon.
I just wanted to bring up one more aspect of this in terms
of the coup.  Diane had brought up John Brennan.  Well, John
Brennan, at the Aspen Security Forum just a couple of days ago,
had said that if Trump fires Robert Mueller, the special
investigator, that the intelligence agencies should refuse to go
along with it.  In essence, he’s calling for a coup against the
President based on a political decision that he might make.  So,
ask yourself:  Do you want to have a government?  Or do you want
to have John Brennan and other non-elected people dictating and
determining policy in a way that is to the absolute detriment of
our nation?  If this isn’t removed, the opportunity to work with
Russia, to work with China, and to work towards a better future
as Diane had mentioned, will simply be impossible.  So, get that
memo out; make sure everybody you know reads it.  It’s absolutely
dynamite and it definitively puts to rest the whole Russia-gate
nonsense.  It’ll be great to move on from that, won’t it?
So, thank you for joining us.  I’m looking forward to your
action to make this a reality.  We’ll see you next time.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 25. juli, 2017 – Det ekstraordinære memorandum, fremstillet af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) i går, demonstrerer endegyldigt, at de såkaldte russiske hack af Demokraternes Nationalkomite (DNC), slet ikke var hack, med derimod læk, udført af nogen, der havde fysisk adgang til DNC’s computere. Dataene blev dernæst manipuleret for at belaste Rusland. Læs hele det eksplosive VIPS-memorandum her.

Video, Jason Ross:

»I går publicerede en gruppe ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) et memo, der destruerede påstanden om, at Vladimir Putin og russerne ’hackede’ det amerikanske præsidentvalg for at anbringe Donald Trump i embedet. De tilbageviser specifikt vurderingen af 6. januar, foretaget af håndplukkede medlemmer af et par amerikanske efterretningstjenester, der havde påstået, at »den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin havde beordret en indflydelseskampagne i 2016, målrettet mod det amerikanske præsidentvalg«, for at anbringe Donald Trump i embedet. Ifølge dette regeringsmemo af 6. januar, så, udover angiveligt at udløse en drabelig hær af internet-trolde, så vel som også at udløse russisk propaganda gennem den snigende benævnte, russiske Tv-kanal, Russia Today, påstår regeringsdokumentet, at russisk militærefterretning benyttede en hacker, kendt som ’Guccifer 2.0’, til at hacke DNC og udlevere materiale til WikiLeaks. Dette materiale viste sig så at være pinligt for Clinton-kampagnen og afslørede, at DNC havde modarbejdet Clintons modkandidat i primærvalgene, Bernie Sanders. WikiLeaks fastholdt, at det materiale, de offentliggjorde, var et læk, ikke et hack, og at det ikke kom fra Rusland. Dengang insisterede VIPS på, at alle beviser pegede på, at materialet var et læk snarere end et hack.

Kort tid efter, at WikiLeak meddelte, at det havde dette DNC-materiale sidste juni, dukkede dette nye, internet-individ, Guccifer 2.0, op på scenen og hævdede, at han hackede DNC, og omgik WikiLeaks ved at udgive flere DNC-dokumenter. Metadataene på nogle af disse dokumenter omfattede en ’sidst ændret’-bruger ved navn Felix Edmundovich, skrevet med kyrilliske skrifttegn, og opkaldt efter Felix Edmundovich Dzerzjinskij, den første chef for det Sovjetiske Hemmelige Politi. Hovsa! Dernæst afslørede klodsede interviews af ’Guccifer 2.0’, der påstod at være rumæner, at han faktisk ikke var bekendt med dette sprog og måske skjulte sin sande identitet. Disse spor blev præsenteret som bevis på, at det var russisk involvering; at ’Guccifer 2.0’ var et russisk hack, der tilsigtede at influere på det amerikanske præsidentvalg.

VIPS-memoet, der blev offentliggjort i går, i hvilke undersøgelser af sites af en computertekniker og af Adam Carter, giver stærke tekniske beviser, der peger på en overlagt anbringelse af russisk metadata og at kilden til filerne, der kom fra ’Guccifer 2.0’, kom fra en direkte, lokal adgang til DNC-netværket. Ikke et computer-fjernhack. Det tempo, hvormed filerne blev overført og senere offentliggjort af ’Guccifer 2.0’, var alt for højt til, at det kunne være gjort via en Internetforbindelse, men som derimod er i overensstemmelse med at kopiere gennem et lokalt netværk til et eksternt USB-stik eller USB-nøgle. Tider, der er lagret i filernes og arkivernes metadata, peger på, at manipulationen med filerne var udført i Østkyst-tidszone (USA). Dette var ikke et hack. Den senere tilføjelse af russiske metadata, inklusive navnet Felix Edmondovich, skete også med fuldt overlæg.

Hvad betyder så alt dette? Efter WikiLeaks meddelte, at det havde materiale fra DNC, blev der lanceret en operation, der skulle tilføje russiske fingeraftryk og frembringe et angiveligt sekundært læk af materiale. Der er mere i alt dette, som jeg vil opfordre til, at I læser i det komplette memorandum, der opfordrer præsidenten til at efterforske CIA, især tidligere direktør John Brennan, samt FBI, for det falske hack og den falske tilskrivning til Rusland. Husk på, at alt dette sker pga. Donald Trumps kurs mod en detente med Rusland og imod den igangværende krigsførelse, der promoveres af aktører, kendt som ’deep state’ (’staten i staten’) i USA. Præsidenten må slå tilbage mod disse tjenester for at kunne forfølge sin egen politik; og, at slå kraftigt tilbage mod dette ’Russia-Gate’ er altafgørende for at få det til at ske.«

Benjamin Deniston: Vi har et par vigtige afsnit til jer i dag, inklusive annonceringen af en nødmobilisering, der i dag lanceres af LaRouchePAC, med et krav om forebyggende handlinger, der er nødvendige for at standse et nyt finanskollaps – et kollaps, der er værre end krisen i 2008. Det kommer vi til.

Vi vil også afspille en video med en appel fra fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der taler direkte til det amerikanske folk; med en opfordring til, at det amerikanske folk rejser sig og forsvarer præsident Trump, især med hans løfter om at genopbygge den amerikanske økonomi gennem at vedtage Glass-Steagall og satse på det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. Videoen kommer lige om lidt.

Vi vil afslutte med nogle rapporter direkte fra gaden om LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite (LPAC) i hele landet. Så bliv her på kanalen, for dette får du med sikkerhed ikke i medierne i dag, og som er en ægte aflæsning af, hvad det faktisk almindelige, patriotiske, amerikanske folk ønsker; hvad de tænker nu, og hvad de ønsker at gøre.

Men før vi kommer til disse to sidstnævnte afsnit, har vi i dag en meddelelse om, at LaRouchePAC udsteder en nødmobilisering og kræver, at de relevante regeringer griber til forebyggende handlinger for at standse et nyt kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem. I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche krævet denne nødmobilisering; der skal føres både i USA og i nationerne i hele Europa for at kræve, og gennemtvinge og forlange, at de relevante regeringer – inklusive præsident Trump – griber til de nødvendige, forebyggende handlinger for at reorganisere finanssystemet og reorganisere det økonomiske system. Og at gøre dette, før den nye sammenbrudskrise rammer. Alle, der følger os her på LaRouchePAC, ved, at de forebyggende handlinger, der må foretages omgående, er absolut krystalklare. Vi har LaRouches økonomiske genrejsningsprogram, Fire Love, der begynder med vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall som blot det første, indledende skridt.

Før vi kommer nærmere ind på dette, vil vi belyse den kendsgerning, at der er nye diskussioner og nye bekymringer om mange mulige udløserpunkter for denne nye finanskrise. Vi har f.eks. nye udviklinger i den såkaldte italienske bankkrise; der faktisk ikke er begrænset til Italien, men det er, hvad man diskuterer. I de seneste par dage har diverse finanseksperter advaret om, at 16 ud af 19 italienske banker – det er 85 % af bankerne i Italien, 16 ud af 19 – i øjeblikket ikke kan leve op til de europæiske standarder mht. misligholdte lån (Non-performing Loans; NPL)[1]. Det rapporteres, at disse banker skal rejse $32 milliard for at leve op til EU-standarder. Denne helt nye udvikling kommer i sammenhæng med en igangværende krise i eurozonen. For eksempel har Marco Zanni, både i sine egne interviews med andre publikationer og i interviews med LaRouchePAC, advaret om, at vi nu har kurs mod en ny bankkrise. Han har udtalt sig offentligt imod dette og har meget nøje overvåget situationen med de italienske banker og eurozone-bankerne. Under diskussionen i morges med fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, kom hun med en meget klar pointe. Hun sagde: »Hvis der er amerikanere, der tror, at dette er et italiensk spørgsmål, eller dette er et europæisk spørgsmål, så må I hellere tro om igen og indse, hvad situationen er.« Det er almindeligt kendt, at amerikanske banker har en derivateksponering på over $2 billioner over for europæiske banker. Det er ikke noget nyt; vi så det i 2007, 2008, 2009. Det transatlantiske banksystem er så indbyrdes sammenflettet og afhængigt, at en nedsmeltning i en hvilken som helst af disse regioner let kan sende hele systemet til tælling.

Det er den situation, vi ser på i Europa. I USA er der signaler over det hele. For eksempel situationen i Texas, hvor, den 11. juli, Houston Cronicle rapporterede, at selskabers misligholdelse af lån i hele staten Texas i dag allerede er højere, end den var under krisen i 2008-2009. Så selv om vi angiveligt ikke er i en krise – det er, hvad man fortæller os – så er graden af selskabers misligholdelse allerede højere i Texas i dag, end den var under krisens højdepunkt, da den sidst voksede frem. Dette omfatter visse helt enestående situationer. For eksempel, en situation, der beskrives som »uhørt«, en begivenhed uden fortilfælde; og det var sammenbruddet af en Houston-baseret, privat kapitalfond ved navn EnerVest, Limited, der vurderedes til $2 milliard. Men, efter dens kollaps, vurderedes den helt ned til nul. Før denne begivenhed ville typiske tab fra denne form for situation, hvor en privat kapitalfond går ned, ende med et tab på 25 %. Her har vi tab på 100 %. Dette bliver åbenlyst indrømmet som en begivenhed uden fortilfælde. Wall Street Journal interviewede under sin dækning af det eksperter, der advarede, »Flere andre energi-fokuserede fonde er i fare for en lignende situation«.

Ud over denne specifikke situation i Texas er det velkendt, at graden af selskabers misligholdelse i hele landet allerede var i støt stigning i hele 2016 og fortsættende i 2017. Der er endnu en situation omkring restancer i billån, der nu er på et niveau, der kan sammenlignes med restancerne i ejendomslån i 2006, umiddelbart inden kollapset af boblen i ejendomslån. Jeg håber, vore seere er klar over, at billån er blevet brugt til en lignende virkning med at skabe værdipapirer og andre bjerge af svindellån på basis af disse oprindelige lån. Man er bekymret for, at restancerne på billånene på samme måde kunne udløse en krise.

Og så har vi selvfølgelig den igangværende saga om de uophørlige bailouts med politikken for kvantitativ lempelse. I Europa sender enhver blot antydning eller diskussion om, at den Europæiske Centralbank skal nedskære deres QE – kvantitativ lempelse – bailout-program omgående markederne ud i uro. Så her otte, ni år inde i dette fortsatte bailout-program, sender den blotte nævnelse af at nedskære dette en lille smule markederne ud i krise; for blot at give jer en fornemmelse af, hvor følsom situationen er dér.

Vi bringer disse punkter frem, fordi de blot er nogle mulige punkter, der kunne udløse denne krise. Jeg vil gerne understrege, at Helga Zepp-LaRouche her til morgen specifikt satte fokus på den italienske banksituation som et kritisk område, man skulle overvåge. Men dette er blot mulige udløserpunkter; ikke ét af dem er i sig selv årsagen. Ethvert af disse punkter kunne gå af, de kunne udløse nedsmeltningen; eller, det kunne blive noget helt andet. Som vi drøftede det med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, så er årsagen den samme, systemiske fallit i hele det transatlantiske system, der stod bag krisen i 2008, og som ikke blev løst på nogen som helst måde af bailout. Helga understregede her til morgen, at, ikke alene løste bailout ingenting; det førte faktisk systemet over i en fremgangsmåde med reel, accelereret udplyndring af befolkningen i USA og Europa. Udplyndring af det amerikanske og europæiske folk i et desperat forsøg på at opretholde og fortsætte denne boble. Vi har nu nået et nyt vendepunkt i denne krise.

Vi kunne nævne mange ting om dette, men blot et par udviklinger, der er sket i de seneste dage: Nye rapporter om de ødelæggende virkninger af nedskæringer af pensioner, som et resultat af Obamas politikker. Vi har især et tilfælde med Multi-employer Pension Fund Reform Act[2], som Obama underskrev og satte i kraft i 2014; hvilket angiveligt skulle have været et forsøg på at redde mange pensioner fra at gå ned, til trods for, at disse pensioner angiveligt skulle være garanteret til de mennesker, der indbetalte til dem og havde tjent dem. Vi hører nu, at nedskæringer på op til 63 % af disse pensioner er blevet annonceret over for medlemmerne af Cleveland Stålarbejdere Lokal 17. Dette er blot ét eksempel, og det første eksempel, på, hvad der kunne blive en hel bølge af massive nedskæringer af pensioner for denne form for arbejdere, som et resultat af disse politikker fra Obama-æraen. Det er sikkert overflødig at sige det, men det er altså en massiv nedskæring; man tager folk, der har planlagt en anstændig middelklasse pensionisttilværelse, og nu kastes de ud under fattigdomsgrænsen. Dette truer med hjemløshed for mange af disse mennesker.

Det er blot ét eksempel. Mere generelt er det også blevet annonceret, at 33 forskellige stater i hele nationen nu rapporterer om nedgang i deres forudsete indtægter. Hvilket betyder, at vi må være forberedt på fornyet diskussion om nedskæringspolitik i hele landet i diverse stater, som respons hertil. Og, som vore seere er udmærket klar over, så har vi selvfølgelig det igangværende, fysiske sammenbrud af USA; hvilket er et absolut indbyrdes forbundet og indbyrdes afhængigt spørgsmål. Den basale, nødvendige finansiering for blot en minimal, basal vedligeholdelse af vore infrastruktursystemer – de systemer, der holder vores økonomi i gang, der holder folk i live – er blevet nægtet; er blevet fjernet under dette sindssyge, Wall Street-kørte, spekulative system.

Pointen er, at dette system er mere råddent, end det var i 2008. Ethvert af det amerikanske folks fysiske vilkår er værre, end det var i 2008, som et resultat af Bush’ og Obamas politik. Vi er nu ved et punkt, hvor boblen igen er rede til at briste; der er mange mulige udløsere. Som respons til denne situation har Lyndon og Helga LaRouche understreget, at vi må kræve forebyggende handling. Vi kan ikke vente på, at krisen rammer og så respondere i sammenhæng med et krisescenarie. De relevante regeringer må gå ind og intervenere og forhindre et sammenbrud med LaRouches Fire Love-programmet. Hvis vi venter på et kaotisk kollaps, kunne det være for sent.

LaRouches Fire Love-program er ganske enkelt, det er meget klart. Man kan finde mere information på LaRouchePAC-websiden. Programmet begynder med 1) Glass-Steagall; en anerkendt, kraftigt støttet handling for at omstrukturere banksystemet ved at rejse en brandmur mellem legitim, standard, kommerciel bankpraksis og så de mere spekulative hasardspilspraksisser af den type, der praktiseres af investeringsbanker og Wall Street. Simplet hen adskille dem; det er alt, man behøver gøre som første skridt.

Hr. LaRouches trin 2 er at komme ind med et statsligt banksystem i Hamiltons tradition. Skab en ny nationalbank, der kan udstede kredit til disse kommercielle banker og andre banker til at finansiere et finanssystem, der er frit og uafhængigt af Wall Street, City of London og disse internationale finansoligarker. Det er, hvad vor nation har gjort på forskellige tidspunkter i hele vores historie; det er en politik, der er rodfæstet i den Amerikanske Forfatning og vor nations grundlæggelse, for at have statslig, national kontrol over det monetære system, over vores kreditpolitik. For at sikre, at vi kan kontrollere, hvordan vi bruger vores penge, hvorhen vi dirigerer vores kredit, og at vi ikke er prisgivet Wall Streets eller et internationalt finanskartels luner.

Men det bringer os frem til punkt 3, som virkelig er afgørende for hr. LaRouches enestående indsigt i realøkonomisk vækst og genrejsning; og det er at sikre, at vi ikke blot skaber kredit til jobs som sådan, men at kreditten må gå til produktive jobs, der øger arbejdskraftens fysiske produktivitet; der øger den fysiske nettoproduktion af de varer, der er nødvendige for at det amerikanske folk kan opretholde samfundet. Der må være en forståelse og en prioritering af kreditudstedelse til ting, der med garanti har denne fysiske væksteffekt, der vil skabe en anti-entropisk forøgelse af vækst i den amerikanske økonomi. En fremtrædende komponent i dette er infrastruktur; en genopbygning af infrastrukturen; opbygning af en ny infrastrukturplatform for vores land, på et højere niveau. Det er denne form for fysiske investeringer, der behøves. Som et nationalt, højhastigheds-jernbanenet, der helt vil forandre transport i hele landet. Nye vandsystemer, nye energisystemer; sådanne ting.

Det 4. punkt i LaRouches Fire Love er et forceret program for termonuklear fusionskraft; og dens anvendelse til at støtte en ny rummission, med videnskab som drivkraft, for udvikling af Månen og udvidelse af menneskehedens snarlige aktivitet i Solsystemet. Og igen; dette er rodfæstet i hr. LaRouches erkendelse af, at dette er en form for investeringer, der ikke bare koster penge. Men de fremmer og fremtvinger faktisk den form for teknologiske og videnskabelige revolutioner, der rykker hele samfundet opad. Apolloprogrammet, det forcerede Måneprogram, betalte mange gange den oprindelige investering tilbage gennem effekterne af de nye teknologier, der blev udviklet til denne mission, og som dernæst blev benyttet i hele økonomien. Det er basal, økonomisk vækst; og hele denne pakke er nødvendig, som et hele, som en totalitet, for at komme ud af denne krise.

Det er, hvad hr. LaRouche har sagt siden før nedsmeltningen i 2007-2008; og nu siger han det igen. Tiden er nu inde til, at folk lytter og griber til handling omgående, og ikke venter på, at dette her skal ske igen.

Vi ved alle – vi har diskuteret det– at præsident Trump viser en åbenhed over for at satse på dette program. Han har åbent udtalt sin støtte til Glass-Steagall. Han har åbent diskuteret det Amerikanske System for politisk økonomi; noget, der sandsynligvis ikke er blevet omtalt af nogen præsident i godt og vel 100 år. Spørgsmålet er sandsynligvis, om der overhovedet har været en præsident i dette tidsrum, der forstod, hvad det ville sige; vi skal nok tilbage til Franklin Roosevelt. Men Trump har lagt disse ting på bordet; han har opfordret til at støtte disse politikker. Men, det amerikanske folk må indse, at dette er en kamp. Han går op imod Wall Street; han går op imod City of London; han går op imod det britiske establishment med denne politik. Han har brug for den nødvendige støtte til at sikre, at han rent faktisk kan bringe dette program til at bære frugt.

Og vi er nu kommet til en særlig videotale, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche optog tidligere på ugen som en direkte appel til det amerikanske folk om ikke blot at læne sig tilbage og klage eller håbe. Men derimod at gribe til omgående handling for at sikre, at vores præsident har støtten til disse særlige spørgsmål og har mulighed for at gennemføre sit økonomiske revolutionsprogram. Det er ikke nogen let kamp; det er ikke en kamp, hvor hverken det ene eller andet udfald er garanteret. Lige nu er det en kamp, hvor udfaldet er åbent. Så vi afspiller nu Helga Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger for jer.

(Se: Helga Zepp-LaRouches videotale, med dansk oversættelse: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=20761 )

 

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

 

DENISTON:  So I think that was a very clear and appropriate
message, and I think that transitions us directly to our
concluding brief segment on the show today; which is the response
that we’re getting from the American people when we take this
message to them.  As you hopefully know, LaRouche PAC is not a
news service; we’re not just here providing information.  We are
a political action committee; we are active all around the
country, online, social networks; but also in the streets around
the nation.  What we are getting is a very clear and strong
response when the proper leadership — as Helga just displayed —
is brought to the American people.  Despite all of this crazy
media bombardment and what Helga referenced in terms of the
top-down control of the political parties trying to maintain
these different narratives about Trump, about the election, about
Russia, etc., etc.  The reality is, the common American person
has a very clear and immediate response when the actual issues of
the economic breakdown, the fight against Wall Street, and the
need to rebuild the country along the lines of LaRouche’s Four
Laws are brought to them.  When these points are brought to them,
they respond.  Democrat, Republican, independent, Green,
whatever.  There is a unity in the American people that needs to
be mobilized, built upon, and rallied to support Trump on these
specific measures, so he can take on Wall Street; take on the
City of London; and preempt this crisis with the entire Four Laws
program.  So, with that, we have a very short additional video
report we want to bring to you, featuring LaRouche PAC organizer
Kevin Pearl from the Boston, Massachusetts area.  He has a report
on the activity and response he’s getting from his direct
activity with the American people.

KEVIN PEARL

:  Hi.  Kevin Pearl with the LaRouche
Political Action Committee in Raynham, Massachusetts.  I just
wanted to give people a quick report of the responses that we’ve
been getting out in the streets over the course of the last week;
which is very different from what you might expect from the media
reports.  The reality is, a huge number of Democrats —
particularly blue-collar Democrats — are thrilled to see us out
here defending Trump.  This is not a Republican-Democratic
question.  There’s a division between those who want to
reindustrialize and rebuild the country and are thrilled at the
idea of Trump investing $1 trillion or more in American
infrastructure, versus those who are willing to defend the Wall
Street financial casino at all costs.  People are disgusted by
the propaganda that Russia somehow stole the election.  Many
people sheepishly say, “Frankly, I like Putin.  I think he’s
doing more to stop terrorism than Obama did or Bush did.”  Many
people sheepishly admit that they themselves are Democrats;
because they think that only Republicans support the President,
because of the media brainwashing.  The reality is, Americans
want to rebuild the country along the lines of Republicans that
think like Lincoln and Eisenhower, and Democrats that think like
Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy. It’s time to cut the
partisan crap and do that.
So, that’s the sense that we’re getting in the streets out
here. That’s my quick report for today.  Keep in touch.

DENISTON:  So, as you saw there, that’s one taste of what
we’re getting.  We also had similar reports from around the
country.  I’ll just highlight very briefly a fun report we got
from the greater New York Manhattan area; where one of our
organizers was approached by a somewhat suspicious character who
was asking very probing questions and kind of trying to get under
our skin a little bit.  At a certain point, when provoked, she
said, “Well actually, I was told to come down here and harass you
guys, because you have some support of Trump as part of your
presentation here on our street corner.  I was alerted through my
Facebook group that we should go down here and harass you for
being Trump supporters.”  We got into a basic discussion with the
woman; she agreed with us on everything we were talking about.
She wants Glass-Steagall, she wants the Four Laws program, she
wants to rebuild the country.  So, it’s another example of how
thin this propaganda is that’s being put out by the media.  What
cuts through it is the economic reality of the situation and the
actions needed.  So, if we can mobilize the American people —
and that is your job out there as our audience, as our activists,
as our supporters.  One leading item we still have is our
petition, calling on the Congress to support this activity to
rebuild the country.  We need to continue to build support around
that; build support for the Four Laws program as a whole.
Again, just to reiterate, we are now launching an emergency
campaign to call for preemptive action.  There are new signs that
this system, which has been rotted to the core for many years
now, and is only being supported by the looting of the general
population; that this system is now coming to the point where it
is ready to blow out again.  It could be tomorrow; it could be
next week.  It’s not a mechanical scenario where one particular
event is going to trigger it; it could be any event.  The problem
is in the inherent nature of the system itself, not in any of
these particular scenarios we cited earlier — although those
should be watched as potential triggers.
So, that’s our situation now.  That’s our task before us.
We are happy to bring you this show this week, and we will
continue to bring you more information as things develop.  Thank
you for joining us at larouchepac.com.

