Tom Gillesberg til Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg den 1. marts: Vi står netop nu med en enestående mulighed for at sikre, at den langvarige mareridtsagtige proces med krig og ødelæggelse, der har præget Mellemøsten i årtier, og som har spredt sig til Europa og resten af verden i form af terror fra Islamisk Stat og en flygtningebølge, der er ved at løbe Europa over ende, kan bringes til ophør og erstattes af et nyt paradigme for fred gennem fælles økonomisk udvikling.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

4. marts 2016 – I en artikel i bladet Russlandkontrovers skrev Matthias Platzeck, formand for Tysk-Russisk Forum, at økonomiske og politiske relationer med Rusland ikke må få lov til at forværres yderligere. Sanktionerne imod Rusland har gjort landets opførsel over for Vesten hårdere og har her forårsaget en bølge af »nationalisme«, og de har også haft en destabiliserende effekt på den russiske økonomi. Men en destabilisering af Rusland er ikke noget ønskværdigt, eftersom det er den andenstørste atommagt på Jorden, advarede Platzeck og opfordrede Vesten til at se, hvor de større udfordringer, rent globalt set, ligger:

»Den flygtningekrise, der i øjeblikket får Europa til at holde vejret, er kun begyndelsen af store forandringer. I Afrika synes staters kollaps at være en realistisk mulighed, hvilket vil forårsage yderligere bølger af massemigration, ud over de 60 millioner flygtninge, der allerede i dag er i bevægelse.«

Da afdøde tyske kansler Willy Brandt engang advarede om, at øst-vest konflikten var for intet at regne i sammenligning med nord-syd konflikten, sagde han noget, der er af endnu større relevans i dag, fortsatte Platzeck. »Vi konfronteres med globale udfordringer. Vi må håndtere disse sammen med Rusland. Uden Rusland, eller i konflikt med Rusland, kan ingen af disse globale problemer løses.

Krisen i Syrien fremstiller dette på drastisk vis for vore øjne. Vesten må acceptere, at Rusland tydeligvis har et ord at skulle have sagt i denne region, og må inddrage russisk politik i samme øjenhøjde i den internationale krisekommunikation. Syrien kan blive til en lakmusprøve for, hvordan verdens problemer kan håndteres og løses, sammen med Rusland.«

Disse handlinger, denne operation for regimeskift i Libyen, førte, som nu er velkendt, direkte til, at Libyen blev til en mislykket stat og skabte et vakuum, i hvilket Libyen kunne blive stedet for iscenesættelse af det, der i dag kaldes ISIS – disse radikale, jihadistiske terrorister, der i mange områder bruger de våben, der blev kanaliseret ind i Libyen på tidspunktet for Hillary Clinton/Obama-operationen, med henblik på at vælte Gaddafi. De bruger nu disse våben til at overtage store bidder af territorium i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten. Dette skal naturligvis ses i forbindelse med de tragiske begivenheder, der udspillede sig den 11. september [2011] i Benghazi, hvor ambassadør Stevens og tre andre amerikanere blev dræbt. Men dette påpeger den mere betydningsfulde diskussion, der burde finde sted: Hvad var Hillary Clintons rolle? Hvad var Barack Obamas rolle i beslutningen om at gennemføre regimeskift i Libyen, og hvad vil resultatet blive, hvis vi tillader denne samme operation for regimeskift at finde sted i Syrien og mange andre lande?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: En bevæbnet libysk oprørskæmper sparker til en fodbold i nærheden af Moammar Gaddafis kompleks Bab al-Aziziya, mens dette omsluttes af flammer. Libyske oprørere indtog paladset efter flere dages kampe for at vinde kontrollen over Tripoli, 2011. (Maxppp/ZUMAPRESS)

Megan Beets fra LPAC Videnskabsteam rapporterer fra en begivenhed med Kesha Rogers i Texas om rumprogrammets betydning for USA og hele menneskeheden; Jeffrey Steinberg fremlægger en analyse af begivenhederne omkring Libyen, som Hillary Clinton var en del af, med afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, og hele operationens konsekvenser for den aktuelle situation i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, der kan føre til generel atomkrig; og Jeff Steinberg fremlægger hr. LaRouches tanker om en genrejsning af USA’s økonomi, med en genoplivning af rumprogrammet som spydspids. Engelsk udskrift.        

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s March 4th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you are joining us for our weekly broadcast
here on Friday evenings for the LaRouche PAC webcast, at
larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio this evening by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Megan Beets
from the LaRouche Pac Science Team. And Megan Beets just returned
from a trip to Houston, Texas where she was involved in a very
significant event and other meetings with Kesha Rogers. Many of
you might have seen the recording of this event, which was also
live-streamed on this website last Saturday. It featured Tom
Wysmueller, and Kesha Rogers, as well as Megan Beets.
We’re going to begin our broadcast this evening with some
remarks from Megan Beets, coming off the discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche this morning. As many of you know, Mr. LaRouche
has placed a premium on Kesha Rogers’ role as a champion, a
unique champion, of the resurgence of the United States space
program. Kesha Rogers very aggressively campaigned for this cause
in her three campaigns for Federal office that she has run so far
— 2010, 2012, and 2014, in which she was the Democratic nominee
two elections in a row, in the 22nd District of Texas, for the
United States House of Representatives, and also ran an
internationally profiled Senate campaign in 2014.
So, without further adieu, I would like to ask Megan Beets
to come to the podium to deliver a few opening remarks, and then
after that, we’ll feature some more discussion coming off of the
meeting we had with Mr. LaRouche this morning, with Jeffrey
Steinberg filling in some of those details.