[1] Et banklån regnes for misligholdt, når der går mere end 90 dage, uden at låneren betaler de aftalte afdrag og renter. Misligholdte lån – NLP’er – kaldes også »dårlige lån«.

[2] Multiemployer Pension Reform Act fra 2014 er en føderal lov, der havde til formål at tillade visse amerikanske pensionsordninger, der har utilstrækkelige midler og dermed risikerer insolvens, at reducere de udbetalinger, de skylder pensions-indbetalerne.

Følgende artikel forekommer som en lederartikel i seneste nummer af Executive Intelligence Review:

EIR, 13. juli, 2017 – Marco Zanni, uafhængigt medlem af Europaparlamentet fra Italien, blev i går interviewet af det anti-etablissement, USA-baserede website, Rogue Money, af sitets stifter »V, Guerilla-økonomen«, sammen med EIR’s Harley Schlanger. Zanni fokuserede på to punkter: EU-bankernes og EU-økonomiernes overordnede svaghed, der kræver bankreform, med begyndelse i en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og betydningen af den amerikanske præsident Trumps G20-topmøde med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin.

Med hensyn til EU og euroen, gennemgik Zanni Italiens kollapsende økonomi for at belyse det overordnede problem. Han sagde, det er ukorrekt at tale om økonomisk genrejsning i Eurozonen – man kan ikke stole på de erklæringer, der kommer fra den Europæiske Kommission eller den Europæiske Centralbank (ECB). Alt imens ECB’s udpumpning af likviditet midlertidigt kan have reddet nogle store banker fra fallit, så skete det på bekostning af realøkonomien samtidig med, at det ikke gjorde noget som helst for at adressere de systemiske problemer i Europas For-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-banker (’TBTF-banker’).

I Italien og Spanien er den reelle arbejdsløshedsrate 20 %, og realindkomsten er på 1999-niveau. Den nylige bail-out/bail-in (hhv. ’statslig bankredning’ og ’ekspropriering af visse typer bankindskud’, -red.) af to venetianske banker og Monte dei Paschi-banken viser den svindelagtige natur af ECB’s politik og belyste den kendsgerning, at mange banker ligger inde med uerholdelige niveauer af gæld i form af insolvente lån og derivatobligationer. Der er en voksende vrede i befolkningen mod den Europæiske Kommission og ECB, såvel som også mod den italienske regering for at bøje sig for dem.

Zanni sagde, at der er tiltag i Europaparlamentet, og især i det italienske parlament, i retning af at vedtage en politik for bankreform, som omfatter en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og som hans gruppe støtter. Hvis dette imidlertid ikke sker, forudsiger han en ny, mere alvorlig bankkrise ved udgangen af dette år eller i begyndelsen af 2018 og siger, at dette kunne føre til en italiensk exit af euroen.

Forespurgt om sit syn på Putin/Trump-mødet sagde Zanni, at han har fulgt Putin »med stor interesse«. Han har et »meget positivt syn« på Trump/Putin-mødet. »Det er ikke hele Europa, der er imod Trump, som medierne prøver at få det til at lyde.« Han sagde, at Europa har brug for stærke, økonomiske relationer med Rusland og Kina, og Trump handler i denne retning. Der er nu en stor mulighed for at skabe samarbejde mellem Europa og Rusland, med Trump som drivkraft, og for at forlænge dette også til Asien.

Zanni sluttede med at sige, at Europa må have fungerende, suveræne stater, i modsat fald vil det mislykkes.

Interviewet[1] vil blive opslået i morgen. Rogue Money-websitet følges stærkt af anti-etablissement-netværk, og dets interviews udlægges ofte af andre. Det har et ugentligt, 20 minutter langt interview med Schlanger og opslår hyppigt materiale fra LaRouchePAC, med links til siden.

[1] http://www.roguemoney.net/2017/07/13/exclusive-interview-with-marco-zanni-and-harley-schlanger/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msiF-NVuJGE

(35 minutter).

 

Det er den 14. juli, 2017; og, som de ville sige i Frankrig, »Bonne Fête Nationale!«. Vi ved, at præsident Trump netop er kommet tilbage fra at deltage i fejringen af Bastille-dagen i Paris, Frankrig, hvor han havde et succesrigt møde med præsident Macron, iflg. rapporter. De fejrede mere end 200 års fransk-amerikansk partnerskab, der går helt tilbage til vores alliance for at besejre briterne i den Amerikanske Revolution.

Men, der er gået nøjagtig én uge siden det historiske møde mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin fra Rusland, på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland.

(Her følger det engelske udskrift af webcastet.)

WE NEED A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM NOW!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it’s July 14, 2017.  My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us here for our weekly
webcast on larouchepac.com.  I’m joined in the studio by Paul
Gallagher, {EIR} Economics Editor.
It’s July 14, 2017; and as they would say in France, “Bonne
Fête Nationale!”  We know that President Trump has just returned
from attending the Bastille Day celebrations in Paris, France,
where he had a successful visit with President Macron according
to reports.  They celebrated over 200 years of French-American
partnership going all the way back to our alliance to defeat the
British in the American Revolution.
But it’s been exactly one week since the historic meeting
between President Trump and President Putin of Russia, on the
sidelines of the G-20 in Hamburg, Germany.  We have a picture
[Fig. 1] here I can put on the screen of President Putin’s and
President Trump’s meeting, as you can see here.  As was correctly
cited by Stephen Cohen in an article in The Nation yesterday,
this was a very successful summit.  The achievements included: 1)
formalizing a new direct partnership between the United States
and Russian Presidents — personal relationship; 2. negotiating a
very successful ceasefire in southern Syria, which continues to
hold to this day.  This is part of a more general policy of
coordinating anti-terrorism campaigns; 3. — according to reports
— creating a bilateral US-Russia channel to try to resolve the
ongoing civil war in Ukraine.  But, over the past week, we’ve
also seen an escalation to a real fever pitch of the so-called
“Russia-gate” campaign.  We’ve seen this very rapid escalation of
attacks against the Trump Presidency.  But as Paul Gallagher
pointed out correctly in a lead that was published yesterday on
the LaRouche PAC website, this latest series of frenzied
outbursts against President Trump over the so-called
“Russia-gate” is not due to some sort of 20-minute meeting that
one of Trump’s children had with a Russian lawyer at Trump Tower
during the campaign.  But rather, it’s over the fact that
President Trump himself had a very successful 2.5-hour meeting
with President Putin of Russia last week.  This is a meeting that
Trump’s opponents never intended to allow to occur, let alone
turn out as positively and successfully as it did.  This has
been, emphatically, the issue all along in this so-called
“Russia-gate” collusion scandal; going all the way back to before
Trump’s inauguration.
I’d like to put on the screen here a tweet [Fig. 2] that
President Trump tweeted out on January 7th of this year, where he
correctly identifies exactly what the issue here is.  This is two
weeks before the inauguration.  He says, “Having a good
relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.  Only
‘stupid’ people or fools would think that it is bad.  We have
enough problems around the world without yet another one.  When I
am President, Russia will respect us far more than they do now,
and both countries will perhaps work together to solve some of
the many great and pressing problems and issues of the world.”
So, indeed, that’s what Trump has been able to succeed in
accomplishing; and he’s stuck to this, despite the environment of
Russophobia which far rivals anything that we’ve seen at least
since the Cold War, maybe going all the way back to the infamous
McCarthyism of the 1950s.  You’ve reached a point now where even
Senator Tim Kaine, the former running mate of Hillary Clinton
during the campaign, has openly accused the sitting President of
the United States of treason over the fact that Trump’s son
allegedly met with a foreign national to receive so-called
damaging information against his opponent Hillary Clinton in the
Presidential campaign.  While at the same time, Hillary Clinton
herself had actively solicited damaging, salacious misinformation
against her opponent Donald Trump from a known former agent of
British Intelligence, Christopher Steele.  So, that’s quite the
double standard, if you ask me.
But to make the point, in the face of this entire apparatus,
President Trump’s policy of cooperating with Putin and
establishing a good relationship with President Xi of China is,
indeed, a courageous one.  But as Paul Gallagher made the point
in this same lead which I cited earlier, which he titled “Trump’s
Policy of Peace with Putin and Xi Is Courageous; But His Policy
of Peace with Wall Street is not”.  Very correctly, Paul, you
said “What is not courageous is this President’s inability to
take any steps against Wall Street towards carrying out the
economic recovery policies on which he ran his campaign.  Rather,
Wall Street, led by the likes of Treasury Secretary Steve
Mnuchin, is running all over him.  President Trump is fighting
the British imperial policy and it is British Intelligence which
launched ‘Russia-gate’ against him a year ago, and has driven the
Congressional leadership into McCarthyite madness.  But neither
he, nor either party in Congress, is fighting Wall Street; that
is up to the rest of us, and it cannot be delayed or the next
looming crash will wipe us out entirely.”
So, Paul, that’s what you said in the lead of the LaRouche
PAC website yesterday, very correctly; and I think we’ll get into
that.  But this was echoed by Helga Zepp-LaRouche during
discussions we had with her just a little bit earlier today.  She
said what is clearly urgently necessary and seriously lacking in
the current Trump administration is a commitment to following
through on what she called “an industrial program for the United
States.”  She said we need to get people to focus on this.  The
Trump agenda internationally is fine, clearly; especially Trump’s
stance on Russia, China, US cooperation, which is obviously
positive she said.  And which is the source of the unprecedented
attacks against his administration by those who wish to sabotage
such a relationship.  But domestically, we need a real economic
program.  She said, “As the famous saying goes, ‘it’s the
economy, stupid!’|”  She said that we do expect that sometime
this month, the US-China economic cooperation report is expected
to be published, which was commissioned during President Trump’s
and President Xi Jinping’s summit at Mar-a-Lago a few months ago.
But, as far as can be seen up to this point, there is really
nothing yet happening in terms of Trump’s promised $1 trillion
infrastructure investment plan for the United States.  She said
this is a big weakness, along with Trump’s indefensible cowardice
in the face of Wall Street.  So, it’s our responsibility to
escalate this campaign to get this infrastructure campaign going
in the context of LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws; starting with
Glass-Steagall, which we’re going to discuss more in a minute.
We can use the reconstruction of the New York City region as a
necessary catalyst and a keystone to energize this entire
national infrastructure vision.
So, just to begin with, I’d like to play a short video which
was just posted on the LaRouche PAC website, narrated by Jason
Ross, on this subject.  The title of the video is “What New York
City Can Learn from Africa”.

JASON ROSS:  So, New York City has now officially
entered the “Summer of Hell” created by long overdue maintenance
work around Penn Station.  This work is going to reduce commuter
access to this vital hub by 20% for the half million commutes
daily.  A couple of weeks ago in New York, the derailment of an A
train left dozens injured and disrupted hundreds of thousands of
trips.  In two years, the planned shutdown of the L train will
disrupt 200,000 daily trips for a year and a half.  Today, New
York City’s subway delays are 2.5 times what they were just five
years ago.  It’s clear that transportation in America’s leading
city is at the breaking point.  This should be no surprise to
anyone who has followed the lack of infrastructure investment
over the past decades; particularly to Lyndon LaRouche, who
fought against the 1970s destruction and under investment in New
York City and the Big MAC (Municipal Assistance Corporation)
financial dictatorship that took it over.
Many of the immediately needed fixes are totally obvious to
anyone familiar with the situation.  Replace the 100-year-old
tunnels crossing the Hudson and East Rivers; upgrade the
switching equipment that dates back to Franklin Roosevelt’s
Presidency; and increase maintenance and repair, overhaul of
track and equipment.  But what’s really required is a longer-term
perspective of the next level of infrastructure; the long-term
perspective whose absence caused the crisis that we now find
ourselves in; a crisis in which New York City is merely a leading
example in the United States.  Without fighting to win a
commitment to such a long-term perspective for a new platform,
any short-term fixes — even needed ones — will just be kicking
the can down the road.
To make that long-term perspective clear, let’s look at what
we can learn from Africa and China.  With some exceptions of the
more developed nations such as Egypt and South Africa, African
infrastructure is at a pitifully under-developed level.  Consider
these figures:  The total shipment of freight by rail.  In
Africa, it’s less than 10 % of what it is in the United States,
China, or Europe.  Consider per capita energy consumption in
Africa; only 10% that of the US, only 1/3 that of China.  It’s
more clear, when we focus on the higher form of energy represented
by electrical energy.  Per capita use in Africa is only 6 % what
it is in the United States, and only 1/4 that of China.  In fact,
less than half of Africans have reliable access to electricity at
all.  A typical US refrigerator uses more than double the average
electricity use of citizens of Nigeria or Kenya.  With such an
insufficient infrastructure platform, extensive economic progress
is simply impossible.  Yet, some people — and by some people, I
mean Africa’s colonial masters, led by the British — say that
African development should be through “appropriate” technologies.
That an incremental approach to improvement should be taken; that
foot-powered pumps for water, or solar panels on a hut would be a
useful upgrade.  That is nonsense!
For example, the pathetic Power Africa plan proposed by
President Obama would hardly make a dent in the outrageously low
levels of development.

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, the planet will boil over.”

ROSS:  Africa must leap ahead, not crawl forward; and this
can happen.  The Congo River itself could support an estimated
100,000 MW of electricity; enough for 100 million people or more,
with 40,000 MW from the planned Grand Inga Dam alone.  The
Trans-Aqua water program which would use water from the Congo and
its tributaries to refill and to provide navigation to Lake Chad
which is currently drying up; this would be larger by an order of
magnitude than any other project in the world.  The expansion of
rail lines in Africa is currently at a world-leading level today;
it’s growing.  New transportation routes across Africa will
connect the hinterlands, allowing modern development.  This will
change the situation from the current land-locked regions of the
continent.
To give one example, the freight costs for bringing in a
container of fertilizer from Singapore, to bring that into Rwanda
or Burundi, it’s more than 2.5 times the cost of bringing it to
the port city of Alexandria in Egypt; due to the terrible,
insufficient quality of overland transportation infrastructure
across the continent.  So, by creating access to efficient
transportation, regions benefit from the opportunity to bring in
equipment and supplies; to export their products and ideas; for
residents to travel. With the availability of electricity, higher
productive capabilities are unlocked.  The value of the land and
of the people increases.
Some people recognize this.  Unlike the outlook of the
trans-Atlantic world, China views Africa not simply as a source
of raw materials, as a continent that’s best kept in a state of
under-development; but as an opportunity for massive, rapid,
intense, overall economic development.  As potential partners for
economic prosperity, as new markets, new collaborators.  So,
while US or European stock in Africa is heavily oriented towards
mining and resource extraction, Chinese investment goes primarily
to infrastructure and small- and medium-sized businesses.  Back
in 2010, Chinese trade in Africa overtook that of US trade with
Africa; and it is currently more than double the US-Africa trade
level.  China is financing big projects.  The nearly
500-kilometer, 300-mile standard gauge railway in Kenya; built in
only three years.  The 750-kilometer, 500-mile Djibouti-Addis
Ababa rail line, which will be extended.  It reduces travel time
from days to hours, as it whizzes by at 100mph.
Such major investments, along with the future completion of
the Grand Inga Dam, of the Trans-Aqua water system, they’re going
to completely transform the economy of Africa and each locality
within it.  Bringing water, power, transportation access;
allowing a higher level of industry, mining, agriculture,
scientific and cultural pursuits.  Productivity will grow.
So now, return to New York City.  What has been missing in
New York City?  Maintenance?  No.  What’s been missing is a
commitment to discovering and building the next platform of
infrastructure for the region.  In the context of a national
credit system of Federal high-speed rail authority work, of
upgraded and reliable waterways, of high-tech new designs of
nuclear plants; all of these potentially built with international
cooperation.  In this context, how does New York City fit in this
broader area that it exists in?  Where will the next generation
of transportation and development hubs lie?  And upon what
technologies will they be based?  How can magnetic levitation
technology change our view of transportation?  How will
commercial fusion power, realized within a decade by a fully
funded research program, how could this change our relationship
to power, to materials, to production, to transportation?  How
will the expanded availability of water, power, and transport
open new areas of the country to development; and higher types of
development?  How will the Bering Strait connection change world
freight flows?  Will New York City even still be the nation’s
leading metropolis in a century?

So, sure.  Fix the L train; rebuild the Hudson River
tunnels.  Absolutely.  Redo the disaster known as Penn Station.
But do it all in a national and international context; a context
of a future orientation, of an economic outlook to the value of
leap-frogging to a higher infrastructure platform.  So as in the
future, our national high-speed rail authority builds a 300mph
train system, starting across the Northeast.  As transit in
cities are upgraded to allow for commutes of half an hour rather
than an hour and a half; as the World Land-Bridge connects to
North America, allowing land travel from New York to Beijing;
from North America to Asia.  As all this takes place, what
totally new projects will take place in New York City?  What will
be its future; and what will be its mission?
The mistake of the past was failing to have a future; and
that error must end.

OGDEN:  So, this is clearly the kind of national economic
vision that we need for the United States, and which needs to be
adopted by this administration.  So, I just wanted to ask Paul to
give us a sense of where the fight around this stands, and then
some of the updates in terms of Glass-Steagall, which is the
urgent first step.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Well, first of all, you’ve already pointed
it out, but I want to point out that some political leaders here,
and most of the media, who are going crazy against since the
meeting between the Presidents of the United States and Russia.
Most of them are directly opposing peace and the potential
economic benefits that follow from the end of the last 15 years
Bush-Obama regime change wars.  As the President pointed out
yesterday, there has been what is already a long ceasefire in
southern Syria, and two other ceasefires being worked on
imminently directly coming out of that meeting that he had with
President Putin of Russia.  That means lives are being saved
there; American lives, Syrian lives, lives of others are being
saved there.  There is also an agreement that came out of similar
negotiations whereby the supply of water for the Palestinian
Authority is being tripled.  This agreement was just announced
yesterday by Jason Greenblatt, the special envoy of President
Trump to the embryonic Mideast peace or Palestinian/Israeli peace
negotiations that are going on.  More importantly, Syria and the
Middle East have become a clear location for the New Silk Road,
the increasingly vast array of infrastructure developments and
projects which include what Jason was just discussing there in
Africa.  The massive investment that China is making with some
other countries as partners in the development of new
infrastructure across Eurasia, now in Africa and into the Middle
East.  There was just a large meeting in Beijing earlier this
week of experts planning the reconstruction of Syria as soon as
the wipe-out of ISIS and the ceasefires now being put into effect
are actually in effect, the reconstruction with large-scale
investment as part of the Belt and Road, as the Chinese call it.
This New Silk Road.
So, there is tremendous potential coming out of these summit
meetings, and the readiness of the President to work with Putin,
with Xi, and the readiness on the other side of the Chinese
leadership to continually expand this tremendous investment that
they have been making in new infrastructure projects across
Eurasia into Africa through the Middle East.  Obviously that
stands ready as well to work in the United States; but that is
where we come to the roadblock that we were referencing earlier,
Matt.  That the Trump administration has been completely unable
up to now, to follow through on the economic promises that it
made to the American people in the course of winning the
Presidency.  Those promises included reinstating the
Glass-Steagall law; putting — for starters — $1 trillion in new
investments.  And everyone thought that meant public investments
into new infrastructure in the United States; including such
things as new ports, new airports, national high-speed rail
networks, connectivity for broken-down transportation systems
like that of New York.  This has not moved at all, because of
tremendous deference to Wall Street and the White House looking
to Wall Street — the worst possible place to look — Wall Street
and environs.  Private equity funds which claim to be setting up
infrastructure funds, all this sort of thing.  Looking entirely
in the wrong place for a large-scale investment in fundamentally
new infrastructure platforms in the United States.
We had a glaring example of this in regard to New York City
and the New York metropolitan area crisis just this week.  It was
announced that what I believe is the very first investment of the
Trump White House under the Transportation Infrastructure
Financing and Innovation Act — it’s called TIFIA.  For the
little bit of public funds from the Federal government that have
been going into transportation projects in the recent years,
TIFIA is a big deal in a very little pond.  The very first TIFIA
investment in transportation infrastructure under the Trump
administration was in Penn Station; and specifically the creation
of a second station across 8th Avenue from Penn Station in New
York.  To make a long story short, this development of a second
station, which is not trains, is not tunnels, is not bridges, is
not new routes, not new connectivity into high-speed rail going
into New England and going into the Northeast corridor south and
going West through New Jersey and Pennsylvania.  It’s not any of
those things; it’s a train station.  It’s only for some of these
lines, and it is merely one small part of what is really the
development of a huge shopping and office mall in this former
Post Office location directly across 8th Avenue from Penn
Station.  This is almost $600 million in this Federal investment
grant being combined with investments more or less ordered by the
various transportation agencies in the New York area, and a
significant investment by the state of New York, essentially in
order to create 850,000 square feet of new office and retail mall
space.
Now what’s going on with malls across the United States?
They’re going bankrupt.  So, what we’re creating here is an
immediate, new potential large-scale bankruptcy like the one that
just occurred with the public/private partnership for the Indiana
Toll Road; like the one that just occurred with the
public/private partnership for Route 130 in Texas, which just —
God bless it — emerged from bankruptcy for the second time under
a new private/public partnership which will soon go bankrupt for
the third time.  These projects which can’t even take tolls; not
even high tolls.  Even with those high tolls can still not meet
the rapacious demands of the private investment banks, private
equity funds, and the other Wall Street which want 10% return on
their investment annually; want all of their capital back in ten
years.  They simply cannot meet these demands, even with tolls
that drivers cannot pay.  This kind of failure is going on all
over the country of exactly this kind of large-scale investment
that we unfortunately just saw go into New York.
What is needed, clearly, is in the trillions; the $1
trillion is a low estimate of what is needed if the United States
were to stop the decline in per capita provision and use of
electricity and instead increase it again.  If it were to stop
the decline in all of the most productive forms of the use of
water, and instead increase it again by new water management,
water transfer, and even at the frontiers of technology, water
creation; that is, storm creation technologies, especially in the
West of the country.  If the United States were to stop the
decline in passenger rail and freight rail travel annually, and
instead build out an entirely new national high-speed rail
network.  If it were really to attack the problems of storm
management, or storm protection; the kind of thing which would
have prevented the ruination of the tunnels in the New York
subway and rail systems in the first place.  If they had been
able to have sea gates to stop the destruction wrought by
Hurricane Sandy, the replacement of water infrastructure
nationally with new infrastructure.  This clearly requires
trillions, and it requires trillions in a short period of time.
There is only one way that this can be attempted, and that is to
create a national credit institution which both attracts new
Federal credit and also attracts the investment of holders of
existing US Treasury debt, the investment of holders of municipal
debts, of state debts who want to put that in the way that
citizens did in the period of World War II into new war bonds;
who want to put that into a new bank created by Congress and make
a bank capable of issuing trillions of dollars in infrastructure
credit; and have it coming from sources already existing within
the Federal government at the same time, as well as the
participation of infrastructure bonding by state and municipal
agencies.  It is only through that kind of Hamiltonian national
credit issuance that, putting aside all the nonsense about
public/private partnerships or the idea that some in the Trump
administration had of an infrastructure bank which was really
more like a private/private partnership, a kind of giveaway to
organized capital in the United States in order to put it into a
bank which would reward them with tax credits equal to what they
were putting in, and then borrow and borrow and borrow on the
debt markets.  This kind of Wall Street scheme absolutely is
destructive, and results not simply in these repeated
bankruptcies, but actual destruction of infrastructure in the
country.
Clearly, that requires that Glass-Steagall be reinstated.
Why?  Take a look at the issuance of credit of China over the
last ten years.  It clearly has been driving the majority, and at
all times over that decade, a third or more of the growth in the
world.  It’s been doing that perhaps on the order of $10 trillion
or more in credit issued by the major public commercial banks in
China; what are sometimes called the policy banks, but they are
public, commercial banks.  Although the Chinese system is clearly
Helsomewhat different than ours, nonetheless commercial banking
is commercial banking; whether it’s being done by
government-backed banks or being done by commercial banks which
are entirely private.  Their publicly-backed commercial banks
have put $10 trillion or more in new credit into the development
of the Chinese economy.  Increasingly in the last two years, into
the projects that I was referencing in the beginning in other
countries along what they call the Belt and Road, the economic
Belt and the maritime Silk Road; which have now crossed into
Africa and are now crossing into the Middle East war zones to
reconstruct them.  Perhaps $400-500 billion is already invested
and committed outside China in the last two years by these major
banks.
Now, how have they done it?  Obviously during this period of
time, there have been some bubbles created in the Chinese economy
in real estate and so forth, bad debt of the same kind which
brought down the banking systems of the United States and Europe.
How have they avoided that?  First of all, the vast majority of
that new credit has gone into the most productive and most
productivity-generating investments; in particular, the platforms
of new infrastructure from nuclear power to fusion power research
to the dynamic space program and to the national high-speed rail
networks, the North-South water transfer, projects which have
changed the availability of water in the Chinese economy.  That’s
first of all.  Second of all, they have operated under a fairly
strict enforced Glass-Steagall regimen since January 1, 1995.
That has also enabled those banks to overcome the formation of
bad debt, the existence of bankruptcies, and to keep on issuing
this productive credit.  They have, despite this huge credit
issuance, stayed below 3% of the world’s banking systems’
exposure to derivatives.  Less than 3% of that exposure is in the
Chinese commercial banking system.  Their income, their revenue
has been overwhelmingly from loans, including 70% to 80% and more
of the annual revenue of all of these banks in comparison to half
or less than half of the income of the megabanks in the United
States coming from interest on loans.  That has indicated the
Glass-Steagall ordering of their banking system, and has enabled
them to keep doing this.
We have to reinstate Glass-Steagall here immediately in
order to put the commercial banking system of the United States
in a condition where it will make productive loans of that kind,
and in order to head off what is clearly now an approaching crash
on the order of, or greater than, 2008.  You have all sorts of
bankruptcies, not just public/private partnerships; all sorts of
bankruptcies rising fairly dramatically in the United States
after a tremendous issuance of credit to the banks, and by those
banks to the largest corporations and on the high interest debt
markets of other corporations, which have set them up for another
crash which is now approaching.  Just to give one example, it was
reported the day before yesterday that in Texas, which of course
brings together the central area of the shale oil and gas boom of
the last ten years and all of the companies associated with that,
along with retail chains and malls.  The rate of corporate
bankruptcies in the first six months of this year in Texas has
been an all-time record; much higher than even in 2009, the real
of the real, total collapse.  It has been about 50% higher than
the same period of time last year.  When you look at the auto
loan delinquencies rising rapidly, the credit card delinquencies
rising rapidly, the fact that the Federal government has just had
to restate its exposure to student debt in such a way that it
suddenly produced a deficit in June of nearly $100 billion in the
Federal budget in a month in which there is usually a surplus,
simply because of the losses coming from the write-off of
defaulted student debt.  This kind of a crash would not only
devastate our economy, it would also cause tremendous for the
international collaboration in development; which is really the
leading and positive feature of these summit meetings which have
occurred.
As the American people have been demanding, we have to
reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.  Janet Yellen was asked about
this just yesterday again in her Senate testimony; and gave the
usual nonsense explanation that we should value highly the
Lehmann Brothers of the world, because because of Glass-Steagall,
she said, Lehmann Brothers failed.  Because of Glass-Steagall,
other investment banks failed.  Whereas, if we had not repealed
Glass-Steagall, they could be rescued by big commercial banks and
therefore, these Wall Street speculators could keep on doing what
they were doing.  But the question alone indicated that — the
question was from a Senator who asked her “Did we make a mistake
in repealing Glass-Steagall?” — indicates that that question is
still reverberating through Congress.  We have to get that
reinstated in order for the rest of this program which is our
objective, to work.  So, that’s what I would say about it, Matt.

OGDEN:  As you stated correctly yesterday, this is the major
weakness of the Trump administration at this point.  Even the
ability to follow through on these kinds of productive
relationships with China in terms of great projects and
infrastructure development is in jeopardy.  Not only because
you’re missing the entire mechanism to make that work in the form
of a national bank, but also because we’re flirting with disaster
as another financial crisis — potentially worse than 2008 — is
looming over the entire trans-Atlantic.

GALLAGHER: And all of the collaboration of the sort that we
just saw in Africa, if people can actually put themselves in that
situation; all of the collaboration that we saw there could be
replicated in terms of collaboration and development of, for
example, high-speed rail networks in the United States with the
Asian powers which are financing that in Africa and in other
areas of Asia.  But not if our policy is going to be one of no
national public funding, no national public credit institution.
There will be no way for those investments and that engineering
assistance to take place.

OGDEN:  It’s only now that China has actually even been able
to take off in terms of this global infrastructure program in the
way that it has wanted to.  As Bill Jones went through on this
program on Monday, despite the fact that it was all the way back
in 1991, 1994 that the Eurasian Land-Bridge idea was being
discussed in high-level circles in China with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
attending forums on this subject in Beijing in 1994.  We had two
major economic crises in the intervening period:  1997, but then
in a major way, 2008.  It’s only been since 2013 that Xi Jinping
has been able to get this program off the ground.  So, if you
look at this in the long term, you really are at a crucial
decision point for the entire globe on which this decision by the
Trump administration — are you going to follow through on this
promise you made in the campaign?  The future of a lot hinges on
that.  Frankly, with the kind of courage Trump has shown in the
face of the severity of the propaganda and attacks against him on
the Russia question, there is no excuse why he should not have
the same kind of courage in the face of Wall Street.  One
question is, as Mr. LaRouche identified it all the way back in
the transition period, what is the nefarious role that is being
played by Steve Mnuchin, for example, in undermining and
sabotaging what was clearly one of the issues on which the
American people voted in the Trump campaign; which was
Glass-Steagall and finally getting tough on Wall Street.

GALLAGHER:  You’ll remember as recently as a month or so
ago, in an interview, the President said some people want to go
back to the old Glass-Steagall system; we’re looking at that
right now.  That’s what he said.  Clearly, there is also strong
opposition from certain people in Congress who are in Wall
Street’s pocket in the Republican Party, and also from Mnuchin
and others in the administration who want to give Wall Street a
complete deregulation instead.  The President has been letting
those people have their way; and so of course, have the
Republican leadership in both Houses of Congress been kowtowing
in the extreme to the demands of Wall Street to take off
regulations, to let them again leverage up in the way that they
did right before the last crash where they got up to 30:1 and
35:1 debt leverage.  They want to have the capital requirements
lowered so they can leverage up again.  These kinds of demands
are being granted by the leadership in Congress and by the
President, when they have clearly said to the American people, we
want productivity; we want development to return; we want new
infrastructure development to return; we want to rebuild the
country.  They’re not doing it.  I would just emphasize that
those members of the House and the Senate in the order of 50 or
60 total who have put their names on Glass-Steagall legislation,
they have done so with large-scale petition drives being done by
constituency groups with which we’ve been working, which have put
them in a position to say “My constituents are demanding this;
and constituents across the country are demanding reinstating
Glass-Steagall.”  They moved from that, so it’s really up to us
to get this done and break through this combination of money and
fear and cowardice which is really letting Wall Street continue
to run this infrastructure issue.  They will absolutely destroy
what little remains of the infrastructure in the country; they
will make these breakdown crises as in New York and dam that
collapsed in California and the locks that are threatening to
collapse on our major waterways.  They will make them far worse
by their toll-looting schemes and their public/private
partnership schemes.  That’s got to be completely replaced by a
policy of Hamiltonian national credit; that’s the only thing that
will work.

OGDEN:  Exactly.  As Helga was saying when we spoke with her
earlier today, this is the strategic priority in terms of a
breakthrough on the domestic front in the United States; is
securing the kind of momentum necessary to force the
Glass-Steagall measure through, and to create the kind of
political environment in which it’s impossible to oppose
Glass-Steagall.  The kind of situation that is now hitting in New
York, we’ve now come into the official “Summer of Hell” as Jason
said in the beginning of that video; this creates the kind of
political conditions on the ground where you can really catalyze
at least a discussion of the type of infrastructure vision that
you need for the United States.  But this comes in the context of
what could potentially come out of a US-China cooperation on Silk
Road development, or the Belt and Road Initiative development.
As Jason said, you do have to really think in terms of at least
50 years into the future.  What is the kind of economic geometry
in which these current crises, these current projects fit?  And
the only form of economics which is based on that kind of
thinking, is what Hamilton came up with at the origination of the
United States:  This credit system which is fundamentally
different from the kind of monetarism which this public/private
partnership approach is based on. That’s the only kind of
philosophy which thinks in terms of 50-100-year returns in terms
of real physical wealth and real increases of productivity rather
than just accounting.

GALLAGHER:  There are people such as our friend Hal Cooper,
a very experienced and expert railroad engineer and planner, who
have exactly that kind of vision of how the now-collapsing
transit system around New York City could be transformed into
something in which the lines would not all be converging on Penn
Station and stopping there, and then going into tunnels and
gradually going back the other way — all of it at 10mph or less.
But rather, those transportation lines within the city would be
opening up and connecting directly into high-speed lines coming
out of that area, going to New York State and New England, going
west across the belt between New York and Chicago and the whole
high-speed planning area there; going down all the way to Florida
in the Northeast corridor.  That these kinds of directly flowing
connections which would make the transit system around New York
merely the major node, the biggest node in the country in a
continually connected national high-speed transportation network.
These kinds of plans do exist; they require — as I was saying
before — naturally they require a great deal of investment.
They don’t require a few hundred million dollars from here and
there and everywhere else into an office and shopping mall to
make a new train station.  They require serious, long-term, high
productivity building of the kind of transportation
infrastructure that we have nowhere in this country at this time.
That’s where Hamiltonian banking and credit comes in; and it’s
really the only thing that can make that possible.

OGDEN:  Well, thank you very much, Paul.  I know that your
last appearance on this program generated a lot of views on the
internet, and also a lot of questions.  I think a lot of the
viewers appreciated the opportunity to write in via the comments
on YouTube.

GALLAGHER:  I tried to answer some of them.

OGDEN:  You had the opportunity to answer them.  So, we
would invite people again; if you have questions for Paul, go
ahead and write them in the comments section on this YouTube
video.  Maybe we can do another follow-up video where it’s a
question and answer kind of session like that.  This is an
ongoing discussion, obviously; and we’ve got a lot of
responsibility on our shoulders to follow through on this policy
and to make this work.
So, thanks a lot, Paul, for joining us.

GALLAGHER:  Thank you.

OGDEN:  Thank you for watching; and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Det er bestemt sandt, at tiden for den unipolære verden er forbi, men multi-polaritet er stadig ikke løsningen, for det indbefatter stadig geopolitik, der var årsag til to verdenskrige i det 20. århundrede, og denne geopolitik er stadig i operation, i Nordkorea, i Syrien og i Ukraine.

Vi må derfor finde et højere niveau. Vi må få verden frem til at blive det, præsident Xi Jinping altid kalder »et samfund for menneskehedens fælles fremtid«. Et stort skridt i denne retning kunne være mødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Putin, der mødes i dag for første gang som præsidenter. Dette er selvfølgelig et meget vigtigt skridt, for mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping er der allerede etableret en meget positiv relation, så det er meget, meget afgørende, hvad der kommer ud af Trump-Putin-mødet. For de spørgsmål, vi må løse, er presserende og dramatiske.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Videoklippet med Helgas tale kan ses her, start 15:45 min.: 

 

Vært Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil gerne indlede med at fortælle vore seere, at, i dag er en meget historisk dag. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde rapporter om alt, der er sket; men vi har i dag set to meget vigtige konferencer, der finder sted, mens vi taler. Én af dem er naturligvis G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, og den anden er konferencen (Schiller Instituttet, Kinesisk Energifond, Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur), der finder sted i New York her i USA. Sidstnævnte er selvfølgelig konferencen med den meget passende titel, »Mad for Fred; Mad for Mennesker; Mad for Tankerne. Det nye navn for fred er økonomisk udvikling«; der, som jeg sagde, er sponsoreret i fællesskab af Schiller Instituttet, Kinesisk Energifond og Fonden for Genoplivelse af Klassisk Kultur. Vi vil i aftenens show vise videoen med Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale på denne konference.

Men før vi kommer til det, så finder dagens anden, potentielt verdenshistoriske begivenhed sted på sidelinjerne af G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland. Selve G20-topmødet er relativt betydningsløst, sammenlignet med det langt vigtigere og større møde mht. potentiel signifikans, der fandt sted lidt tidligere i dag, mellem præsident Trump fra USA og præsident Putin fra Rusland. Og dette er, som jeg sagde, langt større mht. dets potentielle signifikans. Dette var muligheden for, at præsident Putin og præsident Trump kunne have deres første, regulære møde ansigt til ansigt. Ifølge nyhedsrapporteringer varede dette topmøde – der, som jeg sagde, var den første mulighed for disse to præsidenter at mødes ansigt til ansigt – over to en halv time. Det var kun meningen, mødet skulle vare 30minutter; men det faktum, at det fortsatte så lang tid – 2,5 time – er allerede og i sig selv et meget potentielt godt tegn. Det er tydeligvis en lovende udvikling; og uanset indholdet af denne drøftelse – som bestemt vil være meget signifikant; men, uanset dette, så varsler muligheden for USA’s og Ruslands præsidenter at mødes ansigt til ansigt, og at skabe en direkte, personlig relation, godt for fred og stabilitet for hele verden, men også for relationerne mellem disse to lande og for skabelsen af en sund relation uden andres mellemkomst mellem disse to verdensledere. Og på trods af alle forsøg i de seneste uger på at sabotere potentialet for dette møde, så holdt det, og det fandt sted. Vi har endnu ikke modtaget de fulde rapporter om drøftelserne.

Vi ved, at der kun var seks personer, der deltog; så dette var en meget personlig mulighed for Trump og Putin til at udvikle denne form for arbejdsrelation. Mødet bestod af USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson, Ruslands udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, de to tolke – den russiske og den engelske – og så selvfølgelig, de to præsidenter. Dette blev tilsyneladende gjort for at gøre det muligt for diskussionen at være meget åben, meget fri, og meget fokuseret på at maksimere det positive potentiale, som denne historiske mulighed bød på. Selve mødet indledtes med korte bemærkninger fra begge præsidenter til pressen, der fik lov at komme ind i lokalet lige i begyndelsen. Der var fotomuligheder, mens de trykkede hinanden i hånden, og de sagde, at de begge så frem til en meget grundig og positiv diskussion. Trump sagde det følgende:

»Præsident Putin og jeg har diskuteret forskellige ting, og jeg synes, det går meget godt. Vi ser frem til, at der vil ske en masse positive ting for Rusland og for USA, og for alle andre berørte.«

Dernæst fulgte præsident Putin op på disse bemærkninger:

»Vi har talt sammen over telefon, men telefonsamtaler er afgjort aldrig nok. Jeg håber, at, som De sagde«, med henvisning til præsident Trumps bemærkninger, »vore møder vil give positive resultater.«

Dette møde mellem de to præsidenter fulgte efter et timelangt møde tidligere på dagen mellem udenrigsministrene Tillerson og Lavrov, hvor de, iflg. rapporter, diskuterede potentialet for en antiterror-koalition mellem Rusland og USA; med nogle detaljer mht. situationen i Syrien og præsident Assad. Nogle af detaljerne i denne foreslåede plan blev afsløret i pressen i går og i dag. Planen inkluderede såkaldte »sikre zoner« og tilsyneladende også en aftale om at gøre det muligt for præsident Assad at forblive ved magten; men dernæst at gå frem med en diplomatisk løsning på situationen dér. Men der er heller ikke blevet rapporteret eller afsløret nogen detaljer om dette møde mellem udenrigsministrene Lavrov og Tillerson. Men det anses selvfølgelig generelt som forberedelse til drøftelserne mellem Trump og Putin.

Bortset fra det, så har G20-topmødet været temmelig domineret af meget voldsomme protester og aktivitet fra uropolitiet uden for topmødet i Hamborg; og, på selve topmødet, af diskussioner om frihandel og klimaforandring. Men betydningen af de bilaterale møder, der finder sted på sidelinjerne, er naturligvis langt vigtigere end nogen diskussion, der finder sted på selve G20-møderne. En positiv indikation er imidlertid, at der tydeligvis er gang i noget mht. relationen mellem Tyskland og Kina. Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, da vi talte med hende for ca. 30 min. siden, at hun ser noget meget positivt, der finder sted i retning af kinesisk-tysk samarbejde om Afrikas udvikling. Kinas præsident Xi Jinping benyttede lejligheden af sit besøg i Tyskland for at deltage i dette G20-topmøde, til at få et regulært møde med Tysklands kansler Angela Merkel, og hvor de underskrev en aftale om i fællesskab at bygge et vandkraftværk i Angola. Under den fælles pressekonference efter mødet sagde Xi Jinping:

»Vi fejrer i år 45-året for relationen mellem Tyskland og Kina. Det er en succeshistorie. Vi står nu over for en ny begyndelse, hvor vi har brug for nye gennembrud.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde:

»Dette er tydeligvis begyndelsen til noget, der potentielt er meget positivt mht. de bilaterale relationer mellem Tyskland og Kina, men også mht. den idé, at Tyskland spiller en meget positiv rolle med at deltage i de udviklingsprojekter, som Kina allerede bygger i Afrika.«

Xi sagde, at Kina er parat til at gå sammen med Tyskland for at konsolidere den gensidige tillid mellem de to lande; opbygge mere konsensus og fremme samarbejde og forbundethed (konnektivitet).

Helga Zepp-LaRouches analyse af dette var, at der tydeligvis var åbnet op for noget; og dette kommer i hælene på Bælte & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i Beijing i midten af maj. Selv om Tyskland ikke spillede noget særlig positiv eller aktiv rolle på dette forum, så sagde Helga, at,

»De er tydeligvis ikke så dumme, at de ikke kan se, hvad vej vinden blæser. Hvis de ikke springer med på vognen nu, vil de blive efterladt i mørket. Udviklingen af Afrika er tydeligvis en mulighed for Tyskland og andre lande i hele verden til at deltage i disse fordelagtige tredjeverdensrelationer med Kina og de afrikanske nationer.«

Én meget interessant udvikling på denne front er et andet topmøde, der finder sted samtidig med G20-topmødet i Tyskland, og det er Schiller Institut/Kinesisk Energifond-konferencen, der finder sted i New York City. Dette er et topmøde under den Afrikanske Union; og hovedtalen på dette topmøde blev holdt af FN’s vicegeneralsekretær, en kvinde ved navn Amina Mohammed, der er tidligere nigeriansk regeringsminister. I sine bemærkninger til denne konference under den Afrikanske Union kom hun med en meget vigtig henvisning til den rolle, som Kina spiller gennem Bælte & Vej Initiativet for at bringe udvikling til det afrikanske kontinent. Hun opmuntrede alle nationerne i den Afrikanske Union til at »benytte sig« af denne massive, kinesiske regeringsinvestering og infrastrukturprojekter, der har gjort det muligt for disse lande at begynde at bevæge sig, med spring fremad, forbi den tvungne tilbageståenhed, der var blevet dem påtvunget gennem århundreders kolonialisme og imperiepolitik. I sin tale roste Amina Mohammed »Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, der tilsigter at bygge en Ny Silkevej, bestående af havne, jernbaner og veje for at udvide handels-konnektivitet i hele Asien, Afrika og Europa«, iflg. nyhedsrapporteringer. Hun sagde, »Dette er en mulighed for ikke alene at give alternativer for at gøre skydevåbnene tavse for vort folk, men en mulighed, der vil bevare vore aktiver – både menneskelige og naturlige – på kontinentet og bygge vort i morgen, i dag.« Dette er en meget vigtig bemærkning fra FN’s vicegeneralsekretær, og vi ved, at Antonio Guterres, FN’s generalsekretær, havde meget positive bemærkninger, som han udtalte om Bælte & Vej Initiativet på tærsklen til Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing.

Dette fører os direkte til den konference, der finder sted, mens vi taler, i New York City. Denne konference, der fandt sted parallelt med et møde i FN om sikkerhed for fødevareforsyning og bæredygtighed i landbruget, blev adresseret i fællesskab af Helga Zepp-LaRouche – og vi vil afspille hendes bemærkninger om et øjeblik – men også af Patrick Ho, der er viceformand for Kinesisk Energifondskomiteen. Han havde netop talt i FN sammen med en meget stor kinesisk delegation af kinesiske landbrugseksperter, den foregående dag, i går. Han holdt en tale, der stemte meget godt overens med den tale, han holdt tidligere på dagen på denne begivenhed i New York, sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet. Den tale, han holdt, var – iflg. rapporter – en meget anti-Malthus-tale om potentialet for en hurtig udvikling af bæredygtigt landbrug, for at brødføde den konstant voksende befolkning på denne planet. Noget, der naturligvis direkte tilbageviser argumentet i Malthus-traditionen, og som er kommet fra Det britiske Imperium så længe. Men med de rapporter fra denne konference, der stadig finder sted, mens vi taler, så er der 175 deltagere; diplomatiske delegationer fra diverse lande i hele verden via deres konsulater i New York City; aktivister, der deltager; folk fra diverse colleges i omegnen af New York City; og den officielle repræsentation fra den kinesiske delegation og fra en landbrugsdelegation, der er kommet tilrejsende fra USA’s Midtvesten. Denne konference åbnedes med bemærkninger fra den tidligere borgmester af Muscatine, Iowa, som personligt overbragte hilsner til konferencen; men dernæst gav han deltagerne på konferencen en slags lektion i baggrundshistorien om, hvorfor Iowa-Kina-porten er så afgørende for amerikansk-kinesiske relationer. Meget af dette drejer sig om præsident Xi Jinpings personlige relation til staten Iowa og byen Muscatine pga. hans interesse for landbrugsmetoder i USA i den tid, hvor Xi Jinping var provinsguvernør i Kina. Han havde således et personligt bånd til staten Iowa, men også til den tidligere guvernør Terry Branstad, der nu er USA’s ambassadør til Kina. Efter borgmesteren af Muscatines bemærkninger holdt Patrick Ho sin tale; og dette efterfulgtes så direkte af Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale.

Jeg vil nu gerne give jer lejlighed til selv at høre de bemærkninger, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom med til denne konference, og som fik en meget varm modtagelse og bragte hele diskussionsniveauet op på et meget højt niveau mht. de muligheder, der ligger forude, for at konsolidere dette Nye Paradigme i internationale relationer; især med muligheden for fuldt og helt at bringe USA ind i en deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej.

Her følger Helga Zepp-LaRouches bemærkninger:

(Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk).          