MEGAN BEETS: Thanks, Matt. I can tell you from my visit to
Texas that at this moment, when the breakdown of the
trans-Atlantic system is undeniable — we’re witnessing the
complete malfunctioning and shutdown of this old system — we’re
also see the reopening of the space program down in Texas.
Now the event that I was privileged to participate in with
Kesha and Tom Wysmueller down in Texas, represents a real
beginning of a change of direction of the United States, a
rebirth, so to speak, of the United States as a nation. Now, the
requirement today is that the United States dump our commitment,
our addiction, to this dead, dying trans-Atlantic system, and
decide once again to take up a mission in the sense of purpose
and contribution to mankind.
Now, you look around today. You look around at our citizens.
You look at the heroin epidemic. You look at the death, the
self-induced deaths from drugs, from suicide, from alcoholism,
and so forth. You look at the breakdown in cities like Flint,
Michigan, the breakdown in places like certain counties of West
Virginia that were once booming coal towns. There’s no reflection
in the United States of reality.
Now, what’s reality? Look at the leadership coming from
Asia, particularly from China. Look at the kinds of optimistic
developments, the progress for humanity, that’s coming from the
leadership of China and their space program; and in their
commitment to development projects which are beginning to take
hold and take place all across Eurasia. That’s reality. There’s
no reflection of this yet inside the United States. And so when
we look around, it’s not just that the U. S. economy has
disappeared. The United States has disappeared. There’s no sense
of a unified purpose. There’s no sense of a unified mission for
the existence of the United States as a nation, and there’s no
sense within our people of what {we}, as a nation, will organize
ourselves to contribute to the purposes of mankind.
Now you contrast that with the U.S. sense of purpose and
mission as under John F. Kennedy and his Presidency, and his
leadership within the United States, and his dedication to the
space program. Now, as anyone who truthfully remembers — and
most especially, those people who were directly involved — can
tell you, this wasn’t just a mission for the United States. This
was a real mission for all of mankind. And this was reflected in
some anecdotes in the event last Saturday from some of the
attendees, who themselves were engineers or otherwise employed in
NASA during the Apollo missions.
One anecdote that was told by someone saying that he
disagreed with Werner von Braun that we should be sharing some of
our technology with the Russians, and his mind was changed by von
Braun. There was another former NASA employee who said that at
first in the 1990s, he disagreed with President Clinton’s sharing
of U.S. space technology with the former Soviet Union — with
Russia. And he said once he started working with Russian
engineers, he realized that our mission is mankind; it’s unified;
it’s the same. And this was reflected throughout the entire
event: the sense that our work during the space program was
contributing fundamental developments and contributions, not to
the progress of the United States, but to the progress of man as
a whole.
Now, why? What is the space program? What happened during
the space program in the United States?
Well, not only was the common, the general citizen,
transformed. Not only were there innumerable and immeasurable
benefits from the economic spin-offs. But most importantly, the
people were transformed. The astronauts were fundamentally
transformed. The engineers working in a space program were
fundamentally transformed, as we confronted problems in space,
problems that forced us to overturn our assumptions about the
principles which govern and control the Universe that we lived
in. And each of these problems that we confronted, we were to
conquer. And you see that in the accounts of the people who were
involved during that time in the space program: that we were able
to pull together around a common mission, thousands and thousands
of people across the country to confront these challenges in our
knowledge about the Universe, and to conquer them.
And in that way, in a very short period of time, man began
to rapidly transform and change into a more powerful species. We
began to progress into a species with more power and control over
the processes in the Universe, so much to the point that we were
able to land people on the surface of the Moon, which
fundamentally transformed our ideas and our knowledge of what the
Moon itself is, of what potential the Moon holds for a new
platform of development for man, which was completely unknown
until the accomplishments of Apollo.
Now this is what the Chinese are doing today with their
space program. In 2018, just two years from now, the Chinese plan
to land on the far side of the Moon. This has never been done
before. The far side of the Moon has been imaged with satellites,
it’s been seen by human eyes in the American astronauts who
travelled there. But nobody has ever landed on the far side of
the Moon.
Now, people may say, “Well, we know what the Moon is; we’ve
looked at it. We’ve taken pictures.” But the fact is, the far
side of the Moon is a completely unknown quantity to us. When we
land there, for example, what do we think the far side can teach
us? When we land there, we’ll have a chance to confront our
fundamental notions about the formation of the Moon, the
formation of the Earth, and possibly other planets in the Solar
System with the unique geological investigations that we’ll be
able to perform there.
When we land there, and when we’re able to set up
astronomical observatories in the very low radio frequency range,
which is a band of the electromagnetic spectrum which is
impossible to look at the Solar System in from anywhere
attainable to us besides the far side of the Moon; when we are
able to look at the Solar System in this new range, we’re very
likely going to discover that the planets, the interstellar
medium, distant galaxies, different stars, could exhibit
processes to us which were completely invisible before.
It’s this kind of potential for mankind to transform our
powers, to transform our relationship to the Solar System itself,
that’s being offered by the Chinese actions today. And it’s this
sense of meaning, this sense of mobilization and commitment to
progress for all of mankind, which is what we, down in Texas, are
reminding people of. What Kesha is reminding people of — even
people who participated in these great accomplishments 40 or 50
years ago, and who might have encountered now a sense of
demoralization with the actions since that time. We’re drawing
people back out to a commitment of this mission. And Kesha is
showing once again that the United States can, and must, commit
itself to this kind of purpose for all of mankind.
So I can just conclude by reporting that the beginnings of
these developments that we’re seeing coming out of Texas, is that
people down there still associate themselves with reality, and
are now playing a leading role, with Kesha, in being moved toward
recognizing that this is the viable option for the United States.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Megan. And like I said, if you
haven’t gotten a chance to see the recording of the event that
occurred down in Texas last Saturday, it is archived on the
larouchepac youtube channel, and I would encourage you to watch
it. It was a very uplifting event, and we can expect to hear
much, much more from Kesha Rogers, obviously.
Now, the second item on our agenda tonight is something
which you may have heard Mr. LaRouche emphasize during the
discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee this past
Monday. Towards the end of that show, you might have caught Mr.
LaRouche’s reference to a series of very significant articles
that were published in the {New York Times} over the weekend.
They were titled: “Hillary Clinton, Smart Power, and a Dictator’s
Fall: The Role of Hillary Clinton in the ouster and killing of
Colonel Muammar Qaddafi That Left Libya a Failed State and a
Terrorist Haven.” This article, or series of articles, which were
based on a number of interviews from people who were right on the
inside of the entire decision-making process that led into the
decision to overthrow Qaddafi, and to ultimately have him
killing, very vividly paints the picture of the months leading up
into that decision, and Hillary Clinton’s central role in making
that decision on the inside of the Obama White House.
And this, despite dire warnings from intelligence experts,
and military experts, as to what the aftermath of that decision
would be, and also even overtures of peace that were coming from
Libya itself, and the Libyan government — overtures for a
peaceful transition, which were directly and decisively ignored
by the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.
These actions, this regime-change operation in Libya, as we
know now very well, directly led to Libya becoming a failed
state, and creating the vacuum in which Libya could be the
staging ground for what has now come to be called ISIS today —
these radical jihadist terrorist who in many parts are using the
weapons that were channeled into Libya at that time by the
Hillary Clinton-Obama operation, in order to overthrow Qaddafi.
They are now using those weapons to take over large swaths of
territory in Northern Africa, and in the Middle East. Obviously,
this is the context for the tragic events that unfolded on Sept.
11 in Benghazi in which Ambassador Stevens and three other
Americans were killed. However, I think this point to the more
important discussion that should be being had: What was Hillary
Clinton’s role? What was Barack Obama’s role in the decision for
regime change in Libya, and what will be the outcome if we allow
this same regime-change operation to continue to take place in
Syria and in many other countries?
One note I would say just before inviting Jeff up to the
podium to discuss this more in detail, is the importance of the
coincidence of the publication of these series of articles in the
{New York Times} with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s surprise
announcement that she was resigning as vice-chair of the DNC in
order to more aggressively campaign against Hillary Clinton,
explicitly because of Hillary Clinton’s identity as a strong and
vocal advocate of the policy of regime change  what Tulsi Gabbard
has said she personally witnessed the tragic and disastrous
consequences of on the ground in Iraq, after the decision to have
regime change against Saddam Hussein. Tulsi Gabbard was active
service military. And we saw the decision again in the case of
Libya, and now we are confronting directly head-on whether or not
that decision will be made in Syria.
This also obviously has a lot to do with the context of
Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to create the framework
for a ceasefire, along with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in
Syria.
Now, what I would like to ask Jeff to discuss at the podium