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

: Dear conference participants, I feel
very honored to address you, even if it is by video, because I
think we are all aware that we are involved in the historically,
extremely important process of trying to improve the relationship
between the United States and China, in the context of the Belt
and Road Initiative. This is especially important in the area of
agriculture and food production, because this is an extremely
urgent question. Because, while at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou
last year, China and all the other participating nations devoted
themselves to eradicate poverty by the year 2020, we have not yet
reached that goal. Just a couple of days ago, the UN Food and
Agriculture Organization put out a report that world hunger is on
the rise, and that the situation, especially in Yemen, is
terrible: Half or more of the population is in acute danger of
starvation; but also in Nigeria and South Sudan and many other
areas, the situation is worsening.
Well, today, there is also the G20 summit in Hamburg, and
the outcome will be a surprise, either way, because until last
year’s G20 in Hangzhou, which was very harmonious and
characterized by a great optimism for the future of mankind, this
time the tensions are very high. In the last couple of days
however, there was a sort of prelude in the form of a summit
between President Putin and President Xi Jinping in Moscow, which
was really extremely important, and both characterized it as the
most important event of the year for their nation. They deepened
the strategic partnership, they established an even deeper level
of their personal friendship, and they declared that the time of
the unipolar world is over, because of the strategic partnership,
especially.
This is certainly true, that the time of the unipolar world
is over, but multi-polarity is still not the solution, because it
implies still geopolitics, which was the cause of two world wars
in the 20th century, and this geopolitics is still in operation,
in North Korea, in Syria, in Ukraine.
We must therefore find a higher level. We must get the world
to what President Xi Jinping always calls “the community for a
shared future of humanity.” One big step in that direction could
be the meeting President Trump and President Putin, who are
meeting today for the first time as Presidents. Obviously, this
is a very important step because, between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping, a very positive relationship has been
established already, so whatever comes out of this Trump-Putin
meeting is very, very crucial. Because the questions we have to
solve are urgent and dramatic.
The food crisis, the hunger crisis which I mentioned is only
a symptom of the fact that the old economic model is not
functioning any more. We are sitting on a powder-keg crisis which
erupted in 2008, which could come back with a vengeance, only
much, much worse. Because even a slight increase in the interest
rate, moving away from quantitative easing could lead to a
blowout of the corporate debt. Now, the firms which got the zero
interest rate liquidity from the central banks, the quantitative
easing, used this money, not to invest in productive investment,
but for so-called financial engineering by buying up their own
stocks to make it look better on the books, having more nominal
value but also increasing the corporate debt which could now
could blow out if there is an increase in the interest rate.
And that is only one aspect of the systemic crisis which we
still have. The other one is the so-called level 3 derivatives
which many European and other banks are sitting on. Level 3
derivatives are those, which no market … because you can’t sell
them, and the banks still keep them as assets, which really is a
sort of mega-fall [ph 5.03].
So the problem is that just yesterday, the fourth largest
bank in Italy was taken over by the government, and combined with
a bail-in, whereby the customers could only sell their bonds and
stocks at 18 cents to the euro, and that is a threat which is
hanging over the entire banking system.
Now, what could be done to solve that? Well, let’s look at
one other aspect of the crisis: Just a couple of days ago, in one
single day, 80,000 refugees arrived from Libya in little boats,
being picked up by NGOs in Italy. Eighty thousand people in one
day overstretches the capacity of any country, and Italy has
already taken in so many million people. So when they requested
that other countries located on the Mediterranean like Spain and
France should also take some of these refugees, these countries
rejected that.
Now that obviously shows there is no unity in the European
Union on this question.
Now how could you address this whole series of problems?
What should actually be on the agenda of the G20 in Hamburg?
Well, if you would put a global Glass-Steagall separation on the
agenda, doing exactly what Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933, by
separating the commercial banks and the investment banks, putting
the commercial banks under state protection, writing off the
non-performing the derivatives of the investment banks, and then
going to a Hamiltonian credit system by setting up national banks
in every country and issuing large-scale, low-interest rate
credits, then we could solve the problem.
Mr. LaRouche has defined Four Laws to remedy the financial
crisis and the Fourth Law is the crash program for the
realization of thermonuclear fusion power. And there, the good
news is that China just accomplished a major breakthrough in this
respect, with its [EAST] tokomak in Hefei where they reached a
so-called “steady-state H-mode operation” for 101.2 seconds. This
is a major step towards the realization of thermonuclear fusion.
If such a reorganization according to these Four Laws,
Glass-Steagall, national bank, credit system, crash program for
fusion and space technology would be implemented, then the
trans-Atlantic countries could cooperate with such banks as the
AIIB, the New Development Bank, and others, together with China,
and build up, for example, Africa. China is so far the only
country which has done something to fight the root causes of the
refugee crisis, by investing large-scale in rail lines in Africa,
in dams, in power plants, in industrial parks, and in
agriculture. And this is actually, the only way to solve the
refugee crisis in a human way.
One promising step in this right direction is that between
President Xi Jinping and Chancellor Merkel, yesterday they agreed
that they will build together the hydropower complex in Angola,
and stated that that could be a model for the cooperation between
China and Germany in Africa in general.
Now, the Africans, because of what China has been doing, in
building up huge industrial complexes for the first time in
Africa, they have a new sense of self-confidence and they’re
telling the Europeans, “we don’t want to have your sermons on how
we should have good governance, we want to have investments in
infrastructure, in manufacture, in agriculture, as equal business
partners.”
Can we expect the G20 to do this, to go in this direction of
a global reorganization of the financial system and then go for a
real intervention in the development of Africa? Well, I’m afraid
they will not.
But this will remain the issue which has to be accomplished.
The Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, and to get the United States
and European countries to cooperate with China in the Belt and
Road Initiative, in the New Silk Road, is, indeed, the approach
how you can tackle all problems in the world. But this
conference, the Food for Peace conference is a very important
step in this direction. As a matter of fact, to get the United
States and China to work together on the New Silk Road
perspective, in the New Silk Road spirit, is in my view the most
important aspect in this process: Because if the two largest
economies can work together, I think we are on the right way to
win for all of civilization.
Therefore, let’s work together to join the Chinese dream,
and to revive the American dream, because the American dream
needs to be revived, because it has almost been forgotten. But
together, we can accomplish the dream for all of humanity.

OGDEN:  So, we will have much more coverage of the conference in
New York after it concludes.  That was Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
keynote to that conference; “Development Is the New Name for
Peace”.  As I said, there is a very significant delegation from
China which attended that conference in New York City.  This just
testifies all the more to the role that the LaRouche movement is
playing here in the United States to being the leading mediator
in terms of the relationship which is being forged between these
two great countries.  The idea originally came out of Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche’s initiative for the Eurasian Land-Bridge; and the
role that the LaRouche movement played could not be any more
critical in terms of making that happen, and making that into a
reality.  We are definitely making steps along that road, but as
you heard Helga LaRouche say, it is crucial that we make some
very important breakthroughs here in the United States in order
to allow that to occur; including a full-scale adoption of the
Hamiltonian economic program that was spelled out by Lyndon
LaRouche in that Four Economic Laws.  This is the prerequisite to
the United States being able to accomplish the kinds of
developmental miracles that China has demonstrated over the last
15-20 years.
Emphatically, that begins with the restoration of
Glass-Steagall.  The news out of Italy with the nationalization
of Monte dei Paschi Bank just emphasizes evermore crucially how
fragile the entire trans-Atlantic system is right now.  We are by
no means in the clear, despite the fraudulent claims that have
been coming out of the Federal Reserve over the last few days.
We are definitely still on the cusp of what could be a far
greater crash than what we experienced in 2008.  As Helga
mentioned in those remarks, a lot of this is coming from the
build-up in the corporate debt bubble and in other means.  You
still have the life expectancy crisis across the United States;
you’ve got the opiate addiction crisis across the United States.
We have some new developments in terms of the statistics in that
regard that have just come in today.  But this is appalling, and
it could not be more urgent that this initiative be taken.
We do know that there was a press availability at 1pm this
afternoon in the break between the two panels at this conference
in New York City.  Diane Sare was representing the LaRouche
movement; and as we have been told, there were some pretty
significant press involvement.  So, we will look forward to
seeing some coverage of this conference that happened up in New
York; and we’ll have a much fuller report for you after that
concludes.
Let me just finish the broadcast here today by paraphrasing
for you some remarks that Helga LaRouche had just about 30
minutes ago when we spoke with her, after she had the chance to
view the proceedings of that conference and also to review some
of the outcomes of the G-20 that have been occurring over the
course of the daytime hours today.  She said look, there are very
clearly positive developments that are occurring.  We could list
them, but as we’ve seen just today, some of these developments
are very positive for the future stability [among] these three
great countries — China, Russia, and India; but also in terms of
the relationship for building the future.  But, she said, people
should be no means become complacent or satisfied.  Things are
very clearly moving in our direction, the direction of the ideas
of a New Paradigm; but we need much bigger breakthroughs in every
respect on the road towards that New Paradigm.  Nothing has been
consolidated.  Clearly the world is inclined in that direction,
and you could read into the relationship between Germany and
China, saying these countries are now beginning to realize what
is the dominant dynamic on this planet.  But, we are by no means
there yet; we have not reached the goal.  There is still a long
ways to go until that new reality is safely and securely
consolidated.  In the meantime, we have a lot of work to do;
especially as we begin to realize the magnitude of the impact
that the ideas of the LaRouche movement have had on world
history.  We also have to become very sober and clear-eyed about
what this means our responsibilities are at this moment.  They
are on a far greater scale than we have ever had, as we reflect
on the magnitude of the opportunities that these recent
developments pose to us as a movement, and to humanity.  She said
this — again — is no time for complacency; everything can fall
into place.  Or, everything could fall apart.
So, I think that’s a very active picture of a very rapidly
changing world situation, as we have it right now.  These
simultaneous summits — the G-20 in Germany and the conference
that’s happening in New York — I think are very important
crossroads; a very important conjunctural turning point in terms
of the opportunity for consolidating this vision of a new
relation between the great powers on this planet.  We have yet
to, I think, have the full report of what has come out of both of
these two summits.  So, on that note, I would like to encourage
you to please stay tuned to the LaRouche PAC website, because we
will definitely have an analysis and a full reading on what has
come out of the events as they’ve proceeded today.  I can let you
know that as we look forward to next week, the Monday update on
this website, our regular Monday afternoon Policy Committee show,
will feature an interview with Bill Jones, who is the EIR
Washington bureau chief and has accompanied Helga Zepp-LaRouche
on many of her trips to China over the recent few months and
years.  So, we’ve invited Bill Jones to come into the studio to
give his exclusive view and perspective on what the outcome of
these events over this weekend will have been as we reach the
beginning of next week.  So, we encourage you to tune in again
for our show here next Monday, and in the meantime, stay tuned to
larouchepac.com and we’ll be sending out updates as we get them.
Thank you for watching here today, and please stay tuned.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Vi har et meget dramatisk billede, der venter os forude, og vi står nu ved åbningen at det, der vil vise sig at blive en meget dramatisk juli måned. Vi er nu præcis syv dage fra G20-topmødet, der finder sted i Hamborg, Tyskland. Selv om indholdet af topmødet sandsynligvis ikke bliver bemærkelsesværdigt i sig selv, så er dette en ekstraordinær mulighed. Det bliver første gang, at præsident Donald Trump fra USA vi få mulighed for at have et bilateralt, regulært, ansigt-til-ansigt møde med præsident Vladimir Putin fra Rusland. Der har i løbet af den seneste uge, tre uger, fire uger, været forsøg på at køre dette potentielle topmøde af sporet og gøre det mislykket selv inden det løber af stablen. Vi må i de næste syv dage holde nøje øje med ethvert forsøg på at sprænge dette i luften eller sprænge muligheden for den rolige og klare, rationelle relation, som præsident Trump og præsident Putin kunne få ved et regulært møde.

Vi har set en række provokationer i Syrien, først og fremmest. Vi så et syrisk fly, der blev skudt ned; vi så et amerikansk militærfly, der chikanerede [den russiske forsvarsminister] Shoigus fly. Og i de seneste dage har vi set forsøget på at sætte en fælde for præsident Trump til endnu en direkte konfrontation med Syrien – og, gennem forlængelse, med Rusland – over såkaldte »kemiske våben«, de angivelige kemiske våben. Dette forsøg døde i fødslen, og der er mange faktorer i dette, vi sikkert ikke kender alle detaljerne omkring. Vi ved, at der finder en intens kamp sted om politikken bag scenerne i Det Hvide Hus. Vi så dette udspilles i forskellige offentlige former; vi så også udgivelsen af denne meget vigtige artikel af reporter Seymour Hersh, der beviste, at disse beskyldninger om kemiske våben i den tidligere hændelse, hvor Trump-administrationen bøjede sig og angreb den syriske flybase, var falske, og blot var operationer ’under falsk flag’.

Og igen, dette er alle faktorer, der er i overensstemmelse med dette forsøg på at køre dette mulige topmøde mellem Putin og Trump af sporet. Men alt peger nu på, at det kører på skinner og kunne vise sig at blive et meget vigtigt møde med det formål at stabilisere og normalisere relationerne mellem USA og Rusland. Vi ser, at ’narrativen’ er begyndt at flosse i kanterne og faktisk er ved at trevle helt op omkring historien med det såkaldte »Russia-gate«. Vi ser nu meget offentlige og fremtrædende tilbagetrækninger, som CNN blev tvunget til at foretage, og vi har set den seneste fra New York Times. Denne medie-narrativ begynder nu at gå i opløsning i kanterne, og det amerikanske folk begynder at gennemskue det. Vi har set forskellige Demokrater i Huset og Senatet sige til det Demokratiske Partis lederskab, vi kan ikke blive ved med at gå ud i valgkredsene og sige »Trump, Trump, Trump; Putin, Putin, Putin. Det hele handler om russerne, der hacker valgene. Vore vælgere er ikke interesseret i denne narrativ. Det, de er interesseret i, er økonomiens kollaps og perspektiverne for beskæftigelse. Hvordan skal vi overvinde krisen med narkotikaafhængighed? Og, meget reelt, USA’s kollapsende infrastruktur?«

Vi vil gå lidt i dybden med dette spørgsmål, men lad mig blot bemærke, at den anden, vigtige mulighed, som vi kunne få at se på G20-mødet, er en opfølgning af topmødet mellem præsident Trump og præsident Xi Jinping. Vi ved, at en meget vigtig relation blev skabt mellem Trump og Xi på Mar-a-Lago-topmødet for nogle ganske få måneder siden, da præsident Xi kom til USA. Men flere dramatiske begivenheder er indtruffet siden da; først og fremmest, Bælte & Vej Forum, der fandt sted i Beijing, hvor præsident Trump traf den meget kloge beslutning at sende en repræsentant på højt niveau – Matt Pottinger. Dette har nu etableret den mulighed, hvor der finder en meget seriøs diskussion sted på meget højt niveau omkring USA’s formelle tilslutning til Silkevejens udviklingsprojekter – Ét Bælte, én Vej-initiativet; og omkring at bringe Kina ind til at assistere med genopbygningen af infrastrukturen her i USA. Der er flere udviklinger, som vi dækkede detaljeret i sidste uge, men den vigtigste af disse var et regulært møde mellem rådgiver Yang og præsident Trump, der fandt sted i Det hvide hus; hvor præsident Trump – iflg. rapporter fra Xinhua – sagde »Ja, vi er meget interesseret i at deltage i en fælles relation med Kina for at bygge Bælte & Vej«. Dernæst var der flere satellitbegivenheder, der fandt sted omkring dette, og som diskuterede detaljerne i, hvad det ville betyde at få en sådan form for fælles samarbejde omkring udvikling både udenlands og herhjemme.

Denne diskussion om USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej kunne ikke være mere presserende nødvendig. Infrastrukturen internt i USA befinder sig nu ved et punkt, hvor den totalt er ved at disintegrere. Vi har netop haft nyheder fra New York City, som vi har dækket, om, at der har været den ene afsporing efter den anden togbrand, den ene krise i undergrundsbanen og forsinkelse efter den anden i New York City. Det leder alt sammen til det, der bliver kaldt »Helvedessommeren«. Vi har en overskrift her, som jeg viser på skærmen; dette er fra New York Times.

»Guvernør Cuomo erklærer New York Citys undergrundsbane i nødtilstand«.

Guvernør Cuomo har erklæret, at, efter den seneste togafsporing, der skete i onsdags – og som er en temmelig skræmmende oplevelse for alle involverede – med tog, der brændte og forsinkelser, der forstyrrede dusinvis af New York-indbyggeres dagligliv. Dette er blot en af mange i rækken af farlige og ødelæggende katastrofer, der er indtruffet i dette 100 år gamle undergrundssystem i New York. Det, som guvernør Cuomo nu har gjort, er at erklære New York City i en nødtilstand for så vidt angår Metropolitan Transportation Authority [MTA]. Han har givet MTA-formand Joe Lhota 30 dage til at fremlægge en komplet plan for reorganisering. Han har sagt, at staten New York vil bevilge yderligere $1 mia. i midler til MTA’s hovedplan.

Her er et citat fra guvernør Cuomo, som jeg viser her på skærmen, så I kan se, hvad han sagde om denne nødtilstand.

»Forsinkelserne driver New Yorkere til vanvid«, sagde han. »De er rasende over manglen på kommunikation, pålidelighed og nu ulykker. For kun tre dage siden var der bogstavelig talt et tog, der kørte af sporet. Det er en perfekt metafor for hele det dysfunktionelle system. I dag vil staten New York sende penge efter sine ord.«

Det er altså et citat fra guvernør Cuomo i New York.

Så jo, infrastrukturen ikke alene i New York City, men i hele USA er i en nødtilstand. Vi har brug for en nødplan for at udbedre og genopbygge vores eksisterende infrastruktur; meget af den er et halvt, hvis ikke et helt århundrede gammel og er ude over sin naturlige levetid. Men herudover, og meget eftertrykkeligt, kan vi ikke blot have en fremgangsmåde, hvor vi flikker kanterne sammen og kommer plastre på et system, der er i forfald og blev bygget i det foregående århundrede. Vi må også fuldstændig gentænke og danne os nye begreber om, hvordan en fremtidsorienteret, 50-100 årig vision for USA skal være. En vision med et USA, der er integreret i den nye, globale platform med den Nye Silkevej; med Bælte & Vej-initiativet, der er i færd med at forandre plantens fremtræden, mens vi taler.

Som sagt, så handler det ikke om at flikke ting sammen i kanterne og fikse den eksisterende infrastruktur. Det, vi har brug for, er en helhedsvision, en national vision, ikke kun for nutiden, men forlænget 50-100 år ud i fremtiden, og som vil bestemme de nødvendige delelementer, som vi bygger, for at komme derfra og dertil, for at opnå denne vision om en fremtidig platform i USA. Jeg kan godt lide det billede, som kineserne har talt om i Afrika; ideen om at bygge et helt nyt kontinent. Det, kineserne har været i stand til at præstere i Afrika på nogle ganske få år, er forbløffende mht. et økonomisk mirakel, som de bibringer dette kontinent; men det er præcis en sådan fremgangsmåde, som vi har brug for, for kontinental-USA og for hele den vestlige halvkugle – Nord- og Sydamerika tilsammen. En komplet vision for, hvad en kontinental infrastrukturplatform må være, integreret i denne Ét Bælte, én Vej; det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Maritime Silkevej. Og en af hjørnestenene ville være at bygge jernbaneforbindelsen over Beringstrædet, der ville forbinde de to, store, kontinentale landmasser på planeten på en måde, der i geologisk historie aldrig før er sket.

Men, hvordan skal vi gøre det? Dette kan tydeligvis ikke ske ved hjælp af økonomisk frimarkedstankegang. Man må have en vision, der dirigeres fra toppen og ned centralt, af den nationale regering; der blev skabt som en Forfatningsmæssig Føderal Republik af Alexander Hamilton til dette formål. Man må sige, hvilke er de nødvendige projekter? For Alexander Hamilton var det havneprojekter, veje, at åbne op for det indre af kontinentet; at bringe vareproduktion ind i det, der før blot havde været en tidligere landbrugskoloni på det tidspunkt. Men Alexander Hamiltons vision nødvendiggjorde dernæst skabelsen af de nødvendige, statslige finansinstrumenter – den Første Nationalbank – for at bringe denne vision til virkeliggørelse.

Det er sådan, kineserne har diskuteret, hvordan de har bygget den Nye Silkevej. Xi Jinping fremlagde sin vision i 2013, under en tale i Astana, Kasakhstan; og han har nu på fire korte år været i stand til at gøre denne vision til virkelighed. Som han sagde, »fra tanke til handling«. De har nu erklæret, at kineserne har til hensigt om tre år at fjerne fattigdom fuldstændigt fra Kina, og det er en bedrift, vi kan tro på, de vil opnå; som det er blevet demonstreret af det økonomiske mirakel, der hidtil er kommet fra Kina. Men dette er essensen i Henry Clays [udenrigsminister 1824-29 under præsident John Quincy Adams] og Abraham Lincolns Amerikanske System. Dette er, hvad programmet for USA’s præsidentskab bør være.

(Her følger udskrift på engelsk af resten af webcastet)   

We have a very fascinating report just incidentally, that

there is continuing to be discussion around this idea of the

American System; even coming from Republican circles inside

Washington.  Representatives of {Executive Intelligence Review}

attended a briefing in Capitol Hill just a few days ago, that was

sponsored by the American Opportunity Foundation and the American

Public Transit Association.  This drew some leading Republicans

from the levels of Federal and state government, who are strongly

in support of the idea of large public financing of

transportation infrastructure.  This might not seem to fit the

Republican profile, but if you go back to the original Republican

Party platform that President Trump cited from McKinley in the

end of the 19th Century, the idea of the American System was

written directly into the Republican Party platform.  Abraham

Lincoln, after all, was a strong advocate of the American System

and was the founding President of the Republican Party.  In fact,

two speakers at that event, surprisingly former Virginia Governor

Jim Gilmore and then the former Connecticut Department of

Transportation Commissioner Emil Frankel, both referenced by

name, explicitly, the “American System of Henry Clay.”  So, I

would not discount the fact that the ideas that the LaRouche

Movement have been championing along this front for years if not

decades, are becoming very pervasive in policymaking circles in

the United States.  Not only in the Republican Party, but in the

Democratic Party, too.

But it’s our job to consolidate and to pull this together

into a national leadership cadre who understand not just in

words, but in principle, the concept which underlies Lyndon

LaRouche’s Four Economic Laws.  If you start with Glass-Steagall

and return the banking system to what it was originally to be as

a commercial banking system which is able to guarantee credit for

small businesses and for projects of development which have

knowable rates of return, instead of this kind of Wall Street,

Las Vegas-type casino gambling which has been predominant on Wall

Street for the last 17-18 years since the repeal of

Glass-Steagall; that’s the necessary open door that we then

create the possibility to build the Third National Bank or an

equivalent of such.  And to direct large flows of direct Federal,

public credit into infrastructure not just of the 20th Century

variety, but infrastructure projects which have yet to be

conceived of.  The infrastructure of the future; or as Mr.

LaRouche identifies it in his Four Economic Laws, the platform

for creating a higher state of existence for the human economic

system.

So, this is the critical element, and I cannot say enough

how important it is to understand that we’re now at the point

where the United States integrating itself into this New Paradigm

is a very real concept.  This is something which could happen in

a very substantial way.  We have a countdown now of seven days

until the possibility for a sit-down meeting between President

Trump and President Xi, where they can discuss this in much more

detail; and the very strategically important meeting that will

occur between President Trump and President Putin, despite all

attempts to derail, undermine, and sabotage this potential

relationship.

Here in the United States, I think we just have to take a

moment to recognize the leadership significance of what has been

provided on the street level by LaRouche movement and LaRouche

PAC activists across the country; but most importantly, as we’ve

seen recently, in New York City.  We’ve had several on the ground

reports that we’ve shared with you via the LaRouche PAC Facebook

page and the LaRouche PAC website.  We’ve had some very important

insights that the American people are at the point that if you

present this kind of optimistic vision of what could possibly be

achieved if we were to overcome this geopolitics and the

attempted coup against the sitting President of the United

States, it’s a very optimistic kind of picture.  Americans are

ready to participate in that.

The other element of this though, is that there is a certain

element of optimism which has been able to cut through the

pessimism and cynicism that have pervaded the American people for

the last 16 years.  If you look at the two terms of George W Bush

followed by the two terms of Barack Obama, the American people

have become so demoralized and beaten down, and become so

acclimated to the idea that America’s role in the world is to

spread perpetual war; and the Federal government’s role

domestically is to bail out speculators on Wall Street.  But when

they see that someone’s willing to take this establishment on,

the American people have now begun to break out of their shells.

There are many elements of that.

As we’ve cited in recent days on the LaRouche PAC website,

there is a line to be remembered from the famous essay by the

19th Century English poet, Percy Bysshe Shelley, in his essay “In

Defence of Poetry,” where he talks about a time in which people

are able to absorb and communicate much more profound and much

more impassioned ideas about the future state of man and man’s

relationship to the Universe.  This was an insight that Percy

Shelley had as a poet; but as he said, “the poets are the

unacknowledged legislators of the world.”

Now, in a very, very special event that occurred yesterday,

just last night, that I had the great honor and pleasure of

attending, in New York City at the historic Carnegie Hall, there

was a great poet and artist, who was honored on her 100th

birthday:  This was Sylvia Olden Lee, who was born on this date,

June 29th — yesterday — one hundred years ago, in 1917.  She

would have been 100 years of age last night.  And a tribute to

her memory and to perpetuating her living legacy, was sponsored

by the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, at

Carnegie Hall in New York City, to an absolutely packed audience,

and an audience which was impassioned in their involvement in the

memory and celebration of the legacy of this incredible woman.