is what Mr. LaRouche’s take has been on the significance of these
articles, and also the very precise timing of these articles
being published right now, during this Presidential campaign
season, and what the implications of this should be seen in terms
of the ongoing fight behind the scenes continuing to this day in
the Obama Administration.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Well, the two-part series,
lengthy articles that were published late last week, early this
week, in the New York Times bring back into stark relief and
memory, the fact that the decision to overthrow and execute
Qaddafi was not only a turning point in recent history. It
unleashed a flood of instability. Massive amounts of weapons
flooded out of Libya. All across Africa a structure was set up
for laundering those weapons into Syria, where they ultimately
wound up in the hands of both the al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic
State forces. This has been a source of mass death, grave
instability, throughout the entire Africa and Middle East region,
and beyond.
Now, what the {New York Times} articles make clear is
something that was well-known to us and which Mr. LaRouche
commented on exhaustively as these events were playing out. But
from the standpoint of the current elections and things related
to the ongoing war danger, now at the threshold of the danger of
a general war, a nuclear war, it’s very important to reflect back
on this.
Effectively, as the result of Hillary Clinton joining the
White House, joining President Obama, joining Samantha Power,
joining Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett, in pressing for the
violent overthrow of the Qaddafi government, the assassination of
Qaddafi, and effectively the installation of the Muslim
Brotherhood and al-Qaeda into power in Libya, this meant that
Hillary Clinton had completely capitulated to Obama. Prior to
that point, during the Obama administration, despite the fact
that it was a grave political mistake on the part of Hillary
Clinton to have become a part of the Obama Administration in the
first place, the fact is that she had generally aligned herself
with Defense Secretary Gates, with General Dempsey, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and had been a barrier to the worst
kinds of British policies coming out of Obama, Jarrett, Rice,
Power, and the others grouped around this President.
Obama is a British agent, plain and simple, and that was one
of the first points that Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our
discussion earlier today. And he said, Look, Hillary Clinton was
terrified into playing the role that she played in Libya. She was
not the only person pushing for regime change; she was, in the
words of Roberts Gates, “the tilt factor”. The decisive vote in a
very close 51-49 vote, where Gates himself, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, were opposed to launching the no-fly zone.  Launching what
was being mislabelled a humanitarian intervention, when from the
very outset it was always about regime change.  You’ve got to
remember that the characteristic of the Obama Presidency is to be
found in those Tuesday kill sessions; where the President sits
down with a group of national security advisors, Cabinet members,
representatives of the military and intelligence community, and
makes life-or-death arbitrary decisions to add people’s names to
the kill lists.  In some cases — we know in at least four
instances — people were put on that kill list who were American
citizens; who were deprived of any day in court, any due process,
and were summarily assassinated.  Whether by special forces,
whether by drone attacks, or combinations of both.
So, that’s the character of the Obama administration.  And
with the 2011 decision to overthrow Qaddafi, Hillary Clinton —
out of absolute fear — remember, you’re dealing with a President
who relishes the idea of coming up with weekly lists of targets
for assassination.  With that Libya decision, with Clinton’s
decision to side with her own worst enemies, going all the way
back to the 2008 campaign when she campaigned against Barack
Obama; when Samantha Power publicly went out on the stump calling
her a witch.  When she capitulated and sided with those British
forces in the Libya operation, she not only participated in the
unleashing of absolute Hell across much of Africa and the Middle
East region; but she caved in to people who, at an earlier point,
she knew were absolutely despicable and were her avowed enemies.
That capitulation is something that she will live with forever.
Now, recently, in the course of reviewing the Africa events,
the Libya events, some additional information has come out that
even puts a further punctuation point on the fact that there was
a top-down decision in which Secretary Clinton participated,
along with President Obama, to overthrow Qaddafi; no questions
asked, no second thoughts.  There’s a very precise timeline that
has been provided by a retired US Navy Rear Admiral named Charles
Kubic, who was retired from the Navy and was a business man
working in Libya — also a trained engineer.  And when the United
Nations Security Council passed the resolution to establish a
no-fly zone and a “humanitarian corridor” around Benghazi — this
was on March 19, 2011 — on that very day, Rear Admiral Kubic was
contacted by people in the inner circle of Qaddafi; and they
said, “Let’s talk.”  Let’s not go with diplomatic formulations.
Let’s immediately convene a battlefield 72-hour truce.  And
during that time, let’s discuss an orderly procedure for standing
down the Libyan forces that were moving on Benghazi, and on an
orderly transition of power.  Qaddafi was prepared to leave
Libya, to go into exile; to arrange a negotiated government to
follow from him, and to basically stand down the Libyan forces
that were, in fact, battling al-Qaeda and other jihadist networks
in the area around Benghazi and Misurata inside Libya.  Admiral
Kubic conveyed immediately the approach that he had gotten from
the head of Qaddafi’s personal security.  He conveyed it to
Stuttgart, Germany; it was reported to General Carter Ham, the
head of the Africa Command, and General Ham responded favorably.
Details were being worked out the very next day to convene
exactly this kind of battlefield truce and negotiating process;
either in Tripoli, or right off the shores of Libya on a
designated US military ship.  And in fact, there was a halt on
the part of Qaddafi of the military movement toward Benghazi and
Misurata.  So, in other words, everything was there within the
first 24 hours of when the bombing began of Libya, for the
conflict to stop right there; for Qaddafi’s departure; for none
of the death and destruction that followed to actually take
place.  On the evening of March 20, 2011, General Carter Ham
issued a statement saying that the United States had no interest
in targetting Qaddafi.  That was the return signal that the
Libyans were looking for, coming from AFRICOM, that the
negotiations could begin perhaps as early as the next morning.
However that entire situation was cancelled; Admiral Kubic was
ordered to stand down, to drop the contact.  AFRICOM was ordered
to stand down and abandon any plans for any such negotiation for
Qaddafi’s departure.  Because the decision had been made “higher
up in the administration” that there would be no turning back;
that this was a regime change operation, and in fact, a part of
that was the fact that the British — who had agents inside the
inner circle of Qaddafi’s own personal security detail — were
the ones who fingered his location and set up his assassination
later that year.
So, in other words, the destruction of Libya, the
destruction of Africa, that came in part as a measure of Hillary
Clinton’s capitulation to President Obama, and above all else, to
the British; could have been at least short-circuited and the
worst damage prevented.  The death of Ambassador Stephens and the
three other American officials a year and later probably could
have been averted.  But none of that happened, because there was
a willful decision; undoubtedly the decision was made in London,
was passed in through Obama.  And rather than fighting against
that, Hillary Clinton capitulated; and it was out of a fear of
Obama, out of a fear that this was a killer President.  There
were a number of opportunities where she had the possibility to
resign and put the spotlight where it properly belonged; but none
of those things happened.
And as the result of that, all of the African continent is
now one extended battle zone.  As the result of that, we have the
existence of the Islamic State; because Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar flooded Syria and Iraq with the kinds of weapons that had
been derived from what was at one point a secured Qaddafi arsenal
of all kinds of weapons.  And those weapons have now spread
chaos, death, and destruction across that entire swath of North
Africa and the Middle East.  That’s the legacy, that’s the
consequence of the fact that, as Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton failed to uphold her responsibilities; capitulated to her
own worst avowed enemies in the Obama administration, and
unfortunately, the rest is history.
Mr. LaRouche, at the time, pointedly said, from the moment
that he heard that Qaddafi had been assassinated, that the real
targets were Russia and China; and that these events in 2011 were
the beginning of a process that would now accelerate towards the
general warfare — potentially thermonuclear warfare — involving
the United States, Russia, and China.  So, look back with a
certain degree of hindsight, and understand the consequences of
what happened in that critical moment of March of 2011; and see
how all of the events that have followed from that, and why we
are on the verge of a potential thermonuclear war of annihilation
of mankind.  Understand how critical decisions in critical
moments, shape events for long periods of time to come.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Jeff.  Now, in the context of
what Jeff just said about the overarching policy that has
emanated from this Obama administration against Russia and
against China, you’ve seen obvious economic warfare also that’s
taken place from the United States against both of those
countries.  The next question pertains to one of those aspects;
and I know that it will also give Jeff an opportunity to discuss
a little bit about what Mr. LaRouche’s views are on the necessity
of a massive mobilization inside the United States to rebuild our
economy, spearheaded by Kesha Rogers’ efforts in Texas to revive
the legacy of the NASA space program.
So, the question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, the US
Department of Commerce has imposed a 265% tariff on Chinese
cold-rolled steel.  The Department of Commerce stated that the
tariffs are meant to punish China for dumping cold-rolled steel
onto the market; which is used to make auto parts, appliances,
and shipping containers.  In your view, will these imposed
tariffs help the US steel industry?  And if not, what measures do
you recommend to revitalize our steel industry?”

STEINBERG:  Well, the first thing that Mr. LaRouche said
was, if you want to revitalize the US economy, then you’ve got to
start out by shutting down Wall Street; because Wall Street right
now is about the only steel sector left in the United States —
they steal everything that’s available to be stolen.
Now, I think that this move by the Commerce Department came
as the result of pressure from a number of members of Congress;
most of whom are simply desperate and misguided and are not even
among the worst people in the US Congress.  The idea that somehow
or other, putting prohibitive tariffs on the importing of Chinese
steel at this stage of the game, when the entire real economy of
the United States is in a state of absolute collapse, is the
ultimate folly.  Now, let’s just look at some of the basic facts
of what’s been going on inside the US economy; and particularly,
let’s look at the steel sector.  We don’t have the data for all
of 2015, but we know that between 2014 and 2015 there was
actually a 26% decline in the amount of steel imported from
China.  And the reason for that is because there was an even
greater decline in the overall steel utilization inside the US
economy; because the US economy is in a state of physical,
economic collapse.  One of the areas where you had substantial
use of steel, not on a gigantic scale, but on a significant
scale, was in the shale oil and gas sector; which we know is in a
state of collapse right now.  And the fact that it was that
sector that was a major source of steel use in the US economy,
just tells you how far down the scale of real economic
development that we have fallen.
Now, the fact of the matter is, that on a global scale
centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you have a significant
collapse in physical economic output.  Real production in the
United States has collapsed; we’ve gone through 15 consecutive
months of a decline in industrial output.  The shale oil and gas
sector collapse is a small piece at the tail end of a 40-year
process of economic collapse, disintegration, out-sourcing of
what little real economic activity was going on.  So the idea
that a tariff, at this point, is going to protect a domestic
industry that collapsed over the past 40 years, is an act of
desperation; when in fact, we need real creative thinking.
Now, {Executive Intelligence Review} has recently — we’ve
talked about it on this show before — produced a supplement to
the World Land-Bridge report, called “The United States Must Join
the World Land-Bridge”; and it lays out a clear game plan for a
genuine economic revival of the United States.  It starts by
shutting down Wall Street; they’re hopelessly bankrupt.  And the
bankruptcy of Wall Street is now in the process of advancing the
disintegration of the real economy of the United States; and the
real economy of the United States means the American people.
When we were discussing earlier today with Mr. LaRouche, he said,
“Look, what’s the most chilling indication of the real rate of
collapse of the US economy?  It’s the exponential increase in the
number of people dying of heroin overdoses; it’s the number of
people, the exponential rise in the number of people committing
suicide in other ways, as well.  It’s the desperation and
demoralization of a population that was once inspired, that was
once the most productive population in the world; and is now
fallen into a state of complete collapse.”  In 2005, we saw the
takedown of the auto sector; and what that meant was the machine
tool design sector associated with the US auto sector was wiped
out.  Under President Obama, there has been a conscious and
systematic policy of shutting down our space program; and it’s
only through that space exploration, as Megan just emphasized,
that you have any prospect of a genuine future for mankind.
The good news is that the report coming out of Texas is that
some of the leading circles historically associated with NASA,
current and former NASA employees, have reached the point where
they realize: 1) that it’s all over for the United States if
there’s not a real fight to revive the space program.  They see
certain glimmers of reflection of what was once a driving force
in the growth of real productivity in the American economy;
namely, the space program, centered in NASA Houston.  You had the
return to Earth of Scott Kelly, who spent a year up in space; an
exciting development, it’s a glimmer.  It’s a sort of smell or
fragrance of the fact that NASA can be revived; that we can have
a resurgence of the kind of optimism that we had during the
Kennedy Presidency, before he was assassinated.  Where the Apollo
program was the centerpiece for the whole development of the real
US economy.  You’ve got NASA people now beginning to say, “Yes,
we’re ready for a real fight.”  The fight is on; and you’ve got
reflections of that that you’ll see emerging as a tendency in
other parts of the country.  Southern California used to be a
major center of our space program; you had the Jet Propulsion Lab
in the Los Angeles area, a crucial component.  And you, of
course, had the Lawrence Livermore Lab up in the Bay area.  These
are centers that can be revived; but only if we get a core
revival of that NASA mission.  The mission to join with China,
with Russia, with India, with other nations, in exploring and
developing the universe as part of man’s extraterrestrial
mission.
So, if you think about the steel issue again, from that
standpoint, how much steel would be required for the kind of
nationwide high-speed rail system that is part of the “US joins
the World Land-Bridge”?  How much steel will be required for a
proliferation of nuclear power plants throughout the United
States?  The modernization of the existing plants, and they’re
replacement where appropriate, by fourth generation nuclear power
plants.  What would be the requirements once we’ve actually
completed the process of successfully commercializing fusion?
These are the issues for the future; but these fights have to won
today.  And if you want to understand the biggest mass kill
factor with President Obama, it has been his killing of the NASA
space program; because that is a mass execution of the future.
And so, these issues are all very much inextricably tied
together.  Unless we get a revolutionary change in policy, which
means a return to the kind of Hamiltonian principles that we last
saw on display in the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency overall, and
in the Kennedy Apollo program in particular.  These ideas are
there; and we’re getting now, coming from the Houston vicinity,
from the NASA center there, a rumbling.  The start of a real
fight to basically bring the United States back into space; as
part of a collaborative mission for all of mankind.  And as I
say, once that happens, the issue of steel, the issue of dumping;
all of this becomes meaningless.  Because the actual physical
requirements will be so enormous, the return to optimism and the
benefits of that — particularly for a lost generation of young
people, who represent a high percentage of those who are going
off as heroin addicts, who are committing suicide, who have no
sense of future.  We’ve got to restore the future; and that
starts with a fight to revive NASA.  And the good news is that
that fight is now beginning; it’s in its early moments, but it’s
a fight that is winnable.  And the future of the United States
hangs in the balance.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much.  Because Jeff mentioned it, I
would just encourage our viewers to revisit the pamphlet; which
is both available in print form, and in digital form:  “The
United States Must Join the New Silk Road; A Hamiltonian Vision
for an Economic Renaissance”; which features much of what Jeff
just discussed in terms of a national high-speed rail program, a
Bering Straits tunnel or bridge project to connect us to Eurasia.
To the phenomenal developments that are happening now in China;
but it also has an entire section on a science-driver development
mission, which includes much of the cutting edge work that needs
to be done with a revived space program — not just in the United
States, but also collaboration that we must begin to cooperate
with China’s and Russia’s space programs.  And have what Mr.
LaRouche has so aptly termed the common aims of mankind; that is
the truest form of a war avoidance program for a durable piece.
So, with that said, I would like to thank Jeff; and I would
also like to thank Megan Beets for joining us here this evening.
And I would encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
Thank you very much.