Now, this tribute concert, which was called “Tribute to

Sylvia Olden Lee, Master Musician and Teacher” comprised of arias

that were sung by leading students of Sylvia Olden Lee from

across the United States who are now leading operatic singers,

people who had been touched by her and had learned from her and

who had lived alongside of her, they sang Verdi arias, Donizetti

arias; they sang art songs by Johannes Brahms, by Franz Schubert,

but they also sang the Spirituals, the African American

Spirituals which were so much a legacy of this woman: Sylvia

Olden Lee, who was the first African American vocal coach to be

hired by the Metropolitan Opera.  And she created the opportunity

for Marian Anderson to break the color barrier and become the

first Black woman singer to take the stage at the Metropolitan

Opera, with so many others to follow behind her.

Also was presented choral selections of Spirituals, of these

arrangements of {Lift Every Voice and Sing}, of {Lord, I Don’t

Feel No Ways Tired}, {Go Down Moses}, {Soon I Will Be Done}; but

also the {Ave Verum Corpus} by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and the

Hallelujah chorus from Beethoven’s {Christ on the Mount of

Olives}.

So this was an absolutely stunning musical event, but it was

also an event which testifies to the immortality of the human

soul.  Because I think, as everyone who was present at this

tribute concert can tell you, Sylvia Olden Lee was not just

remembered at this concert; she was not just remembered by those

in the room, but she was physically and spiritually present to

those who were gathered in that room in her honor.  She {was}

there, in person, in a very real way.

Now, along with these beautiful musical tributes that were

sung and presented by all the various musicians that were

involved, there were also an astounding number of written and

spoken tributes that were presented in her honor. Sylvia Olden

Lee’s daughter, Eve, spoke in person at Carnegie Hall. Her former

husband, Everett Lee, spoke via video; and there was even a video

that was played of Sylvia Olden Lee herself speaking at a

Schiller Institute conference in 1994, in which she spoke about

the relationship that she had to the legendary Roland Hayes who

was a close friend of Sylvia’s father.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2pItZ0jIe4]

There were also written greetings from Jessye Norman who is

a world renowned opera singer;  Willis Charles Patterson, a

bass-baritone; George Shirley, also a world renowned opera

singer;  Eugene Simpson, a renowned conductor and music arranger;

Everett Lee III who is the son of Sylvia Olden Lee;  Bobby

McFerrin, who is the godson of Sylvia Olden Lee and the son of

the famous Robert McFerrin, one of the renowned 20th century

African American opera singers.  Bobby McFerrin himself is a

renowned jazz vocalist here in the United States.  A variety of

others: William Ray, Marti Newland from Oberlin; also Jesse

Hamilton, a New York state senator; Blanche Cook, distinguished

professor of history at John Jay College; Gail Robinson, soprano;

Marian Dora Howe Taylor, and many others.  Also there was a

greeting from the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan.

And present at the event, was the biographer of Sylvia Olden

Lee, Elizabeth Nash, who worked so closely with Sylvia to draft

her memoirs, which appropriately were published under the title

{Who Is Sylvia?}, a reference to a famous English-language

Schubert Lied, based on text from William Shakespeare.  That song

was also presented at the beginning of the second half of this

extraordinary, historic concert.

The shocking thing that occurred for the audience, was in

the beginning of the second half, a representative of Mayor Bill

De Blasio’s office came out onstage, and declared that an

official proclamation had been issued by the Mayor of New York

City, declaring that June 29th, 2017 was “Sylvia Olden Lee Day.”

And I’d like to put on the screen the text of this proclamation

from Mayor De Blasio.  It reads as follows:

“Office of the Mayor, City of New York

“Proclamation:

“{{Whereas:}} The creative energy that defines the five

boroughs has long

inspired people from across the world, and generations of diverse

artists and musicians have flocked to our city and shaped our

cultural landscape. As a trailblazing African American vocalist,

pianist, and music educator, the late Sylvia Olden Lee is among

this group of influential performers who advanced the music scene

in the five boroughs and beyond. Tonight, on what would have been

Lee’s 100th birthday, New Yorkers and performing artists of all

backgrounds will celebrate her life and legacy during a concert

at Carnegie Hall, hosted by the Foundation for the Revival of

Classical Culture, the Schiller Institute, and Harlem Opera

Theater.

“{{Whereas:}} Born in 1917, Sylvia Olden Lee was raised in

Mississippi by

parents who were gifted musicians, and she began learning piano

at age five. Equipped with immense natural talent, she went on to

study piano at Howard University and at age 16 she was invited to

perform at the White House for Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s

inauguration. Lee also excelled as a vocalist and she possessed a

deep knowledge of African American spirituals. In 1954, Lee

became the first African American professional hired by New

York’s Metropolitan Opera, where she worked for many years as a

vocal coach and played a key role in coordinating the

groundbreaking debut of Marian Anderson at the Met. During her

long and successful professional career, Lee accompanied and

coached singers throughout the United States and Europe, and she

worked with many internationally-acclaimed artists, among them

Paul Robeson, Jessye Norman, Kathleen Battle and Robert McFerrin.

“{{Whereas:}} As a dedicated vocal coach and a passionate

music educator,

Lee was a mentor to generations of young artists, and her legacy

continues to inspire emerging and established musicians in the

five boroughs and beyond. Through her hard work, enthusiasm,

phenomenal talent and encyclopedic knowledge of spirituals and

classical music, Lee made tremendous contributions to the world

of music, and as a pioneering African American artist, she

fostered diversity in the cultural sector, paving the way for

others. As you gather tonight to enjoy an evening of performances

in Sylvia Olden Lee’s honor, Chirlane and I are pleased to join

in paying tribute to an outstanding artist who shaped the history

of music in New York and around the world.

“{{Now therefore,}} I, Bill De Blasio, Mayor of the City of

New York, do hereby proclaim Thursday, June 29th, 2017 in the

City of New York as:  {{Sylvia Olden Lee Day}}”

So this was an incredible tribute and celebration of Sylvia

Olden Lee Day in the City of New York.  This commemorative

program went out to everybody who was present, with this

beautiful picture of Mrs. Lee on the front of the program.  And

on the back it said, “Lift Every Voice and Sing” which was

appropriate for the concluding piece of this concert, which was a

wonderful and rousing arrangement of that national song of

freedom, {Lift Every Voice and Sing}, which was arranged and

conducted by the famous Roland Carter.  And as soon as the music

began, the audience on its feet, singing along.

Now, Lynn Yen, who is the executive director of the

Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, invited

everybody present to join the Schiller Institute Community Chorus

and to become part of a growing movement for the revival of

Classical culture in New York City and beyond, setting as a goal,

one year from today, that that community chorus should have 1,500

members.  And I think many members of the audience were so

inspired by that concert that they were very eager to join such

an extraordinary chorus.

The combined choruses of the Harlem Opera Theater and the

Schiller Institute Chorus comprised a chorus of hundreds on the

stage of Carnegie Hall last night.

Now, one more greeting that was written and included in this

commemorative program, was from Helga Zepp-LaRouche, herself, who

is the founder and director of the Schiller Institute.  And I’d

like to put in the screen the tribute to Sylvia Olden Lee from

Helga Zepp-LaRouche.  She said:

“Sylvia Olden Lee was one of those absolutely outstanding

artists, who are capable of crystallizing for her many pupils and

the people she inspired, the essence of a piece of music, the

true idea, only accessible to those individuals, who can read the

intention of the poet and the composer.  She implanted in many

minds throughout her life the knowledge in her students, how the

artists, the singer, the instrumentalists steps modestly behind

the composition, but at the same time adds his or her ennobled

individuality to the performance, to make it both unique and

absolutely truthful.

“In doing that, she was always playful, polemical, full of

humor, profound, loving and with a disarming openness, and by

representing all of these characteristics, she would liberate her

students, as well as the audience out of their normal un-elevated

condition to the higher plane of true art.  She was able, like

only a few, to let those around her participate directly in the

creative process, in the diligent work of the kind of perfection

it takes, to actually produce art, and not just nice sounds.

“The afternoons and evenings she would participate in

{Musikabende} or coaching sessions in our place in Virginia,

together with William Warfield, Robert McFerrin, and numerous

other Classical artists, belong to the fondest memories for my

husband, Lyndon LaRouche, and myself.  Sylvia and Bill [Warfield]

were for many years on the board of the Schiller Institute and

added an invaluable treasure to its work.  In thinking about

Sylvia, one suddenly wishes she would be still there, since what

she taught is so very needed for our humanity. — Helga

Zepp-LaRouche, Founder, Schiller Institute”

Now, I think that spirit was infused in the entirety of the

performers and the audience that was present, and many of them

are gathering again, as we speak today, in New York City at the

Lincoln Center for a follow-up symposium, again sponsored by the

Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture, which is the

conclusion of this two-day tribute to Sylvia Lee, which is

called, “The Aesthetical Education of Humanity through Music,”

and is involving a discussion among many of those performed last

night, and who were teachers and who were touched by Sylvia Olden

Lee; including a presentation on the necessity for a return to

the so-called “Verdi tuning”: This is the A=432 tuning which was

mandated by the great operatic composer Giuseppe Verdi; and a

return to the idea of a discussion for a proposed, new National

Conservatory of Music.

Now, what I’d like to show you, just inclusion for today’s

broadcast, to give you a little bit of a taste of the

extraordinary character of Mrs. Sylvia Olden Lee, as we celebrate

her 100th birthday, is this small video excerpt from the

conclusion of a speech that she delivered at a conference of the

Schiller Institute in February 1994:

“I know from the fact that you’re here, your presence

attests to the fact that you believe in justice and one world.  I

hope you keep persevering and going into the far corners of this

globe, selling it to other people, because {we are one family}.

We all belong to {one God}, no matter what you call Him. And as

such, we should keep in touch with each other, through Classics

{and folk music}. [applause]”

So I think that’s a beautiful rallying call for all who are

believers in justice, as she said “one world,” a cooperation

among humanity, that we all send this message, sell this message

to the ends of the Earth and that we work tirelessly, to achieve

that beautiful vision, and to remain in touch with each other

through music and art, the Classics and the folk songs alike.

So again, this was a beautiful event.  All of those who had

the opportunity to attend, I’m sure, will remember this for the

rest of their lives, and will be inspired to follow in the

footsteps of such a beautiful and inspiring teacher.

As I said in the beginning of our broadcast, we are now in

the eve of the beginning of the month of July, I think we can

expect some very important opportunities, as things continue to

develop, as we look ahead to the July 7-8, one week from today,

summit — the G20, but the important bilateral meetings that will

occur on the sidelines, between President Trump and President Xi,

and President Trump and President Putin.

So we continue our work here in the United States for the

U.S. to join the New Silk Road, and it couldn’t be any more

urgent than it is right now:  Thank you very much for joining me

here today, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, as we bring

you more updates, in the continuation of our campaign here in the

United States.

Be sure to visit larouchepac.com, subscribe to YouTube

channel, and please become a regular member of the LaRouche PAC,

by joining our email list and by signing up on the Action Center

at larouchepac.com.  Stay tuned, and we’ll see you again.

De nylige trusler mod præsident Trumps liv, der kommer fra mange kendte personer, New York City Public Theatre Company, samt nedskydningen af kongresmedlem Scalise, bør ikke ses som isolerede tilfælde; som forbrydelser, begået af enkeltindivider, der handler af egen vilje. Vi bør snarere af USA’s egen historie lære, at der ikke findes nogen ’enlig skytte’. Det er briterne, der myrder vore præsidenter, af en særlig grund.

Lad os se på de af vore præsidenter, der blev myrdet; hvad er mønstret? Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, JFK og, endskønt han ikke var præsident, men er relevant for os i dag, Alexander Hamilton. Hvad fortæller mordet på disse præsidenter os om vor nations unikke rolle i historien? Hvis man ser på deres handlinger, så anvendte de, eller havde tydeligvis til hensigt at anvende, det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, for at fremme vor nation, og de kæmpede udtrykkeligt mod Det britiske Imperiums gennemførelse af ’frihandel’ i USA. Disse præsidenter vidste, til forskel fra de fleste amerikanere i dag, at Det britiske Imperium er vores fjende, og de vidste, at det var deres job at beskytte vore borgere mod den elendighed, vi ville stå overfor, hvis britisk imperie-frihandel blev praktiseret. Og, hvad der var allervigtigst, så indså de, at britisk frihandel ville kvæle vores mest dyrebare resurse; det amerikanske folks kreative gnist i en naturlig hældning mod at bidrage med vore evner hen imod en positiv og varig virkning på vore efterlevende. Det Amerikanske System opmuntrer udtrykkeligt denne gnist og bruger den til udvikling af gennembrud inden for varefremstilling, landbrug, videnskab og kultur.

I dag henviser præsident Trump udtrykkeligt til Det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som sin politiske programerklæring. Bortset fra Lyndon LaRouche og hans bevægelse, så er der ingen i det 20. århundrede, der har identificeret det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som værende dét princip i vores historie, der fuldstændig adskiller os fra Det britiske Imperium. Trumps plan om at genoplive den produktivitet, vi har mistet i de seneste 50 år, siden mordet på JFK, og hans beredvillighed til at samarbejde med Kina og Rusland om skabelsen af en ny, økonomisk orden, vækker rædsel i briterne. Trumps præsidentskab udgør en trussel mod selve Det britiske Imperiums eksistens. De ved, der ikke er plads til deres Imperium i en ny, international, økonomisk orden på denne planet, og de vil ikke dø uden kamp.

Lær om Lyndon LaRouches fremsættelse af det Amerikanske System, kendt som de Fire Love til USA’s omgående redning, gennem viste videolink, (dansk tekst her) og gå med i LaRouche PAC (Schiller Instituttet, DK!) for at skabe en ny æra for menneskeheden, uden Det britiske Imperium.

Offentliggjort den 24. jun. 2017.     

… Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år.

Matthew Ogden: Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, redaktør for EIR’s økonomiske stof, og som har været meget aktiv i Washington, D.C., i den eskalerede kamp for genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall og resten af hr. LaRouches Fire Økonomiske Love i Hamiltons tradition. Han har mange opdateringer til os på denne front. Og via video har vi Diane Sare, LaRouche PAC Policy koordinator for New York, med os fra Manhattan. Hun har netop skrevet en artikel med titlen, »Gullivers rejse til Manhattan! Kun LaRouches Fire Love og Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ kan løse Manhattans infrastrukturkrise.« (EIR, 23. juni). Som vi alle ved, venter »Helvedessommeren« forude i New York City, mht. transportinfrastruktur.

Jeg vil straks begynde med nogle meget signifikante udviklinger i kampen for at bringe USA ind i den Nye Silkevej, ind i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. For det første vil jeg rapportere direkte, at Xinhua, et kinesisk nyhedsmedie, rapporterer, at præsident Donald Trump i går mødtes med Kinas statsrådgiver Yang Jiechi i Det Hvide Hus, og til statsrådgiveren Yang sagde, at USA er villig til at samarbejde om projekter relateret til det kinesiske Bælte & Vej Initiativ. De to havde dette møde i Det Hvide Hus som en del af statsrådgiver Yangs besøg til Washington; dette var et møde på højt niveau. Og, iflg. nyhedsrapporter, sagde Yang til præsident Trump, at Kina var meget tilfreds med, meget glad over og satte meget stor pris på det faktum, at Trump-administrationen havde besluttet at sende en repræsentant på højt plan – Matthew Pottinger – til at deltage i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing i sidste måned. Vi har rapporteret, at denne repræsentant for USA var en beslutning i sidste sekund fra Trumps side, og at det var en meget god beslutning. Rådgiver Yang sagde også til Donald Trump, at Kina ville være villig til at arbejde sammen med USA om Bælte & Vej Initiativet. Ifølge det Kinesiske Udenrigsministeriums rapport om mødet, responderede præsident Trump til denne udtalelse fra rådgiver Yang ved at sige, at han – præsident Trump – ville være åben over for at samarbejde med Kina om Bælte & Vej Initiativet og hermed relaterede projekter. Han sagde, han er tilfreds med de positive fremskridt, der er sket i de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer, siden sit møde med præsident Xi i Mar-a-Lago. Og han meddelte, at han planlægger at besøge Kina inden for det næste (nuværende) år. Dette blev bekræftet af udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson i en pressekonference, han holdt onsdag. Præsident Trump rapporterede ligeledes, at han ser frem til igen at mødes med præsident Xi Jinping ved G20-topmødet i Hamborg, Tyskland, i juli måned. Det var første punkt, og det er naturligvis en meget signifikant udvikling.

Det andet punkt er, at der samtidig, dagen før dette møde mellem præsident Trump og statsrådgiver Yang, var en møde på højt niveau mellem tidligere kinesiske regeringsfolk og amerikanske erhvervsledere på højt niveau, i regi af et bilateralt eller fælles møde, der fandt sted mellem USA’s Handelskammer – der repræsenterer førende, amerikanske erhvervsinteresser – og Kinas Center for Internationale Økonomiske Udvekslinger, der er en regeringstilknyttet tænketank med base i Beijing. Under dette møde udstedte disse to grupper et fælleskommunike, der promoverede fælles samarbejde mellem USA og Kina.

Her følger resten af webcastet på engelsk:

So, I’m going to put on the screen here a picture of this
meeting that occurred [Fig. 1].  As you can see, it’s the 9th
U.S.-China CEO and Former Senior Officials Dialogue; jointly
sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the China Center
for International Economic Exchanges.  What the joint communiqué
reports is that not only would the U.S. businessmen be interested
in joint cooperation on the Belt and Road, but they would also be
interested in cooperation on building U.S. infrastructure here
domestically.  So you can see here a direct quote from their
communiqué.  This is under the subtitle “Strengthening Investment
Cooperation Under the Framework of Belt and Road Initiative and
Through Other Means.”  So, here’s what it says:
“Investment is an important driver of China-U.S. trade
relations and the growth of the two economies.  There is great
potential for the two sides to further expand mutual investment.
China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has spurred investment in
infrastructure building, will considerably broaden the space for
Chinese and U.S. investment and open many opportunities for
Chinese and U.S. companies to cooperate in third countries.
Significant participation by U.S. companies, including in
partnership with Chinese companies, can make new contributions to
the furtherance of China-U.S. economic and trade relations.  In
certain areas, U.S. companies can offer the world’s best
technology and management capability, thereby helping to insure
smooth and efficient completion of Belt and Road projects.
Infrastructure building in the U.S. will generate an enormous
need for investment, and the new U.S. administration has
indicated that this is a major priority.  China has strong
capabilities and cost advantages in infrastructure building,
including the building of urban roads, expressways, fly-overs,
high-speed rail, and ports.”
It goes on to say: “Chinese companies and financial
institutions are ready to contribute to this effort through
financing and through the provision of goods and services.
Chinese investment in certain areas of U.S. infrastructure
development has the potential to help strengthen business
relations between the two sides, and in some cases, speed up
completion of the needed projects at lower cost and with greater
efficiency.  Both sides agreed that the two countries can engage
in full cooperation under the Belt and Road Initiative and
through a number of other means, including the Asia
Infrastructure Investment Bank, the World Bank, and other
multilateral investment and financing institutions.”
Then it has a subtitle:  “Agreed Action”
“Within the next twelve months, the CCIEE and the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce will organize a conference on the Belt and
Road in China or in the United States; which will allow the
Chinese side to brief the U.S. side on the Belt and Road plans,
including initiative content, current progress and projects that
might be appropriate for U.S. company participation, including in
partnership with the Chinese companies.  The U.S. side will brief
the Chinese side on the latest infrastructure developments in the
United States and share reflections on pathways for Chinese
companies to participate in U.S. infrastructure revitalization
initiatives.”
So, this is a very important development.  And now, third,
here’s an article from {China Daily} which reports on a rather
extraordinary forum that happened in San Francisco yesterday,
which was titled “2017: U.S.-China Transportation Cooperation
Forum.”  Before I get to the next slide, just see here, the
beginning of the article.  It’s titled “Chinese Builders Wanted
in the U.S..”  The beginning of the article says, “Chinese
infrastructure techniques are urgently needed to rehabilitate
America’s poorly maintained and in some cases dilapidated bridges
and road system, industry experts from both countries agree.  The
fact that the U.S., the world’s most economically and
technologically powerful country, should import fast-train
know-how from a developing China, reflects a new normal for
China-U.S. cooperation and communication.”  Then, the article
quotes Chinese Consul-General to San Francisco Luo Linquan, who
gave the keynote.  He said, “China and the U.S. cooperation on
the infrastructure front is posed to become the new highlight in
the trade engagement between the two countries.  California along
with its neighboring states has especially close trade relations
with China,” he added. “The import and export volume between this
region and China has mounted to more than $201 billion in 2016.
The One Belt, One Road Initiative was conceived in China,” he
added, “but it provides a global platform for economic
development for all the countries participating.”
So clearly, all three of these are extraordinary
developments, highlighted by this meeting in the White House,
where Donald Trump said — according to Chinese reports — that
the United States would be happy to participate in the Belt and
Road Initiative.  This is clearly coming along very rapidly; and
as Helga LaRouche said when she was briefed on these developments
earlier today, she said “Remember, it was only three years ago,
in 2014, that the LaRouche movement put out the call for the
United States to join the Silk Road.”  I think you can remember
the pamphlet that was printed by the LaRouche Political Action
Committee that was called “A Hamiltonian Vision for the Future of
the United States:  The United States Joins the New Silk Road.”
But Helga LaRouche said, at that point — 2014 — this idea was
almost unheard of.  But now, as you can see from these
developments and otherwise, this initiative has really gained
prominence and is becoming a dominant reality.  It is very
urgently needed.  “We’ve seen a very significant victory,” she
said, “on this front; and we should recognize it as such.”  She
said, “I think an appropriate for this is ‘Ideas Matter; Ideas
Shape History’.”
I think you can really expect the consolidation of this with
the meeting between Trump and Xi at the G20 summit in July.  And
I think we can also see some dramatic developments between the
potential for a bilateral meeting — and this is becoming more
solid as the days go on — between Trump and Putin.  But, as the
lead article on the LaRouche PAC website states very clearly
today, although it’s widely expected that President Trump and
President Putin will meet for the first time on the sidelines of
this G20 summit, it’s very clear that the opponents of this
world-changing event of the United States-Russia-China
cooperation, are doing everything they can in an hysterical
fashion, to try to undermine this before it ever happens, to
force the cancellation, to cause it to become totally hostile, or
to cause there to be no positive progress that can be made out of
such a summit.  You see this crazy Russian sanctions bill that
was rammed through the Senate 98-2; you can see the efforts by
the U.S. forces shooting down this Syrian jet over Syrian
territory, which has the potential to develop very rapidly.  This
forced the Russians to again terminate the non-confliction
hotline between the United States and Russia.  You can see Steve
Mnuchin’s efforts to levy new sanctions against 38 Russian and
Ukrainian firms and individuals.  Then you can see this F-16 that
buzzed the military aircraft that was carrying Russian Defense
Minister Shoigu.  All of these are very dangerous, and are
obviously planned to try to derail any potential for a positive
relationship between the United States and Russia.
One only has to read this hysterical article in the
{Washington Post} today, “Obama’s Secret Struggle to Punish
Russia for Putin’s Election Assault,” which only continues this
false narrative.

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Not so secret.

OGDEN:  Not so secret.  So, that gives you a picture of
where we stand, but a very optimistic picture, as Helga LaRouche
underlined; if we see in terms of the potential for this United
States New Silk Road, New Paradigm consolidation.  But it’s very
urgent that this happen as well.  That was why I asked both Paul
and Diane to join me on the show today.
First, I’d like to ask Diane to go through a little bit of
what you have in this article.  As I said, it’s titled “Gulliver
Travels to Manhattan! Only LaRouche’s Four Laws and the Belt and
Road Can Save Manhattan Infrastructure Crisis.”  So Diane.