3. marts 2016 – Hjemvendt fra sit besøg til Marokko, Algeriet og Tunesien sagde den tyske minister for udvikling, Gerd Müller, til Evangelischer Pressedienst (EPD) den 1. marts, at det er på høje tid, at verdenssamfundet øgede investeringerne i de krisehærgede lande i udviklingssektoren. Især for de nordafrikanske lande er det nødvendigt med et økonomisk partnerskab af en helt anden dimension, sagde han, »for at styrke staterne omkring Middelhavet i vores umiddelbare nabolag … og derigennem stabilisere dem i deres nuværende situation af transformering.«

»Hvis vi ikke gør dette, vil hundrede tusinder, måske endda millioner af mennesker, komme til os i de kommende år«, advarede Müller og fortsatte med, at, alt imens den igangværende diskussion i Tyskland fokuserer på konflikterne i Syrien, Irak og Afghanistan, »så er der ud over dette selvfølgelig konflikter og krisebrændpunkter, der vil berøre os på længere sigt. Jeg tænker på Ukraine, som vi ikke bør glemme, eller Sydsudan eller Den Centralafrikanske Republik«. Det er også nødvendigt at yde bistand for at stabilisere disse lande.

Hans eget ministerium, forklarede Müller, har tredoblet sine støtteprogrammer til flygtninge i løbet af de seneste to år og bruger nu 1 milliard euro. »1 milliard euro er mange penge – hvis Europa ville øge dette beløb til 10 – 10 milliard euro, som jeg anser for nødvendigt, kunne vi give hundrede tusinder af mennesker et perspektiv på stedet [i deres hjemlande]«, sagde Müller. »Vi er i færd med at uddanne flygtningebørn og -unge, og vi bygger skoler. Vi bygger infrastruktur i det nordlige Irak … Og vi genopbygger landsbyer sammen med flygtningene, så folk kan vende tilbage til deres hjem.«

Foto: Gerd Müller sammen med den tunesiske premierminister Habib Essid

En delegation fra Schiller Instituttet, med formand Tom Gillesberg som ordførende, havde foretræde for Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg. Hør talen og se diasbilleder:

Vi står netop nu med en enestående mulighed for at sikre, at den langvarige mareridtsagtige proces med krig og ødelæggelse, der har præget Mellemøsten i årtier, og som har spredt sig til Europa og resten af verden i form af terror fra Islamisk Stat og en flygtningebølge, der er ved at løbe Europa over ende, kan bringes til ophør og erstattes af et nyt paradigme for fred gennem fælles økonomisk udvikling.

Dias til mødet:

LPAC fredags-webcast 26. februar 2016, dansk oversættelse.

Hvis man derfor sluttelig ønsker, at den syriske fredsaftale skal blive en succes, altså holde, så må man, ud over det presserende nødvendige behov for en Marshallplan/Landbro-hjørnesten for at sikre, at freden er varig, også fjerne Obama. Og man må bringe det britiske imperiesystem til fald.

Der findes muligheder for en erstatning, men disse erstatninger vil kun ske, når Obama er blevet fjernet af reelle forfatningsmæssige grunde, og på det tidspunkt, hvor Det britiske Imperium har fået en reglementeret begravelse.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

The English and Arabic version is below the Danish.

På et tidspunkt, hvor flygtningekrisen truer med at blive til en hidtil uset humanitær krise, og som sprænger Den europæiske Unions sammenhængskraft og endda muligvis selve dens eksistens i stumper og stykker, er en vision om håb for udvikling af Sydvestasien og Afrika den eneste måde, hvorpå situationen kan vendes til det bedre. På et tidspunkt, hvor den transatlantiske verdens finanssystem står umiddelbart foran at krakke, er udviklingsperspektivet for en genopbygning af Mellemøsten og resten af Sydvestasien til at udgøre en bro mellem Asien, Europa og Afrika den eneste drivkraft for økonomisk vækst, der kan forhindre Europa og USA i at synke ned i kaos.

På dette programs virkeliggørelse beror således hele menneskehedens skæbne.

28. februar 2016 – Den arabiske version af EIR’s specialrapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«, i sin fulde udstrækning, er nu færdig og klar til udgivelse og distribuering. Den 400 sider lange rapport (med et appendiks del 6 om Sydvestasien, der omfatter EIR’s Projekt Føniks: En genopbygningsplan for Syrien) er blevet oversat af Hussein Askary (med færdigt layout af Ali Sharaf), og »Den Nye Silkvejs-lady«, alias Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har på smukkeste vis skrevet forordet, som følger:

En Fredsplan for Sydvestasien

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Washington, D.C., 26. februar 2016

Det er muligvis et udslag af et lykkeligt sammentræf eller af Forsynets indgriben, at den arabiske oversættelse af rapporten om Verdenslandbroen udkommer netop nu, hvor udsigten til en våbenhvile i Syrien er ved at blive en realitet. Overenskomsten mellem den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry og den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov har et potentiale til at bringe den fem år lange krig, der har kostet hundreder tusinder af mennesker livet, til en afslutning. Men i betragtning af de enormt komplekse omstændigheder i regionen bør det også stå klart, at en blot og bar kontrakt om at standse kampene vil være for skrøbelig til at vare ved og overleve nye provokationer fra de samme kræfters side, der oprindeligt var ansvarlige for krigen.

Den eneste måde, hvorpå en varig fred kan garanteres, er den omgående iværksættelse af en omfattende udviklingsplan for hele Sydvestasien, med en udviklingsplan for integreret infrastruktur; en plan, der ikke alene genopbygger krigens ødelagte byer og landsbyer, men som anviser en langt mere fundamental fremgangsmåde for atter at forvandle denne region, der engang var en af den menneskelige civilisations vugger, og som på forskellige tidspunkter i historien var hjemsted for tidens mest fremskredent udviklede kulturer, til en af verdens mest avancerede. Målet må være at udløse regionens folks kreativitet og bringe deres produktivitet op på samme niveau som Europas, USA’s eller Kinas.

Dette er absolut muligt, og i særdeleshed, fordi Ruslands og Kinas samarbejde repræsenterer magtfulde naboer, der, sammen med lande i regionen, kan udvirke denne udvikling. Hvis de udviklingsprojekter, som foreslås i rapporten, i bogstavelig forstand bliver gennemført med start fra i morgen, således, at udbyttet ved fred bliver synligt for alle parter i regionen, så kan våbenhvilen i Syrien og gennemførelsen af det, man kunne kalde en Silkevejs-Marshallplan, dog uden denne betegnelses tilknytning til en kold krig, blive en agent for et nyt scenarie for hele verden.

På et tidspunkt, hvor flygtningekrisen truer med at blive til en hidtil uset humanitær krise, og som sprænger Den europæiske Unions sammenhængskraft og endda muligvis selve dens eksistens i stumper og stykker, er en vision om håb for udvikling af Sydvestasien og Afrika den eneste måde, hvorpå situationen kan vendes til det bedre. På et tidspunkt, hvor den transatlantiske verdens finanssystem står umiddelbart foran at krakke, er udviklingsperspektivet for en genopbygning af Mellemøsten og resten af Sydvestasien til at udgøre en bro mellem Asien, Europa og Afrika den eneste drivkraft for økonomisk vækst, der kan forhindre Europa og USA i at synke ned i kaos.

På dette programs virkeliggørelse beror således hele menneskehedens skæbne.

Den arabiske EIR-rapport kan bestilles (kun i papirudgave) gennem EIR News Service og alle internationale institutioner, der er associeret med LaRouche-bevægelsen, herunder Schiller Instituttet i Danmark.

The English and Arabic version pdf. of
A Peace Plan for Southwest Asia
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
EIR press release in English and Arabic on the occassion of the release of the arabic version of “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge.”
(The English, Arabic, and Chinese versions of the report are available from The Schiller Institute in Denmark at: +45 53 57 00 51 or +45 35 43 00 33, or si@schillerinstitut.dk

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Løsningen er enkel: Kasinoøkonomien må afsluttes gennem realiseringen af Glass/Steagall-loven; en international gældskonference må afskrive bankernes giftige værdipapirer, og et nyt kreditsystem må finansiere investeringer i den Nye Silkevejs projekter. Og hertil har vi ikke brug for et oppumpet, overnationalt bureaukrati i Bruxelles, men derimod en alliance af suveræne stater, som er forpligtet over for den fælles mission for udvikling af de områder i verden, der har et presserende behov for vores hjælp.

Kun, hvis Europa finder tilbage til sin humanistiske tradition, vil vi kunne bestå.     