DIANE SARE:  Sure.  I was inspired, if one can call it that,
by my attendance at a Cranes, New York real estate conference,
where they had three panels.  The way it was billed was that —
and they had the CEO of the Port Authority, and the building
trades union, and Staten Island and Brooklyn.  And given what’s
about to happen here, which people may or may not be aware of,
basically we are at a total breakdown point in the greater
Manhattan area.  During the day in Manhattan, you have about 3.1
million people; at night, it’s about 1.8 million.  There’s
something between 1.5 million and 1.8 million who commute into
the city to the island of Manhattan on a daily basis.  That’s a
very large traffic flow.  Penn Station handles about 650,000
people a day; I think that’s triple what it was built for.
Similarly, every other major transit point, whether it’s coming
in from Long Island and Brooklyn across the East River, or coming
in from New Jersey on the western side, everything is completely
overloaded; at or well above capacity.  So now, the system itself
is anywhere from 70 to 100 years old, and very little maintenance
or repair or upgrading has been done.  We’re using switching
systems which were built before World War II largely; I think
they’ve modernized one line so far, and another one will be done
in a few years.  It really is insane.
So, I went to this conference, because starting on July 10,
since there were two train derailments in early April in Penn
Station on the tracks there, they’ve decided they cannot put off
repairing those tracks.  But of course, to repair tracks, then
you cannot use them while you’re repairing them.  They’re saying
they’re going to have to reduce the traffic coming in from Long
Island by 20%; I don’t know what the percentage is from New
Jersey, but it’s probably something similar or greater.  I know
the commuter routes from Essex and Morris Counties, which include
commuters coming in from Pennsylvania who go to various places
and then take a train into Penn Station, that’s all going to be
rerouted into Hoboken; the PATH system which is also overloaded.
At any rate, these repairs start on the 10th of July, and they’re
going to be going on for at least six weeks or longer.  Who
really knows, frankly?
There’s no redundancy.  This is a system that any section of
it that you shut down, if you’re talking about transit points
that are already functioning or not functioning I should say, at
over capacity.  And you’re going to add 20% more traffic, or 30%
more traffic, or 50% more traffic to it; you could have a total
breakdown of everything.  None of the plans I’ve seen so far
really are adequate.  I don’t know what they’re going to do as
they get closer; maybe they’re going to have to have people come
into work on rotating shifts, people’s hours are going to change,
I don’t know.  But at any rate, I was hoping that this conference
might address it.  What I heard there — and it’s not as though
these speakers were completely incompetent or were not aware of
the crisis in some way — but what you saw was that people’s
thinking has been so warped.  One, as I said in the article, by
this Bertrand Russell legacy that there’s no such thing as a
creative idea, or a new idea; but that everything is an algebraic
system of linear deduction.  Of course, from that standpoint, you
could never conceptualize where this region should be in 50 or
100 years.
So, the things that they were proposing be done, like
turning Rikers Island into a part of LaGuardia Airport —
LaGuardia Airport, as people may know who have travelled into New
York, is very much overloaded.  They don’t have the space for the
number of flights that are coming in, and they’re projecting that
by 2030 there will be another 30 million people per year trying
to fly into the city.  So, how do you handle this?  They said,
well we need 75 more flight operations per hour.  Taking over all
of Rikers Island for this and a new wastewater treatment plant,
only gives you an increase of 30 more flight operations per hour.
So, why would you do that?  What is the point of investing in
something that doesn’t even meet either the current needs or what
you are projecting?  It’s really insane.  So, you have that
factor; and the other factor is the funding, which I think Paul
may deal with more; but the idea that everything can only be done
through public-private partnerships.  As people know, my
colleague Bill Roberts has an article in the same issue of {EIR}
about the Soo Locks, where of course they figured out in 1986
that this is a key transshipment point for coal and other things
in the United States; and they really needed to be repaired and
modernized.  So, this was approved in 1986, but they concluded
that you’d only make back 75 cents on the dollar of what was
invested.  Clearly by Bertrand Russell-type methods, where it’s
all linear, because if you cause 11 million people to be
unemployed, which is what would happen if this thing wasn’t done,
that’s not taken into account.
Similarly, the speaker at this conference from Brooklyn,
showed pictures of the damage from Hurricane Sandy, which were
horrific; I was here in New Jersey when that occurred.  We didn’t
have electricity for about two weeks; it was very damaging, very
devastating.  There were several proposals made in 2009 at a
conference in Manhattan for storm surge barriers.  My favorite
was a five-mile one that went from Sandy Hook in New Jersey to
the Rockaways.  So you go across the whole area before you even
get to Staten Island, and it would have an underground tunnel and
it would have gates that came up; but normally the ocean would be
flowing through.  I think that would cost something like $6
billion.  I can see these silly accountants with their
mathematical methods saying $6 billion, what’s the profit?  Well,
how about saving $80 billion?  $6 billion versus $80 billion in
damage when you get one of these storms.  But nonetheless, they
decided not to build it, and we got what we got with Hurricane
Sandy.  So, because of the way people think in terms of
worshipping money, as opposed to seeing money as a means of
credit generation, or as a means of figuring out how to measure
the cost of an improvement that you need; which will lead
ultimately to the increase in the productivity of your
population.
What does it mean when you say we want our standard of
living to be higher?  Well, that doesn’t mean having seven
television sets in every room as opposed to one, or something
like that.  When you say the standard of living, we mean things
like life expectancy, being free from disease, being better
educated.  How many Americans speak only one language, and maybe
that’s an exaggeration to say that Americans even speak a
language.  Many people now do not have a very good command of the
English language, which is our language in this country.  In
other words, how many Americans know how to read music?  How many
Americans have conducted basic scientific experiments in school;
have ever tried to make a painting or a work of art or write a
poem?  In other words, by standard of living you mean that
there’s a life expectancy which allows for a young person to be
educated to the age of 22, 25, 28; and then that person has an
adult lifespan in which they’re still developing and learning.
You can get human beings developing a quality of genius which
contributes to the future for all mankind.
The only reason for money, is to create a situation where
you can think in those terms.  That the people living 100 and 200
years from now will live longer, be healthier, be better
educated, and be better; which is what you would want.  Who
really wants to be the best of all time?  That means, in effect,
that your life is meaningless, if everything coming after you is
going to be worse than you.  So, that’s the point of economy; but
none of these people was thinking that way at all.  It really
struck me that here we are sitting on potential complete chaos;
you already had two weeks ago, there was a subway that got stuck,
and it didn’t have air conditioning because the power was out.
So you had people packed in this car, and the temperatures were
getting to 100 degrees, it was like a sauna in there.  No one
could move for 45 minutes and they were on the brink — as you
might imagine — of getting completely panicked.  Happily, no one
had a heart attack or other medical disaster, but it does make
people nervous.  A few days ago, another subway car was stalled
out, so people went out the back exit and got down on the track
and started walking to the station.  That’s extremely dangerous.
What happens if you lose all order because people just panic
because they don’t know if they’re going to reach their
destination?  They don’t want to be stuck in a subway for hours
on end.  We’re really on the brink of a situation like that.
People would be prepared to tolerate hardship if they knew that
there was a plan to actually address it.
For example, if President Trump, as a result of his
dialogues with Xi Jinping and President Putin, were to say “Look,
we actually think the Bering Strait tunnel should be built within
the next decade; and we’re going to launch a crash program with
China and Russia to develop high-speed rail corridors across the
United States.  So that Manhattan really should be connected with
Paris; and that’s something that will happen.  I’m going to
initiate that in my Presidency, and it’s something that will be
completed during a future administration.”  Now knowing Trump,
he’d probably say “Well, it has to be done within my first term.”
But at any rate, what would that mean for Manhattan?  What kind
of infrastructure would you want to have in place?  If you had
high-speed rail connecting Washington D.C., Philadelphia,
Manhattan, New York City, and Boston, then you would know that
you might have a free flow of people in the entire northeastern
coastline — this huge metropolitan area — because you’re
talking about taking an hour to travel from D.C. to New York.
So, what does that mean?  What do you want New York City to look
like under those circumstances?  Maybe we have to consider taking
advantage of this massive 22% of New Jersey’s land areas in the
Pine Barrens, and convert part of that into a large city where
part of the population of New York City could be relocated, while
you build something which is actually appropriate.  But no one is
thinking in this way.
Apparently, plans have been made, as we know with the Soo
Locks, plans have been made.  There are engineers who are highly
competent who are aware of these things, who know that there are
limits on the life expectancy of cast iron and things like that.
They may have long life expectancies, but there is a point at
which things begin to corrode and things like that.  So, plans
have been made, plans exist.  But where do you get the funding to
implement it?  What is the magnitude of these plans?  If the
population were aware that such a thing existed, that is was
going to be set into motion, then people would be prepared to put
up with a certain amount of hardship; probably very happily,
knowing that their children were going to live in a much more
beautiful and functioning location than we currently do now.
So, this is the battle.  And I think Matt, what you reported
just at the beginning of this show, in terms of the commitment of
President Trump to work with the Chinese, the commitment of the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce explicitly to collaborate with the Belt
and Road Initiative; this is extremely promising, and should
absolutely be promoted.

OGDEN:  Well, I think those scare stories you have from New
York City should probably encourage people that this is a rather
urgent initiative.  I know from talking to Paul, that you have a
few more scare stories that you might want to share with us.  I’m
going to just let you go through a few of those also.

GALLAGHER:  Well, I’m going to come back to this.  I wanted
to just briefly sketch the fight around Glass-Steagall; but I’m
going to come back to this in particular on the character of the
PPPs — public-private partnerships — as actually “poison pill
policy,” which is really threatening this entire potential for
collaboration, China-U.S. collaboration both on the Belt and
Road, and also starting with the Bering Strait Tunnel.  Also in
regard to infrastructure in North America and infrastructure in
the United States.
But on Glass-Steagall, let me just indicate, you have a very
stark comparison in terms of infrastructure investment between
the United States and China.  In the United States, about $300
billion is invested in infrastructure every year, and that is,
every school, every hospital, every road job, every subdivision’s
new sewer and water and optical fiber, and so forth — that is
absolutely everything, public, private, local, Federal, amounts
to about that much investment.  In China, the four major state
banks which provide the credit for the infrastructure
breakthroughs that have been made in China, those four banks
issue about $140 billion worth of credit annually for high-speed
rail in China alone.  And just that form of advanced
infrastructure and just that public investment by those four
national banks:  the Exim Bank, the China Development Bank, the
other China policy banks, as they’re called.  That investment in
just high-speed rail is half of the total investment made by the
United States — public, private, in every form, on every kind of
infrastructure and every public band-aide that’s put on, and
claimed as infrastructure, every year.
In addition, those banks in China have invested and
committed $300 billion just in the three years since the Belt and
Road Initiative of President Xi began to take off, and that $300
billion invested and committed by those banks is outside China.
So that’s going on simultaneously with the large-scale
investments in completely frontier, including things like maglev
subways, in the major cities of China, and there are many, many,
many major cities in China as people know.
So this is widely in the financial press in the United
States and Europe, the old imperial liberal order defends itself
by saying, “This credit issuance of China can’t possibly be
sustained.  There will be a tremendous, earthshattering collapse
of all of this infrastructure credit, because the banks — it has
dwarfed even what the Federal Reserve has done for the banks
here, and for a good purpose, and it can be sustained; it’ll all
blow up.”  There is a very fundamental difference here, though,
in that China, for the last 20 years has had bank separation; it
has many shadow banks, it has a lot of investment companies
involved in broker-dealers, but they are completely separated
from the both private commercial banking system, which they want
to build up further, and also from this kind of public banking.
So that these banks are not involved in the $550 trillion
derivatives exposure of the banks in London and New York.  These
banks are not involved in securities speculation.  They are able
to handle bankruptcies; they’re able to handle non-performing
loans when they appear in various sectors as the economy
develops.  So, Glass-Steagall, although they don’t call that law
“Glass-Steagall” in China, that bank separation is important to
what they are able to do and the fact that they’ve been doing it
now for 20 years on a level of spending nearly 9% of their GDP on
new infrastructure every year, for more than 20 years.  Compare
that to the United States, which spends about 1.3% of its GDP now
on infrastructure annually. They’ve been able to do that, and
keep it up.
Now, we’ve been fighting for Glass-Steagall in Washington.
It’s really taken on much more of the characteristics of a good
brawl, in the recent weeks.  It’s become a big public fight, for
one thing, where you have on the one hand, especially for the
last two months, three months,  — on the one hand, you have all
the financial press and the major national {Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, New York Times}, running all kinds of editorials
and op-eds on why Glass-Steagall is not necessary, why it’s
terrible, why it’s completely outdated;  it was only repealed 20
years ago, but it’s completely outdated, practically a relic of
the Middle Ages, why it didn’t have anything to do with the crash
in 2008, and so on and so forth.  You have that going on, you
have think tanks in Washington, like Heritage Foundation and
American Enterprise Institute running whole events which consist
of nothing but examining Glass-Steagall.  I went to one recently,
at the American Enterprise Institute, where six different
speakers were attacking Glass-Steagall.  The only person in the
room who was fighting for Glass-Steagall was me, and I was not
one of the speakers.
So you have these kinds of attacks on it, but also the
sponsors.  The main sponsors of the House bill, Marcy Kaptur (D)
of Ohio, Walter Jones (R) of North Carolina, the Republican main
sponsor, have started to really fight publicly.  They had a
public press conference when they introduced the bill three and a
half months ago with 25 sponsors.  They now have about 55
sponsors as a result of fighting for it publicly since then.
This is a much faster rate of getting sponsors onto the bill than
was the case in the last session, where eventually there were
about 85 sponsors after two years of work.  But in this case, the
week before last they had a congressional briefing for the staffs
of Congressmen throughout the House, about somewhere between 35
and 40 other Congressmen sent their staffs to this briefing, so
it was really quite a packed event in one of the office
buildings, to take notes and report back to their Members of
Congress.  And not only Kaptur and Jones, but also experts from
the AFL-CIO, from the Americans for Financial Reform, from Public
Citizen; Nomi Prins, an independent, former investment banker and
author on banking, independent expert — they all testified.  And
this is causing a tremendous amount of discussion throughout the
House in particular.
On the Senate side, the leading sponsors have all made it a
point to draw out the Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and make
it clear that what he was advising Donald Trump to do during the
campaign essentially, was not the real Glass-Steagall or anything
like it; but rather Mnuchin’s advice to Trump during his
campaign, was to talk about Glass-Steagall while Mnuchin
privately was designing something which was really Wall Street
deregulation like the bill that recently passed the House.
So the fact that they have really broken Mnuchin down on
this and made him say “No, no, no, I don’t believe in anything
like separating commercial and investment banking.”  This has
also dramatically clarified issues for people in both the Senate
and the House.  And secondly, we have begun to get close to the
mobilization of large organizations, large trade unions,
coalition organizations like Public Citizen, and in this I don’t
mean them endorsing Glass-Steagall, I mean them mobilizing their
hundreds and hundreds of thousands of members to demand this from
Congress.  We’ve come very close to getting to that stage, and in
particular you saw last week a broadcast that Public Citizen ran
on their Facebook page with Rep. Marcy Kaptur, in which they were
motivating and calling on their reportedly 400,000 members to go
after Congress to get this.
So the objective is to get from the 55 sponsors now to 100
— fast.  Because it’s not so important in the Senate, to pile up
a lot of sponsors — there are only a 100 Senators. It’s very
important in the House, when the leadership of both parties is
against Glass-Steagall, which they are: Both the Republican and
the Democratic leadership do not want to see it; the Democratic
leadership wants to cling onto this failed Dodd-Frank Bill, and
pretend that Obama came up with something nice there.  And the
Republican leadership wants to give Wall Street every kind of
deregulation that they’ve ever asked for.
So in that situation, it is crucial to get to 100 sponsors.
This is the stated objective of the major sponsors in the House
and when they do that, then they really want to go public and
start to hold the kind of press conferences and press bugging of
other Members which will get widely covered in the media and
really  make this into a bigger brawl.
So that’s just an indication of some of the things we have
been getting going.  And one of the arguments that Jones and
Kaptur have started to use, for example when they — I didn’t
mention this, but they also went to the Rules Committee when it
was marking up this crazy Republican deregulation bill called the
“Financial CHOICE Act.”  They went to the Rules Committee with an
amendment that said, strike CHOICE Act, take it away, and put
Glass-Steagall reinstatement in its place, and that’s our
amendment.” So they got to make a fight in front of the Rules
Committee on that.
But they’ve begun to make the very coherent argument that
not only did Glass-Steagall’s elimination lead directly to the
crash in 2008; there’s no need to go over this now, it’s the most
obvious thing in the world to most thinking Americans.  It’s like
the guy who ate nothing but McDonalds food for four months and
after four or five months his organs were failing, he was
catastrophically obese, he was near death!  And this is like
saying “there was no connection, there were other factors that
brought this guy into this condition.  It wasn’t the McDonald’s
Big Macs that he was eating.”  That’s what it amounts to to tell
Americans that less than 10 years after getting rid of
Glass-Steagall, the whole banking system blew up simultaneously,
which has never, for all of the major banks to be bankrupt at the
same time, as Ben Bernanke admitted they were, has never happened
in the entire history of the United States.  It took less than 10
years without Glass-Steagall to bring that about.
So they also are now arguing that the period in which
Glass-Steagall was in effect, which is also the period in which
the biggest infrastructure investments in new infrastructure in
the United States were being made, from the ’20s, up through the
end of the ’60s and into the ’70s, that that was a golden era of
productivity in the United States.  We had a banking system then,
which concentrated not only on loaning to  — but you see it in
many examples of the history of that period — concentrating on
making commercial and industrial loans to businesses for
expansion and for participation in major projects.  You don’t
have that kind of a banking system without Glass-Steagall;
instead, you have a banking system which wants to underwrite bond
issues for only the biggest corporations, with which they can
play around with their stock prices and so on.  And it brings the
entire economy down.
It gets us right back — and they’re making now the right
argument and very powerful argument, that if we want to rebuild
the United States, and particularly build new, frontier new
infrastructure in the United States, we have to have a commercial
banking system which is separated from securities broker-dealing
and speculation in the derivatives markets; and which is
concentrating on household lending and commercial and industrial
lending to the companies participating in these great projects.
Now, public-private partnership is, again, back to Treasury
Secretary Mnuchin, the conference that was held in Washington
last week, SelectUSA, which was a conference trying to get
foreign investment in the United States.  So this is the Treasury
Department; you’ve already given the context for this, along with
what Diane reported, in terms of the imminent potential,
absolutely imminent potential for large-scale investment,
particularly from China in an infrastructure build in the United
States.  instead, what the Treasury Secretary went there and
offered was, he said:  We want this kind of investment and
public-private partnerships are critical.
Suffice it to say, never in the United States has a major
infrastructure project or major new element of the infrastructure
of the United States, {never} has such a thing been constructed
with a public-private partnership, let alone by private
investment alone.  The Transcontinental Railroad was by no means
a public-private partnership.  And these things simply don’t
work.  The investors in them want their capital back in 10 years,
and they want 10-12% rates of interest in their invested capital
during that 10 years.  Well, that means they want it back, if
it’s anything major, while the thing is still not finished, and
still not being used to a full extent; and they want to
absolutely rob the public taxpayers whose money is going into
such a project.  It simply cannot work, and it will sabotage
foreign investment in new infrastructure building in the United
States if this method is used.
We have a threadbare public investment in infrastructure
now.  What President Trump has spoken about, the time has run out
for him and for the Congress to implement it.  They have to now
create, immediately, a National Bank on the order of $1-2
trillion in capital, in the way that Alexander Hamilton and his
successors in the American System built such National Banks
starting in 1790, through the 19th century.  They have to create
such a bank {now}, so that there is a credit institution here, to
cooperate with the credit institutions like those in China that I
was discussing earlier.
Otherwise, we are really facing disaster.  I’ll give you an
example:  I went to  a Congressional hearing yesterday and talked
to some of the witnesses who were involved in exactly trying to
organize some of the infrastructure developments that Diane
indicated are so needed in the New York area.  One of them is a
bridge over the Hackensack River near Secaucus, New Jersey,
called the Portal Bridge, which is 108 years old.  It was
designed in the 19th century, completed in 1910.  It has ships go
under it by splitting the bridge, but opening as a drawbridge.
All of the rail traffic, freight and passenger, between Florida
and Massachusetts goes over that bridge — all of it!  And that
bridge, when they open it to get a ship go through, when they try
to close it now, 9 times out 10, according to the fellow who
spoke to me there, 9 times out of 10 it doesn’t close properly,
so that rails don’t align.  And they then send workers out on the
concrete abutment of the bridge with sledgehammers, and they
hammer at the iron trusses of the bridge to get the rails to
align.
All that it would take is for them to be able to unable to
get them to align, once, and as he estimated, that would be a
single-point loss of potentially 10% of U.S. gross domestic
product.  Right there.
And then you have, in the Poe Lock, the potential failure of
the Poe Lock between Lake Superior into Lake Huron, and the whole
Mesabi Iron Range, and all of the ships which are carrying all of
the strategic metals, the iron, the coal coming out of Northern
Minnesota, Ontario, the Mesabi Range, all of that would be
stopped:  another 10% of the gross domestic product of the United
States would be frozen and they estimated up to 11 million jobs
would be lost.
So you say, “well of course, they’re replacing this bridge
at Hackensack,” but actually, they’re not!  They don’t have the
funds!  They have a plan, it’s all worked out, it’s engineered,
but the replacement is not under way.
So you have here, the makings of a movie you could call it,
a suspense thriller: “The Bridge over the Hackensack River.”  But
with 10% of the U.S. economy hanging on the guys banging those
rails back into place, but there is not any funding arranged to
replace that bridge.  And you can multiply that for all the other
things that have to be done.
We’re very far from the frontier, national high-speed rail
network, nuclear desalination plants, the Western water
management systems,  — we’re very far from the frontiers in
space infrastructure that we have to be building. We’re actually
threadbare in terms of just continuing to use, and have an
economy, what we already have.
So there’s no time at all left, for these wonderful
prospects by the discussions with the Chinese now at the highest
level, between President Trump and one of the tope people in the
Chinese government, State Councilor Yang Jiechi, for these
wonderful prospects to be backed up by the institution which
issues credit for the United States, a Hamiltonian bank for
investment.  It must be formed.  It must come out of the Congress
with the drive from the White House in order to get it done.

OGDEN:  As you said, time is running out: We’re five months
now into the Trump administration, and you highlighted the role
of Steve Mnuchin:  I think this continues to be a very bad
element in the Trump administration.  And the kind of support
that Trump gained from his support for Glass-Steagall during the
Presidential election campaign, is something that has now — that
has to become visible.  That has to become a visible, vocal, sort
of element from the population, from the constituency.  And I
just want to put on the screen the URL that we have for the
mobilization that we have for H.R.790: That’s the bill that’s in
the House, the “Return to Prudent Banking Act” —

GALLAGHER:  The Glass-Steagall bill.

OGDEN:  Which was introduced by Marcy Kaptur and Walter
Jones.  This is the return to Glass-Steagall.  As you can see,
this is the website:  http://lpac.co/hr790  And I think that this
goal of reaching 100 cosponsors in a very short amount of time,
is a very tangible goal that we can mobilize for, along with this
vision of, the United States joining the New Silk Road.  But
Paul, as I think you just laid out very clearly, that is
impossible without Glass-Steagall.  You cannot set up the kind of
national credit institutions, the national banking credit
institutions that would channel that kind of joint investment
into this infrastructure in the United States, without this
critical first step of the return to Glass-Steagall.
One thing I wanted to ask you about, Paul, is just the
prognosis on how close we could be to another disastrous blowout
of the trans-Atlantic banking system.  I know Nomi Prins did an
interview a few months ago with you, where she highlighted a few
of these things with the corporate debt bubble.  But that’s
something that Marcy Kaptur cited in her testimony to the Rules
Committee, and I think that element of urgency is also necessary
to put in here.
[https://larouchepac.com/20170319/interview-nomi-prins]

GALLAGHER:  We don’t know how much time, because it’s
impossible to put a finger on a date when a really huge and
increasing unproductive debt bubble, in this case, as
Representative Kaptur identified, the corporate debt bubble in
the United States, when it’s going to blow up.  But, the size of
corporate debt in the United States has doubled in seven years,
from about $7 to about $14 trillion, with really the great
majority of that tremendous debt expansion being used for what
they call “financial engineering” by large companies: Meaning
buying back their own stock, mergers and acquisitions, finding
ways to increase the dividends they give to their stockholders,
increasing their own executive compensation — all of this kind
of financial engineering has used in various years up to 80-85%
of this new corporate debt.
What has really suffered in the process has been business
capital investment and the commercial and industrial lending,
which it depends on. So that that tremendously expanding bubble
has stopped expanding.  And this has been noted  rather suddenly,
by everybody from the IMF to individual bank research teams,
since April of this year, that suddenly that tremendous expansion
has stopped; as happens with an immense bubble that’s about to
explode, and it started to shrink.  And there was a report put
out by UBS bank in Switzerland about two weeks ago which caused a
certain amount of alarm, because they found that what they call
the “credit impulse,” had gone negative in the last six months —
they’re talking globally now — meaning that the second
derivative, the rate of the rate of growth of business lending
around the world had suddenly in the last six months become
negative.  And that is something which virtually always points to
a bubble about to collapse.
This is a very huge one, indeed.  The IMF estimated that if
interest rates were to go up sharply in the United States, 20% of
all the companies in the United States would default.  That’s way
above the rate of defaults on mortgages even at the worst 10
years ago; and the whole thing would come crashing down.
So we need the reorganization of the banking system,
urgently, for that reason, also in order to make the commercial
banking side of it proof against this kind of a blowout.  And so
you don’t have, again, a situation in which the bankruptcy of any
investment bank, let’s say, becomes, almost overnight, the
bankruptcy of every major U.S. based bank as happened in late
September 2008.