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Faren for en massiv, endnu større strøm af flygtninge, der kommer fra Afrika og ind i Europa, så vel som også den fortsatte krise centreret omkring Mellemøsten, betyder således, at Europa er absolut dømt til undergang, med mindre der finder et fundamentalt skifte i politikken sted. Og dette betyder, at USA og Europa indledningsvis må række hånden frem mod Rusland og Kina. 

Engelsk Udskrift.

US & EUROPE MUST REACH OUT TO RUSSIA & CHINA TO AVOID WAR

International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, February 19, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s February 19, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you’re joining us for our weekly, Friday
evening broadcast here from larouchepac .com
I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jason Ross from the
LaRouche PAC science team, and we’re joined via video, from a
remote location, by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence
Review. The three of us, along with several others, had a chance
to have a discussion earlier today with both Lyndon and Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, so what you’re about to hear will be informed by
that discussion.
Now, I’m going to just start right off the bat with a
discussion of the very dire threat of an international conflict
arising, especially from the powderkeg of Syria, Northern Africa,
and the Middle East. The area of Syria, where, despite the
efforts of Secretary John Kerry to find common ground with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Obama’s refusal to tell
Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stand down is threatening to blow this
entire thing sky high. A very accurate discussion of this was
published earlier today in a piece on Consortium News by Robert
Parry, the editor of that publication, in which he says the risk
that the multi-sided Syrian war could spark World War III,
continues, as Turkey and U.S. neo-cons seek an invasion that
could kill Russian troops, and possibly escalate the Syrian
crisis into a nuclear showdown.
What Robert Parry says in this article is that Barack Obama
took questions from reporters on Tuesday, but he did not take the
one that needed to be asked: which was whether he had forbidden
Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question
could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into
World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.
Now, this was part of our discussion earlier today with Mr.
LaRouche and what I know Jeff will elaborate much more on, was
LaRouche’s analysis. But in short, what Mr. LaRouche had to say
is that what Putin is doing in this situation, and overall in a
strategic manner, defines the point of action, defines the point
of reference, for action. Everything else is bluff.
So, let me hand it over to Jeff, and he’ll elaborate many
more of the details, and then we’ll come back to our
institutional question for this evening, which Jeff will also
answer. So, Jeff?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. Well, as we were going
through the discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, he
actually drew a distinction between the bluff, and what he said
much more accurately is the folly of what Turkey and Saudi Arabia
are up to. It’s folly because they are caught in their own
madness, and don’t even realize the consequences of what they’re
doing in the real world. They don’t have the capability to carry
out the kind of provocations that they are threatening, and the
danger, of course, is that that does not mean that they’re not
going to try to do it.
Putin stepped into the Syria situation at a critical moment
last September, and the entire situation has shifted radically
since that point. The Russian intention is {not} to simply
accomplish a military victory on behalf of the forces of
President Assad. They’re creating the conditions to force the
intransigents, in this case Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of
the other Gulf states, and always lurking in the background when
you’re dealing with Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood is
the British. So, Putin has established a clear sense of control
over the situation. Undoubtedly part of Putin’s configuration is
that Obama has been greatly weakened by the actions of Russia; on
the economic sphere, the actions of China; and there are sane
military forces in the United States who recognize the folly of
what Turkey and Saudi Arabia are doing.
This has been described by Parry, whose article you
mentioned, and by others, as the danger of a Sarajevo 1914 flash
point, along the Syria-Turkey border, but what Mr. LaRouche
emphasized today is that Putin has a very clear sense of the
military correlation in this situation, and has also a very clear
sense that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are acting on the basis of
their own irrationality. And he is luring them in to the kind of
trap that could be basically enclosed on them at any moment. It’s
a gravely dangerous situation, but you have at least one key
player, namely Russian President Putin, who knows what he’s
doing, and who is steering these events in a way that conforms to
an appropriate strategic analysis, and to an understanding of how
to basically defeat these forces that have been trying to destroy
Syria for the last five years, and in so doing, to deprive Russia
of one of its own critical access points in the Mediterranean
region.
Now, what Mr. LaRouche really emphasized, and I think that
this is the crucial point to take away from this issue, is that
the center of gravity of world affairs has dramatically shifted
to where the Asia-Eurasia region, anchored in the cooperation
between China and Russia and India, with other countries grouping
around that, is really where the strategic center of the world
economy has now been shifted. And if you look at the situation in
Europe, in particular, from one end to the other you see nothing
but bankruptcy and political failure. The United States is on the
verge of the same kind of bankruptcy. And so the only place where
you have growth and stability by any measure, and of course Asia
and Russia and Eurasia are not devoid of problems, but relative
to the state of absolute bankruptcy that we see in Europe and in
the United States, we see a disintegration of the political and
economic conditions in much of South America, as well. Of course,
Africa has been on the target list of the British and other
European colonial, imperial powers for the longest time.
But in Asia, you not only have a much more stable and
growing situation, but you have a commitment to an abandonment of
geopolitics in favor of what Chinese President Xi Jinping has
called the ”win-win” strategy. And if you look at the crisis in
Europe right now, leaving aside the fact that the entire European
financial system is bankrupt — hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt
under the present conditions and terms of thinking that dominate
Europe — if you look at the refugee crisis, you’re beginning to
see a glimmer of sanity, driven by desperation, by certain of the
people who are responsible for creating the European fiasco in
the first place.
So, you’ve got people like Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance
minister of Germany, who was one of the monsters behind the
destruction of Europe, including the German economy itself, now
saying there must be a Marshall Plan to rebuild Syria, to rebuild
other parts of the Middle East, and only on the basis of a
Marshall Plan, which gives people a clear incentive to go back to
their homes, to rebuild their country, only under those
circumstances, and those circumstances alone, can the refugee
crisis in Europe be remotely solved. And of course, what applies
to the Middle East applies doubly for Africa, where the
U.S.-British-French overthrow of Qaddafi unleashed absolute hell
throughout the African continent.
And so the danger of a massive, even larger flow of refugees
coming out of Africa into Europe, as well as the continuing
crisis centered in the Middle East, means that Europe is
absolutely doomed unless there is a fundamental change in policy.
And for starters, that change means that the United States and
Europe must reach out to Russia and China. You had the recent
visit by President Xi Jinping of China to Saudi Arabia, to Iran,
and to Egypt, and what Xi Jinping made very clear is that China
is prepared to move towards the building of the Silk Road
infrastructure, the New Silk Road land route, the Maritime Silk
Route, which will come up through the newly expanded Suez Canal
— China will do that. In fact, just this week, the first freight
train from Eastern China arrived in Iran, and this is part of the
entire European system of not just transportation corridors, but
development corridors that have been put forward by China as the
cornerstone of their foreign policy.
So, they’re presenting a win-win alternative. And in the
case of Europe, there is no alternative. Europe is so politically
and psychologically bankrupt — the leadership of Europe is so
bankrupt that China, through this Middle East development portion
of the One Belt, One Road policy, offers the only viable basis
for this Marshall Plan idea to actually be put into practice. And
were it not for the Putin intervention, beginning last September,
we couldn’t even be contemplating the possibility of that kind of
solution to this seemingly intractable problem in the Middle
East.
Now, Mr. LaRouche emphasized in this context that Europe is
completely gone; it’s completely bankrupt, and there are
solutions, but the present leadership is unprepared to consider
that kind of level of rethinking. In the United States, we’re
very close to the edge, but the United States {can} be saved and
the solution to the problems in the United States begins with
removing President Barack Obama from off ice immediately, and
moving to wipe out the thoroughly bankrupt Wall Street system.
Because until that system is put through basically a bankruptcy
shutdown, then none of the viable and available solutions are
going to be there. But, if you were to get rid of Obama, if you
were to wipe out Wall Street,–and, for example, immediately
passage of Glass-Steagall would be one critical element for that
process to happen almost overnight — then we have a history in
the United States. We had Alexander Hamilton. We had Franklin
Roosevelt. We had glimmers of the same policy with John F.
Kennedy. You go back to a credit system, a government credit
system that kick-starts production, that trains a young
generation that’s right now completely unqualified to serve in a
real economy.
All of that means the United States coming into alignment
with what we see going on with China, with Russia, with India,
with others. In other words, the United States becomes part of a
genuine trans-Pacific collaboration, and under those
circumstances, Europe itself would have no choice but to get on
with the program.
So, what we’re seeing from Turkey, from Saudi Arabia, and as
I said, always watch for the British lurking in the background
with those two countries — you have clinical insanity and folly,
which holds the danger of war. But Mr. LaRouche again emphasized,
Putin knows this. He sees all of this, and he is on top of the
situation, and is prepared to take the appropriate and necessary
actions. And there are some people who are not completely out of
their minds on the U.S. side, within the military-intelligence
community, who understand that partnering with Russia is the only
way to solve this problem.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, just really on the subject that
you ended on here, the bankruptcy of Wall Street and the extended
Wall Street system, and the relationship of that to the
conditions in Europe; that brings us to our institutional
question for this evening, which reads as follows: ”Mr.
LaRouche. The heat is turning up on British Prime Minister David
Cameron, who’s trying to get the upper hand over a referendum
that could result in the UK leaving the European Union. The
potential break-up of the European Union, which is called
‘Brexit’, has elicited warnings about the impact on the UK
economy should voters say that they want out of the EU. A recent
poll showed that 42% of UK voters would opt to leave the EU;
compared to 38% who say that they would vote to stay. This week
will be the first major test as to whether Cameron’s done enough
to secure an agreement to change some terms of the UK’s
relationship with the European bloc. Cameron says that he will
campaign to stick with the EU, if a deal can be reached. This
Thursday and Friday will be the first time that all 28 EU
countries will discuss a package of proposals recently released
by the EU, aimed at addressing the UK’s economic concerns.
Cameron negotiated the proposals with the EU leaders and Donald
Tusk, President of the European Council — the EU’s main
decision-making body. What is your view of a possible ‘Brexit’?”