OGDEN:  I would say, this is real policy.  This is what
anybody who’s serious is discussing right now.  And the failed
decision by the Democratic Party, for example, to just be the
party of resistance, is increasingly proven to be an increasingly
proven to be very ill-advised policy.  And I think even Sen.
Chris Murphy made some headlines this week where he said:  Look,
none of my constituents are talking about “Russia,” when I go
home.  They’re talking about jobs, drugs, poverty.  They’re
talking about exactly what we’re discussing here!  Hmm, gee,
maybe we shouldn’t be pumping anti-Putin propaganda all day every
day.
So, I wanted to ask Diane, you know, we’ve had some
surprising reports — or surprising for some — from the streets
of Manhattan, where you would assume because of the 24-hour-a-day
anti-Putin propaganda that people are being inundated with, that
this would be the only thing that’s on people’s minds.  But as we
saw, the reality on the ground in New York is the collapsing
infrastructure.  This is what people are actually interested in
talking about.  And we’ve had some rather surprising readings
from the population there in New York and northern New Jersey, in
the recent weeks.

SARE:  Sure.  We’ve had numbers of teams set up by the
roadside in New Jersey or right in the middle of the large
sidewalks in Manhattan, with giant signs saying “Defend Trump.
Stop Here.  Donald can’t do it alone, join LaRouche PAC.  The
U.S. must join the Belt and Road.  Russia-Gate Is a Comey Plot!”
And many people are coming up to our tables and we’re actually
getting a very hot response, much more intense than at any period
since the election, with people coming over saying, “You know, I
thought I was the only one.  The propaganda is so intense, I
don’t dare to say that I supported Trump at my workplace.”
We had a very strong response also in Connecticut, Long
Island, Jersey and Manhattan per se, where we are getting this
type of response.
And I also just wanted to add, in light of this crazy
continuing of the story about the alleged Russian hacking which
somehow caused people to change their mind on how they were
voting.  Remember we did just did have the special election for
Congress, in South Carolina and Georgia, where the Democratic
candidates, one of whom I think spent $33 million or some
absolutely obscene amount of money, and still lost the election.
And it’s not because the Republican candidates were so brilliant;
it’s because the population has really had it and this is where,
if President Trump moves in a very big way, very public way to
embrace the Chinese offer, to reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act so
we can have a sane banking system, and to launch some of these
infrastructure projects on a Federal basis, you would just see an
incredible upsurge of support.  And most of this vicious,
including assassination threats and so forth, these attacks on
the President, would simply evaporate and the people that persist
would be shown for the paid agents of the British Empire and
George Soros that they are.

OGDEN:  I think it was clearly said by Helga LaRouche:  We
have a very significant victory to claim, I think both in terms
of the further consolidation of this idea that the United States
should join the New Silk Road, and the fact that these
discussions are now going on at the very highest level between
the United States and China.  But also in terms of this fight for
Glass-Steagall and as Paul said, this is something that LaRouche
PAC has been directly involved in, on the forefront of leading
for year — 2008, 2009?  Lyndon LaRouche’s call at that time was
for a complete bankruptcy reorganization of the economy.  It was
initially the Homeowners and Bank Protection Act and that became
this idea of the Four Laws.

GALLAGHER: August 2007 was the Homeowners and Bank
Protection Act.

OGDEN:  That’s right. So now we’re coming up on 10 years!  I
think that’s widely recognized, the leadership that the LaRouche
movement has played, including on Capitol Hill from the sponsors
of this legislation.  So this decision now to mobilize and to
really enter into a brawl, the fight is on on that front and we
have a responsibility to pour as much as we can, from around the
country, in mobilizing on that front, too.
I think that’s a good conclusion for our webcast here,
today.  Thank you Diane, for joining us from New York, and thank
you very much Paul for joining me here.

GALLAGHER: A pleasure.

OGDEN:  Stay tuned to larouchepac.com and we’ll talk to you
soon.

»Briterne har altid haft magt over os ved at få os ind i krige på steder som Asien. Det er sådan, briterne kører verden; Det britiske Imperium har magten over verden ved hjælp af krige, på samme måde, som de fik imperiemagt, ved at få Europas tåbelige nationer til at gå i krig med hinanden i den såkaldte 70-års krig. Og Europas førende nationer gik i krig mod hinanden i 70 år! Mens briterne stod på sidelinjen og opmuntrede processen og grinede. Og så, i februar af 1763, i Freden i Paris, blev Det britiske Imperium erklæret som imperiet for et privat selskab ved navn Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni (British East India Company), og dette Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni overtog, og blev til, Det forenede Kongerige (UK), og har kørt lige siden frem til dets moderne modsvar – Britisk Ostindisk Kompagni gik selvfølgelig bankerot i en senere periode, der blev indført ændringer, som under Victoria; men princippet forblev det samme: med en maritim karakteristik, det var oprindelig bygget på den maritime magt over Middelhavet og bredte sig senere til Atlanterhavet. En søfartsmagt, der havde skabt magten over brugen af penge. Magtgrundlaget var penge. Magten over penge, som en imperieform. Al europæisk imperialisme, inklusive britisk imperialisme i dag, er ikke baseret på et land-territorium, men er baseret på magten over penge. Disse penge kontrolleres i realiteten af private interesser, af personer, der danner samlinger af private interesser, og som etablerer kontrol over penge, deres skabelse og management. Og nationalstater er underordnet denne internatonale pengekontrol. Det britiske Imperium, der udvikledes ud af denne proces, er intet andet end dette. Det er ikke et imperium, der består af befolkningen i UK. Det er et imperium, der består af et internationalt konsortium for denne type af interesser, hvis brug af magt over penge bruges til at have magt over nationer.«

Offentliggjort den 20. juni, 2017.

Lyndon LaRouche at his best—the only statesman alive today who pulls no punches identifying the British Empire. Here, an excerpt from a September 2009 webcast.
——–
This video is copyrighted by EIR News Service Inc. To encourage the widest distribution possible, we encourage you to spread it, repost it, and use it. We will only enforce our copyright if the video is altered in any way other than strict translation into another language or it is placed in a context, which in our sole judgement is racist or defamatory regarding any ethnic or religious group or person.

19. juni, 2017 – Schiller Instituttets internationale formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, skrev følgende erklæring til EIR Strategic Alert Service den 18. juni, to dage efter Helmut Kohl (CDU), der var Tysklands kansler fra 1982-1998, i perioden for Tysklands genforening, afgik ved døden.

»De forskellige vurderinger af Helmut Kohl som ’faderen af tysk genforening’ og ’den, der forudså et forenet Europa’ lyder mere som en PR-beskrivelse af den politisk korrekte opfattelse, som Kohls samtidige bør have af denne historiske periode, der faldt sammen med hans embedsperiode. Det, der fuldstændigt udelades, er de geopolitiske operationer, der udløstes imod Kohl, især i tiden for den tyske genforening, og som stadig i dag udspilles under andre former.

Det er Kohls fortjeneste, at, med udgivelsen af hans ’Ti-punkts-plan for en konføderation af de to Tysklande’ den 28. november, 1989, tog han det første, spæde skridt hen imod etableringen af tysk suverænitet, et skridt, som han ikke havde koordineret med de Allierede eller med sin koalitionspartner, daværende udenrigsminister Hans-Dietrich Genscher [FDP]. Et sandfærdigt billede må inkludere den kendsgerning, at mordet, to dage senere, på Alfred Herrhausen, daværende formand for Deutsche Bank og en nær rådgiver til Kohl, og som angiveligt udførtes af tredje generations Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF), havde til hensigt omgående at begrænse denne impuls til at opnå suverænitet.

Det, der ligeledes mangler i de mange kommentarer, er Margaret Thatchers hadefulde »Fjerde Rige Kampagne« imod Kohl, så vel som også François Mitterands trusler om krig i tilfælde af, at Kohl ikke var rede til at opgive Deutschmark som nationalvaluta som prisen, der skulle betales for genforeningen, og at acceptere begrænsningerne i Maastrichttraktatens spændetrøje og euroen, som det rapporteres af Jaques Attali i dennes biografi af Mitterand. Kohl beskrev senere det Europæiske Fællesskabs Topmøde i begyndelsen af december 1989 i Strasbourg, hvor han blev konfronteret med disse angreb, som en af hans livs mørkeste stunder. Ifølge hans egne udtalelser var det ikke, før han besøgte Dresden den 19. december, 1989, hvor befolkningen glædesstrålende råbte ’Helmut! Helmut!’, at han indså, at øjeblikket var kommet for tysk genforening.

Helmut Kohl var selvfølgelig også et levende vidne til de løfter, amerikanerne gav Mikhail Gorbatjov, og som blev rapporteret af daværende amerikanske ambassadør til Sovjetunionen, Jack Matlock, blandt andre, om, at NATO aldrig ville ekspandere frem til Ruslands grænser. For Kohl var den Kolde Krig afsluttet med opløsningen af Sovjetunionen, og det er yderst tvivlsomt, om han ville have været enig i den dæmonisering af Vladimir Putin, der har fundet sted i de senere år. Det faktum, at fr. Merkel nu anser sig selv for at være prokonsul for Barack Obamas politik for konfrontation, ville han sandsynligvis heller ikke have syntes om.«

Foto: Storbritanniens Margaret Thatcher; Tysklands Helmut Kohl; Frankrigs François Mitterand.

Storbritanniens ambassadør til Tyskland fra 1988 til 1992, Christopher Mallaby, om Kohl versus Thatcher: ’Det faldt dem ikke naturligt at nyde hinandens selskab’.

Af Hussein Askary, EIR’s redaktør for arabiske spørgsmål.

13. juni, 2017 – Alt imens det er korrekt, at Qatar finansielt, politisk og logistisk har støttet terroristgrupper og ekstremistiske prædikanter og anstiftere af vold, så er den nylige kampagne for at hænge Qatar ud som de eneste understøtter af terrorisme ikke alene absurd, med også farlig. Det faktum, at denne kampagnes spydspids er Saudi-Arabien, den unikt farligste understøtter af såkaldt islamisk terrorisme, og verdens vugge for Wahhabi-takfiri-jihadisme, gør det endnu mere surrealistisk og farligt. Det faktum, at denne kampagne fulgte i kølvandet på den amerikanske præsident Trumps besøg til Saudi-Arabien, hvor han den 21. maj mødtes med statsoverhoveder fra 50 muslimske lande for at erklære total krig mod terrorisme og ekstremisme, har fået Saudi-Arabien til at se ud som lederen af global krig mod terror og hævet det over enhver mistanke. Dette vil sløre virkeligheden for de fleste af verdens nationer og gøre dem sårbare over for saudiskstøttet terrorisme, der er fuldstændig koordineret, og har været det i århundreder, med britiske efterretningsinstitutioner. Den er ofte koordineret med amerikanske efterretningsorganisationer, enten ved, at de vender det blinde øje til disse aktiviteter, eller også fuldt ud deltager i dem. Dette er, hvad der skete under præsident Obama med invasionen af Libyen og angrebet på Syrien, gennem en aktiv støtte til de samme islamiske terroristgrupper, såsom al-Nusra Front, Jaish al-Islam og andre, som Qatar nu anklages for at støtte, og ved at tillade ISIS at vokse og blive en betydningsfuld aktør i området og i verden.

Den britisk-saudiske involvering i angrebene på USA den 11. september, 2001, er velkendt, om end endnu ikke efterforsket til bunds, idet man afventer implementeringen af JASTA-loven [Loven om Juridisk Retsforfølgelse af Sponsorer af Terrorisme] ved de amerikanske domstole, for at stille saudiske regeringsfolk for amerikanske domstole.

Mange af de Qatar-baserede 59 personer og 12 grupper, der den 7. juni af Saudi-Arabien og dets allierede, de Forenede Arabiske Emirater (FAE), Egypten og Bahrain, blev opført på listen over terrorister, såsom den islamiske prædikant Sheikh Almed al-Qaradhawi, var hyppige besøgende i Saudi-Arabien og modtog rigelig støtte fra landet indtil for nylig. Alt imens Egypten og de libyske regeringer har legitime grunde til at støtte opførelsen af Qaradhawi og det Muslimske Broderskab (MB) på listen over terrorister, så spiller Saudi-Arabien og FAE til gengæld et skummelt spil. De to sidstnævnte støtter aktivt den yemenitiske gren af MB, al-Islah-partiet, der er kraftigt involveret i krigen mod Yemen i den saudiskledede koalition.

Saudi-Arabien er ligeledes et stærk støtte af det Syriske Muslimske Broderskab, der er den indfødte syriske hovedgruppe, efter al-Nusra og ISIS. Saudi-Arabien havde faktisk opført MB på terroristlisten i 2014, men fortsatte med selektivt at støtte dets forskellige grene i overensstemmelse med briternes og Obamas dagsorden for regimeskifte og destabilisering af hele regionen.

Hele denne situation bør ses i den større, korrekte sammenhæng for at forstå og håndtere denne ikke-lokale krise.

Der er et nyt paradigme, der udvikler sig i verden, og som anføres af Rusland, Kina og deres allierede i BRIKS-nationerne og Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen. Rent økonomisk repræsenteres dette nye paradigme af »Ét Bælte, én Vej-initiativet«, der er i færd med at revolutionere verdensøkonomien. Politisk og militært har Ruslands intervention i Syrien, siden september 2015, bragt en afslutning af de anglo-amerikanske doktriner for regimeskifte. De anglo-saudisk-qatarsk-amerikanske styrker (inkl. alle de ovennævnte terroristgrupper), der har hærget i Vestasien og Nordafrika, i det mindste siden invasionen af Irak i 2003, og udbruddet af det orkestrerede »Arabiske Forår«, er nu i færd med at miste deres fodfæste og de fleste af deres stillinger. ISIS er netop nu i færd med at blive systematisk elimineret i Irak og Syrien af to koalitionssammensætninger: 1. Den russisk-iransk-Hezbollah-støttede Syriske Nationale Hær inde i Syrien, med yderligere en amerikanskstøttet (under Trump) blanding af kurdisk-arabiske styrker i det østlige Syrien. 2. Af den iranskstøttede irakisk hær og militser på stedet i Irak, med en vis luftstøtte fra USA’s Luftvåben.

Saudi-Arabien og FAE har viklet sig ind ud i et sandt hængedynd i Yemen, i en krig, der har skabt en af de værste, humanitære katastrofer i dette lands historie, hvor de har begået krigsforbrydelser og støttet de samme, ovennævnte terroristgrupper i kampen mod den nationale hær i Sana’a og dens allierede, Ansarullah-bevægelsen (Houthier). Den saudisk-FAE-ledede koalition har ikke opnået nogen af deres mål i Yemen, og kan ikke trække sig tilbage. På den anden side, så oplever EU og den vestlige verden en af de største finansielle og økonomiske kriser, siden 1930’erne.

Det faktum, at præsident Trump har selv en antydning af overvejelser om at gå sammen med Rusland og Kina om udformningen af en ny, politisk og økonomisk orden, giver de imperialistiske fraktioner i USA, og i Storbritannien og dets satrapper i Golfen, mareridt. Med et Mellemøsten, som er den letteste region, i hvilken man kan begynde krige, er det saudiske træk ildevarslende.

Under Trumps topmøde i Riyadh med de muslimske ledere, blev Iran erklæret for at være hovedkilden til terrorisme og ustabilitet i området, og i verden. Den saudiske vicekronprins, Muhammed bin Salman, hævdede den 3. maj, at Iran har til hensigt at tage kontrol over de hellige steder i Saudi-Arabien, og at hans land i stedet ville føre krigen ind i den iranske lejr. Den saudiske udenrigsminister Adel al-Jubeir svor, under sit besøg i Frankrig den 7. juni, at straffe Iran. Selv samme dag angreb en gruppe, med forbindelse til ISIS, det iranske parlament og Ayatollah Khomeinis mausoleum i Teheran, den værste terrorhandling i Iran i mere end to årtier. Iranske regeringsfolk rettede omgående fingeren mod Saudi-Arabien som værende dem, der rekrutterede terrorister, selv om efterretningsminister Mahmoud Alavi senere sagde, at det stadig var for tidligt at vurdere, om Saudi-Arabien spillede en rolle i angrebene.

Hensigten synes at være den at trække USA ind i endnu en katastrofal konflikt i regionen på vegne af sine allierede, og at forhindre ethvert samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland. En anden, potentiel konsekvens af en dramatisk optrappet krigstilstand i Golfen kunne føre til en total katastrofe for de asiatiske, økonomiske giganter Kina, Japan, Sydkorea og Indien, der er stærkt afhængige af daglige udskibninger af olie og gas fra Golfen. Mellem 80 % og 85 % af alle de ca. 17 millioner tønder olie, der passerer igennem det meget lille Hormuzstræde hver dag, sejler til ovennævnte lande. Qatar og Iran er de største producenter og eksportører af naturgas til Asien, ud over Rusland. Enhver afbrydelse af denne strøm kunne betyde en ubeskrivelig krise for disse lande og verdensøkonomien. Dette er en af de største afpresningsoperationer, som de anglo-amerikanske styrker holder mod Asien.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 13. juni, 2017 – Mandag skar Lyndon LaRouche igennem al snak frem og tilbage om infrastruktur – og hysteriet omkring ’Russia-gate’ – og understregede: Statskredit! Se at få udbetalingerne i gang! Om nødsituationen i New York sagde han: »Der skal omgående udstedes statslig finansiering til byggeri af ny infrastruktur i New York City. Staten (i USA, ’federal government’, -red.) må gå ind og overtage krisen; det er den eneste kilde til en lovmæssig form for kredit til dette problem … Vi har hørt nok tale uden konkrete specifikationer, uden, at der kommer reelle betalinger på bordet. Det skal vedtages – både midlerne, og deres anvendelse – nu.«

Uden for New York City – som udgør en vigtig national krise, og hvis løsning hele nationaløkonomien afhænger af – indløber der dagligt anmodninger om indgriben pga. de forfaldne tilstande inden for transport, vand, elektricitet og alle andre nødvendige, offentlige tjenesteydelser.

I går var senator Bob Casey (Dem.-Pennsylvania) ved Monongahela-floden (nær Pittsburgh) for at opfordre Kongressen og præsident Trump til at finansiere restaureringen af tre gamle sluser, før der sker en fatal fejlfunktion. Disse strukturer daterer sig tilbage til 1917, på en vandvej, der endnu i dag, f.eks., fører 6 million tons kul om året til U.S. Steel koksovnene i Clairton til det, der er tilbage af områdets stålindustri. Restaureringen af sluserne begyndte for 25 år siden og er endnu i dag ikke færdig efter gentagne udskydelser. Senator Casey fremlægger imidlertid ingen overordnet plan for, hvordan de nødvendige arbejder skal finansieres.

Der er ikke muligt, at nogle af de punkter, der ofte tales om – det være sig partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og privatsektoren (PPP’er), lokal- eller delstatsfinansiering, og heller ikke ’frimarkeds-wing-dings’, kan, eller vil, finansiere en genrejsning af nationaløkonomien. Wall Streets krav om 10 + % i afkast, der skal komme fra bompenge, told, afgifter, billetter osv., er fuldstændig umuligt. »Få kendsgerningerne i orden« omkring dette, som LaRouche atter i dag understregede.

Vi må løfte folk op til den rette fremgangsmåde. Dette begynder med at genindføre Glass-Steagall til beskyttelse af gavnlig, kommerciel bankvirksomhed, og fryse spekulativ finansvirksomhed ud; etablér dernæst en statslig, national kreditinstitution og udsted statslig og privat kredit til storstilede, prioriterede projekter og aktiviteter, og lancér en videnskabsmotor til fremme af rumforskning og forskning i fusionskraft.

I New York City responderer ’folk på gaden’ med stor forbløffelse og lettelse til ideen, ’Vi kan gøre dette her!’ Til gengæld stikker fjenderne af denne fremgangsmåde så meget desto mere grelt ud.

I Senatet i dag var finansminister Steven Mnuchin ’en rotte i hjørnet’ mht. Glass-Steagall. Under en høring om statsbudgettet responderede han til spørgsmål fra senator Bernie Sanders (Uafh.-Vermont) ved at sige, at der er tre forskellige »Lovforslag til det 21. Århundredes Glass-Steagall«, og han er modstander af sen. Elizabeths Warrens lovforslag om genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og også forslaget fra Republikanernes partiprogram. Mnuchin sagde, at der ikke bør være nogen tvungen adskillelse mellem kommerciel bankvirksomhed og investeringsbankvirksomhed: »Vi mener, det ville skade økonomien, at det ville ødelægge likviditeten på markedet.« Med andre ord, Mnuchin er en dræber. Han støtter med fuldt overlæg finansielle betingelser, der fører til tab af liv og tab af fremtid for nationen.

I direkte opposition så vi lidt af »ånden fra Silkevejen« i Iowa i går. Under et Iowa-Kina-symposium i Des Moines blev et forståelsesmemo underskrevet mellem repræsentanter for kinesiske og amerikanske tænketanke om at fortsætte med at udveksle ideer for sammen at fremme deres respektive økonomier. Den kinesiske generalkonsul fra Chicago rapporterede om kinesisk involvering i varefremstilling, handel og landbrugsanliggender i de ni midtvestlige delstater, som han relaterer til. Trump-administrationen annoncerede færdiggørelsen af Kina-USA-handelstraktaten, under hvilken amerikanske eksport af oksekød til Kina nu kan begynde. Xinhua, CGTN og andre kinesiske medier spørger, ’Er Iowa-Kina modellen for den nye amerikansk-kinesiske relation?’

Den 21. juni vil Trump tale i Cedar Rapids, Iowa, ved et møde i anledning af Terry Branstads, den tidligere guvernør for Iowa, udsendelse til Kina som den nye amerikanske ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er mangeårig ven til præsident Xi Jinping.

Vi opfordrer folk til at hæve sig op over, og besejre, Trumpgate/Russiagate-operationen og den onde, britiske imperieflok, der står bag den. Som Vladimir Putin sagde herom, i første afsnit af hans interview til Oliver Stone i går aftes: Den anti-russiske hype i USA er tåbelig. Det kan måske give dem en fordel på kort sigt, men problemet med dem er, at de nægter at se 25, 50 år ud i fremtiden og konsekvenserne af deres handlinger. Vi må have samarbejde.

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche, her i diskussion med Diane Sare og Michael Steger fra LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. 

Korte artikler fra hele verden; i dette nummer bl. a.:

 

• Visioner om fremtidens rumforskning kontra realisering
• Samarbejde med Europa fører USA nærmere Månen
• Putin afviser globalt opvarmnings-nonsens

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. juni, 2017 – Paris-»klimaaftalen«, som præsident Donald Trump har trukket USA ud af, er ikke »verdensordenen«, uanset, hvor meget, medierne i USA og Europa ønsker, folk skal gøre knæfald for den. Livet uden kulstoffer er ikke vejen frem for menneskeheden eller planeten. Derimod er mennesket, der nu hastigt rykker ud i Solsystemet, vejen frem.

Den reelt succesfulde, nye verdensorden, der nu konsolideres, er et økonomisk og videnskabeligt system for samarbejde: den Nye Silkevej. Det er de accelererende investeringer og udarbejdelse af transformerende, nye infrastrukturprojekter og videnskabelige fremskridt, der knyttes sammen under Kinas initiativ, over hele Eurasien, Afrika og ligeledes planlagt for Sydamerika. »Marshallplanen gange 20«, kalder nogen det. Det er en orden, der mere og mere støttes af Rusland og andre store nationer, så vel som mange andre, fordi det reelt udløser økonomisk fremskridt, produktivitet, ny beskæftigelse, til gensidig fordel for alle deltagende nationer. Som »Silkevejsdamen«, Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, siger, så er det i færd med at blive til Verdenslandbroen. Det er således åbent for USA at gå med i og genopbygge, men også kraftigt udvide og modernisere, sin egen økonomiske infrastruktur og industri.

Præsident Trump gør absolut det rigtige med sin plan om, at USA skal samarbejde fuldt ud med Kina og Rusland. Og med sin hensigt om, at USA atter skal blive en stor industrimagt, en stor videnskabelig og teknologisk magt, en stor rumforskningsmagt, der samarbejder med de andre rumfartsnationer.

»Dette er planer – hvad er hans resultater?«, siger kommentatorerne. Dette spørgsmål bør rettes til det amerikanske folk. Kina og andre eurasiske magter er i færd med at opbygge højhastigheds- og magnetisk levitations- (maglev)systemer, udforske Månen inklusive dens bagside, lægge planer for Mars, lægge planer for omsider at omspænde Afrika og Sydamerika med højhastighedsjernbaner og elektricitetsnetværk, bygge små, mobile, flydende kernkraftværker …

Tror amerikanere, når de håndterer spørgsmålet om infrastruktursammenbrud, økonomisk fortvivlelse og opiat-epidemier, på, at disse ting kan gøres? Det er det virkelige spørgsmål med hensyn til præsident Trumps planer, og resultater.

Det er det amerikanske folk, der må få Glass-Steagall vedtaget i Kongressen for at standse Wall Street i at kværke USA’s økonomi. Det amerikanske folk må kræve »økonomisk politik i den amerikanske tradition«; og en omgående oprettelse af en nationalbank til infrastruktur. Flere amerikanere end nogen sinde før forsøger at blive NASA-astronauter. Men, det er det amerikanske folk, der må kræve et hastigt udvidet rumforskningsprogram og nye teknologier omkring fusionskraft.

Amerika må gå med i den Nye Silkevej. Præsident Trump har en plan – glem hans foreløbige resultater – og dette er, hvad det amerikanske folk må gøre, hvis de ønsker, USA atter skal blive stort.

Foto: Præsident Trump meddeler 1. juni, at USA trækker sig ud af Paris-Klimaaftalen.

24. maj, 2017 – I en tale for et publikum på mellem 100 og 200 mennesker i forlaget Phoenix Press Publishing Groups hovedkvarter i Nanjing, Kina, gav Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets præsident, en tilbagemelding om sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing.

»Bælt & Vej har indsprøjtet optimisme i mange lande«, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, »og dette momentum kan ikke standses«, men at bringe det til at bære den fulde frugt »bliver ikke let«. Umiddelbart efter topmødet, fortsatte hun, optrappedes angrebene mod Bælt & Vej, kombineret med angreb mod præsident Trump, der havde sendt en delegation på højt niveau til BV-topmødet. »Angrebene var baseret på de absurde anklager om aftalt spil med Rusland i valget«, sagde hun.

»Efter den Kolde Krig, ønskede briterne og deres amerikanske allierede at skabe en unipolær verden«, sagde hun. »Og i deres bestræbelser herpå, har de ødelagt Mellemøsten og efterladt det i ruiner.« Dette fremskyndede flygtningekrisen, den generelle reaktion imod »globalisering« og fremvæksten af højrefløjsbevægelser. »Bælt & Vej«, sagde hun, »vil virkeliggøre skabelsen af Verdenslandbroen, som vil forbinde alle kontinenter. Dette er noget, vi har kæmpet for i over 40 år«, sagde hun.

Dernæst beskrev hun den kamp, som hun og hendes mand, Lyndon H. LaRouche, jr., har ført for at bygge en ny, økonomisk verdensorden: LaRouches forslag om en International Udviklingsbank, kampen for den afrikanske udviklingsplan og det latinamerikanske initiativ med samme formål, med samarbejdet med den mexicanske præsident, José López Portillo [1976-82], samt de hundredevis af seminarer på fem kontinenter, som Schiller Instituttet har afholdt, med krav om en Bælt & Vej-udvikling.

»Transformeringen af Bælt & Vej til at blive til en Verdenslandbro vil for første gang rent politisk virkeliggøre en reel fremtid for alle mennesker, der lever på denne planet, og vil etablere former for regeringsførelse for verden.« Men, for fuldt ud at realisere dette, sagde hun, »må man også studere min mands ideer med hensyn til spørgsmålet om økonomi«.

Fr. Zepp-LaRouche gennemgik dernæst de altafgørende kulturelle aspekter af Bælt & Vej og behovet for, at alle de forskellige kulturer bringer alle deres bedste præstationer frem, med det formål at bruge disse til at skabe en dialog mellem kulturer blandt nationerne i Bælt & Vej. Dernæst gennemgik hun betydningen af Friedrich Schiller i tysk og vestlig kultur, og betydningen af Konfucius i kinesisk kultur, idet hun foretog en konkret sammenligning mellem Schillers og Konfucius’ værker, hvor hun viste den nære lighed i disse to, store tænkeres ideer, der var skilt af næsten 2000 år.

Efter fr. Zepp-LaRouche havde Bill Jones, chef for EIR’s Washington-kontor, en fremlæggelse, hvor han viste en power point-præsentation, der beskrev LaRouche-organisationens kamp fra tidspunktet for Nixons ophævelse af Bretton Woods-systemet. Han beskrev Romklubbens angreb i 1970’erne og udgivelsen af bogen »Grænser for vækst«, der havde til hensigt at transformere en fremskridtskultur til en dødskultur, med den internationale indsats for Økonomisk Nulvækst og Befolknings-nulvækst. Han skitserede Lyndon LaRouches og LaRouche-organisationens reaktion på Nulvækst-bevægelsen, LaRouches krav om den Internationale Udviklingsbank (IUB) og det efterfølgende krav om IUB og en Ny, økonomisk Verdensorden ved den Alliancefri Bevægelses Colombo-møde i 1976, og gennem Guyanas udenrigsminister, Fred Willis, i FN’s Generalforsamling.

Jones beskrev den kamp, som LaRouche førte for at bringe præsident Ronald Reagan, der havde vedtaget LaRouches idé om Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI (Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ) som et fredsforslag sammen med Sovjetunionen, ind i en arbejdsrelation med de progressive ledere i udviklingssektoren, såsom den mexicanske præsident López Portillo og den indiske premierminister Indira Gandhi. Disse bestræbelser førte dernæst til en reaktion fra vicepræsident George H.W. Bush, der intrigerede for at få LaRouche og flere af hans medarbejdere fængslet på falske anklager. Valget af præsident Bill Clinton bragte LaRouche ud af fængsel og tilbage i en rådgivende rolle, med præsident Clintons forsøg, om end mislykket, på at gå i retning af en ny finansarkitektur. Skabelsen af Bælt & Vej-initiativet (BVI) og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) repræsenterer således den type strukturer, som LaRouche og hans bevægelse har forsøgt at frembringe i over fire årtier, forklarede Jones.

Dernæst fulgte professor Bao Shixiu, professor i militærvidenskab, der skitserede Bælt & Vejs strategiske betydning for Kina og viste, hvordan det vil gøre det muligt for landet at overvinde de traditionelle vanskeligheder, det har haft med andre lande, inklusive Indien og Japan. Professor Bao understregede LaRouche-parrets skelsættende rolle med at bringe dette initiativ frem i forreste front, og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches fortsatte kamp for at overvinde modstanden mod det, fra finanseliten i London og New York. Professor Bao fremlagde også både Bælt & Vejs økonomiske og strategiske implikationer for Kina, som ville være med til at sikre et harmonisk klima i området og i verden, der igen ville gøre det muligt for Kina og alle andre lande at fortsat udvikle sig.

Tilhørerne viste stor interesse, især for Helga Zepp-LaRouches forslag om en dialog mellem kulturer og en større grad af interesse i Friedrich Schillers værker blandt personalet i Phoenix-forlaget, af hvilke nogle syntes at have fået et ret stort kendskab til den tyske kulturs værker.

Foto: Som præsident for Schiller Instituttet var Helga Zepp-LaRouche inviteret til at deltage i det netop afsluttede Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, hvor hun deltog i rundbordsdiskussioner mellem tænketanke. Her ses hun som tilhører under forummet.

14. maj, 2017 – I sin artikel, »Momentum for Bælt & Vej-Initiativ vokser med utrolig kraft«, fremlægger China Daily’s engelske udgave også Schiller Instituttets stifter og leder, Helga Zepp-LaRouches vurderinger af Bælt & Vej Forum (BVF).

Helga Zepp-LaRouche kaldte Bælt & Vej-initiativet (BVI) »en ny dynamik med et nu voksende momentum. De personer, der sagde, at Bælt & Vej-initiativet ville bryde sammen, har nu beviseligt taget fejl, for statistikkerne viser nu, at det er blevet verdensøkonomiens motor for vækst – ja faktisk, den eneste motor for vækst.«

I den mest dristige udtalelse karakteriserede Zepp-LaRouche initiativets art: »Kina har haft en utrolig økonomisk udvikling i løbet af de seneste 30 år, og det, som Bælt & Vej-initiativet på en vis måde gør, er, at det gør det muligt for Kina at eksportere dette mirakel.« Og, sagde hun, »initiativet har allerede ændret dynamikken omkring mange af brændpunkterne i verdens kriseområder«.

Tyrkiets præsident Tayyip Erdogan gav i sin hovedtale udtryk for, at han var enig i denne indsigt, da han udtalte, at »Dette [BVI] vil blive et initiativ, der vil gøre en ende på terrorisme«.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede over for China Daily, at Kina havde vist, det var førende på verdensplan mht. højhastigheds-jernbanesystemer, som landet frem til år 2025 vil have 40.000 km af, og som det begyndte at opbygge i 2006. Hun bemærkede den elendige tilstand, som USA’s transportinfrastruktur befinder sig i, og at kinesisk ekspertise kunne hjælpe USA med at efterligne et sådant højhastigheds-jernbanenet. Hun bemærkede, at der var »positive tegn« under Trump-Xi-topmødet på Mar-a-Lago, Florida, »og, alt imens hr. Trump ikke selv er til stede ved Forummet, så er der planlagt et snarligt besøg til Kina«, sagde hun.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche ses her som deltager og taler på topmødet ‘T20’ – Tænketank 20 – i Beijing, 29. juli, 2016. 

 

11. maj, 2017 – København: Efter Lars Løkke Rasmussens nylige officielle besøg i Kina, hvor han drøftede Bælt & Vej-initiativet med præsident Xi Jinping, er Danmarks delegation til Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing den 14.-15. maj blevet opgraderet. Minister for ligestilling og nordisk samarbejde, Karen Ellemann, rejser i morgen til Kina som statsministerens særlige repræsentant, for at deltage i Forummet. Det var oprindeligt departementschefen for Transportministeriet, der skulle have ledet delegationen.

Inden Lars Løkke Rasmussens rejse til Kina, skrev det kinesiske nyhedsbureau Xinhua den 30. april:

»Rasmussen sagde, at Kinas Bælt & Vej-initiativ er en meget interessant, diplomatisk strategi. At yderligere forbinde Europa med Asien gennem handel og bilateralt samarbejde kan forhåbentlig være en fremtidig dynamo for vækst og fremgang for begge kontinenter«, sagde statsministeren …

I interviewet sagde Rasmussen, at initiativet forhåbentlig kan give økonomisk stabilitet og udvikling for Central- og Sydasien – indgangsporte mellem Østasien og Europa.

»Dette vil være af afgørende betydning for handel mellem de to største koncentrationer af økonomisk magt«, sagde han og tilføjede, at Danmark, som en af verdens fremmeste søfartsnationer, allerede i flere århundreder har været engageret i at forbinde kontinenterne.

»Danmark er blevet inviteret til at deltage i Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde, der afholdes i Beijing den 14.-15. maj. Vi vil deltage og med glæde bidrage positivt, både på politisk og erhvervsniveau under konferencen«, sagde Rasmussen.

Under statsministerens besøg i Kina blev der indgået mange aftaler, der vil intensivere det strategiske partnerskab mellem Danmark og Kina, som blev indgået i 2008. Danmark er fortsat det eneste af de nordiske lande, der har et strategisk partnerskab med Kina.

Foto: Minister for ligestilling og nordisk samarbejde, Karen Ellemann, rejser til Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing som særlig repræsentant for statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen.

EIR-video, 9. maj, 2017:

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: ’Hvis vi kan overbevise præsident Trump om at tage imod tilbuddet om at gå sammen med Kina og de andre nationer omkring den Nye Silkevej, så kan han blive en af de største præsidenter i USA’s historie.’ Dette initiativ, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, blev officielt lanceret af Kina i 2013. Det er en politik for gensidigt fordelagtig infrastrukturkonnektivitet, for fælles udviklingsprogrammer. Foreløbig omfatter programmerne og de igangværende arbejder flere end 60 nationer og berører flere end 4 milliard mennesker – flertallet af menneskeheden – og med planer om infrastrukturinvesteringer til $20 billion. Dette er et enormt projekt. Disse programmer har potentialet til at fjerne fattigdom på planeten inden for én generation; fuldstændigt og totalt at fjerne lokal fattigdom overalt.

Jason Ross:

»Det ville være den største fejltagelse nogensinde, hvis USA ikke benyttede sig af Bælt & Vej Forum, der finder sted i Beijing, Kina, om en uge (14.-15. maj) – den største fejltagelse nogensinde. Denne begivenhed vil samle repræsentanter fra over 100 nationer, inkl. den direkte deltagelse af næsten 30 statsoverhoveder, og man vil diskutere vor generations største projekt: Bælt & Vej-initiativet.

Foreløbig er der ingen meddelelse om, eller noget, der peger på, at præsident Trump eller andre repræsentanter for USA vil deltage, men:

(Helga Zepp-LaRouche)

’Hvis vi kan overbevise præsident Trump om at tage imod tilbuddet om at gå sammen med Kina og de andre nationer omkring den Nye Silkevej, så kan han blive en af de største præsidenter i USA’s historie.’

Dette initiativ, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, blev officielt lanceret af Kina i 2013. Det er en politik for gensidigt fordelagtig infrastruktur-konnektivitet, for fælles udviklingsprogrammer. Foreløbig omfatter programmerne og de igangværende arbejder flere end 60 nationer og berører flere end 4 milliard mennesker – flertallet af menneskeheden – og med planer om infrastrukturinvesteringer til $20 billion. Det udgør 2 til 3 gange den investering, det ville kræve totalt at genoplive den amerikanske infrastruktur. Det udgør 20 gange de $1 billion, som Trump foreløbig har krævet. Dette er et enormt projekt. Disse programmer har potentialet til at fjerne fattigdom på planeten inden for én generation; fuldstændigt og totalt at fjerne lokal fattigdom overalt. I løbet af de seneste par årtier har Kina allerede undergået en fænomenal udvikling,

(udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson)

’Kina begyndte virkelig at føle sig entusiastisk på det tidspunkt, og med rette, de har opnået meget; de har flyttet 500 millioner kinesere væk fra fattigdom og ind middelklassestatus.’

(præsident Trump)

’Og jeg havde et langt møde med Kinas præsident i Florida, og vi havde lange, lange diskussioner, i mange, mange timer. Han er en god mand.’

Kina springer fremad med sin egen udvikling og arbejder sammen med sine naboer gennem kinesiske investeringer, gennem staten, gennem foretagender, og gennem ny finansiering gennem institutioner som Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), Den Nye Udviklingsbank (BRIKS-banken) og Silkevejsfonden, som alle er mekanismer, der er skabt efter 2013; og store projekter i enorm skala er nu mulige.

(Richard Trifan)

’Dette er et historisk projekt, som I alle ved; det er sandsynligvis den største, globale præstation, der er analog med vores ekspansion ud i rummet og til Månen og andre planeter. Det er sandsynligvis det mest omfattende initiativ, som mange nationer vil samarbejde omkring.’

Lad os foretage en rundtur. Med udgangspunkt i Asien er der seks udviklingskorridorer, som Kina har foreslået, for veje, jernbaner, vandveje, elektricitet, kommunikation, sammen med blød kommunikation, såsom uddannelse, fælles toldsatser og kulturelle udvekslinger. Disse korridorer er i øjeblikket under opførelse i varierende grader. Lad os f. eks. se på den Økonomiske Kina-Pakistan-korridor: den er i øjeblikket under massiv opbygning; den vil bringe 10 gigawatt elektricitet til Pakistan – det rækker til millioner af mennesker, 10 millioner eller mere – en ny havn i Gwadar (ud til Oman Golfen), med hundrede tusinder af jobs undervejs, blot for dette ene byggeprojekt, og generelt mere udenlandsk investering i Pakistan, end denne nation samlet set har fået i de sidste par årtier.

Lad os se på havet: Det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej, som bl.a. omfatter at udgrave en kanal gennem Kra-landtangen i Thailand. Dette er et enormt og nødvendigt projekt for at aflaste det overtrafikerede Malaccastræde, og for at bringe økonomiske muligheder til Thailand og Sydøstasien generelt. Denne idé, der har været foreslået i årtier, har nu en reel mulighed for at blive bygget inden for det nuværende årti.

Den Eurasiske Landbro, der når til Europa, transporterer stadigt voksende mængder af jernbanegods, med togafgange for godstog mod vest, der dagligt ankommer i Europa og vender tilbage til Kina med europæiske varer.

Hvis vi ser på Afrika, så har vi for nylig set åbningen af Addis Abeba-Djibouti jernbanen som blot et enkelt eksempel på den meget påtrængende nødvendige udvikling, som nu er mulig; som nu finder sted i Afrika, hvor investering i infrastruktur og industri og landbrug nu når nye højder, det meste af det fra Kina.

Hvis vi bevæger os mod øst, krydser vi Beringstrædet og bevæger os fra Asien og ind i Nordamerika, fra Rusland til Alaska. En rute over land, der muliggøres af denne Beringstrædeforbindelse, vil være hurtigere end transport med skib, og gør det muligt at udvikle området langs ruten. Det Arktiske Område har enorme resurser, der i øjeblikket er næsten fuldstændigt utilgængelige. Byggeriet af den nødvendige infrastruktur og selveste Beringstrædeforbindelsen vil være en storstilet infrastrukturpræstation. Dernæst vil et genopbygget, amerikansk infrastrukturfundament, et netværk af jernbaner, veje, en platform med ny, højdensitetskraftværker, kernekraft; havne, sluser, dæmninger; skoler og andre offentlige bygninger og offentlige værker, gøre det muligt for USA at opnå et nyt produktivitetsniveau, og have mere at bidrage med til verdenssamfundet og få fordel af verdenssamfundet.

Hvis vi nu bevæger os sydpå, så er der p.t. ingen transportmuligheder over land fra Nord- til Sydamerika. Man kan ikke køre til Sydamerika – det er ikke muligt. Der er en afbrydelse, kendt som Darien Gap. Når vi endelig får bygget denne forbindelse på blot nogle få dusin mil, vil vi endelig forbinde de amerikanske kontinenter som helhed. I Mellemamerika er ny finansiering, også fra Kina, ligeledes i færd med at muliggøre en sekundær Panamakanal, kunne man sige, med igangværende byggeri og forberedelse i Nicaragua.

I Sydamerika er en bi-oceanisk korridor, der strækker sig fra Peru til Brasilien, fra Stillehavet til Atlanterhavet via Bolivia, på planlægningsstadiet.

Så stor en del af verden arbejder i øjeblikket sammen, med fælles udvikling og en fælles fremtid med fremgang, værdighed og videnskabelige præstationer som mål. Vil USA tilslutte sig? Vi er blevet inviteret med åbne arme:

(Meifang Zhang)

’Sidst, men ikke mindst, vil jeg gerne citere Xi for at sige, at Kina byder USA velkommen til at deltage i samarbejdet inden for rammerne af Bælt & Vej-initiativet … Begge lande bør virkelig gribe disse muligheder.’

Lad os tage imod denne invitation. Om et hundrede år vil USA i tilbageblik være så lykkelig for, at vi gjorde det.«

Dansk udskrift, engelske undertekster.

Verden ser på Kina, der gør klar til at være vært for Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde midt i maj, 2017.

Xi: Under mit besøg til Kasakhstan og Indonesien i 2013, foreslog jeg, at vi i fællesskab byggede det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og det 21. Århundredes Maritime Silkevej, hhv.

Shaanxi, min hjemprovins, er beliggende ved udgangspunktet for den Gamle Silkevej. Når jeg står her og ser tilbage på historien, føler jeg, at jeg kan høre lyden af kamelernes bjælder, der klinger gennem bjergene, og se røgskyer hen over ørkenen. Det føles alt sammen så bekendt. Fredelig udvikling har fra gammel tid været et fælles mål for menneskeheden.

[Caption]:

Krig

Sult

Rigdomssvælg

Økonomisk nedgang

Xi: Nutidens verden er fuld af usikre elementer. Folk har håb for fremtiden, men er samtidig forvirret.

[Caption:]

Nogle lande, der engang var fremgangsrige og fulde af travlhed, er nu synonyme med vanskeligheder, konflikt og krise.

Xi: Hvad er der sket med verden? Hvad skal vi gøre? Hele verden stiller disse spørgsmål, og jeg tænker hele tiden på dem.

[Captions:]

Politisk konnektivitet

Handelsmæssig konnektivitet

Infrastruktur-konnektivitet

Xi: Jeg foreslog Bælt & Vej-initiativet i håbet om, at, med fokus på konnektivitet – forbundethed – vil den frie og belejlige strøm af alle produktionselementer blive opmuntret, multi-dimensionalt samarbejde udviklet og gensidige fordele og fælles udvikling opnået.

Bælt & Vej-initiativet drager inspiration fra Oldtidens Silkevej og har til hensigt at være med til at virkeliggøre den fælles drøm hos mennesker over hele verden om fred og udvikling.

Lysende af Østens visdom er det en plan, som Kina tilbyder verden for at søge fælles fremgang og udvikling.

Bælt & Vej-initiativet bygger på principperne om udstrakt konsultation, fælles bidrag og fælles fordele.

[Caption:]

Usbekistan: Qamchiq-tunnelen, en del af Angren-Pap jernbanelinjen.

Xi: Initiativet er ikke ekskluderende, men må være åbent og inkluderende. Initiativet vil ikke blive en soloopførelse fra Kinas side, men et kor bestående af alle lande langs ruterne.

[Captions:]

Belarus: Kina-Belarus Great Stone Industripark.

Kina-Rusland Samarbejdsprojekter

Maldiverne: Kina-Maldiverne Venskabsbro

Malaysia: Fragt over havet

Grækenland: Havnen i Piræus

Sri Lanka: Puttalam Kulkraftværk

Storbritannien: Kina-Europa Godstog

Etiopien-Djibouti: Addis Abeba-Djibouti jernbanen

Kasakhstan: Let Jernbanetransportsystem i Astana

Xi: I over tre år har flere end 100 lande og internationale organisationer responderet positivt og tilbud støtte til initiativet.

Initiativets »Venskabskreds« er blevet ved med at udvides.

[Captions:]

Fiji: Nabouwalu-Dreketi hovedvejen

Pakistan: Karakoram hovedvejen

Xi: En stor sag bør forfølges for det almene vel. Lad os tage hinanden fastere i hånden og smede nye partnerskaber, karakteriseret af win-win-samarbejde, og bygge et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid.

Det er de modige, der skaber historie. Lad os være tillidsfulde, gribe til handling og gå fremad, hånd i hånd.

[Caption:]

»Bælt & Vej«

Lige fra begyndelsen havde Schiller
Instituttet den idé, at vi måtte have en
retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden;
men at det aldrig ville fungere, hvis det ikke
blev forbundet med en renæssance af
klassisk kultur. 

Det, jeg vil tale om, er ideen om den højeste menneskehed, det fælles filosofiske grundlag for vestlig og asiatisk kultur … Præsident Xi Jinpings håbefulde vision for det, han altid kalder et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid … er blevet vedtaget som en resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd. … Med dette koncept er et strategisk initiativ, som kan erstatte den krigsskabende geopolitik med idealet om en forenet menneskehed, sat på dagordenen

Download (PDF, Unknown)