STEINBERG: Well, you know, you’ve got ”Brexit” that was
preceded by ”Grexit”, and probably we’re going to have a much
larger lexicon; that all comes down to the fact that people have
the sense that the European Union, particularly the European
Monetary Union, is a sinking ship. And therefore, if the ship is
sinking, or the movie theatre is on fire, you get to the exit as
fast as possible. But the reality is, that the European Union —
and within that, the European Monetary Union — are the problem.
So, therefore, unless you address the more underlying issue,
which is that Europe is financially and economically bankrupt;
then it really is almost of secondary significance whether
Britain stays in or leaves. If Britain leaves the European Union,
then that’s virtually it for the European Union. Other officials
in Europe, even including Schäuble at the Davos Conference
earlier this month, said that if the Schengen agreement, the open
borders agreement in Europe is broken, then the European Union
will cease to exist. And already in Poland, in Hungary, in other
countries on the edge of Europe but within the European Union,
they’re already building those walls. So in effect, the European
Union, as it’s presently constituted, is a dead letter; it really
doesn’t exist. And the countries of Europe, either collectively
or individually, are going to have to come to face the reality
that their banking system is thoroughly bankrupt; they’ve lost so
much productive capacity that Europe from a physical standpoint
is no longer capable of self-reliance, self-preservation. So, the
whole thing is going under; and of course, there’s a certain
irony in the British threatening to leave the European Union,
since the bankruptcy of the entire trans-Atlantic system is
largely the result of policies that were created in London, and
were then spread about Europe and the United States. You could
almost say that Europe was doomed from the moment that Margaret
Thatcher launched the Big Bang in 1985, and turned London into a
safe haven for speculative gambling operations, drug-money
laundering, anything other than investment in the real economy.
So now, we’re 30 years into that process, and Europe is
finished. So, the issues that are being negotiated between
Cameron and Tusk and the others on the European Commission, are
tiddlywinks; they’re not the real issues. Unless Europe comes up
with its own version of shutting down the City of London and Wall
Street, a genuine full-scale Glass-Steagall separation of
legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling,
then Europe is completely doomed. And the only hope that they
will have is that some sane future leaders, who emerge out of
this political rubble, recognize before it’s perhaps too late
that aligning with China and Russia — which is exactly the
opposite of the policies that are being pursued in Europe right
now — is the only answer. So, I think that that’s the context in
which the question can be answered; and so the issue is merely
that Europe in its present circumstance is doomed. And whether
Britain leaves the European Union or stays in, they are part of
that system of doom that’s going to have to be changed in a much
more fundamental — I’d say ”revolutionary” — way. And the
opportunities are there; they’re presented there because Europe
is at the western end of Eurasia; and the Chinese have already
established the rail links between central China and Germany.
There are opportunities galore under the umbrella of the ”One
Belt-One Road” policy; but the first step is that the European
leaders are going to have abandon their folly. And that’s a
difficult proposition to conceive of, given who the current
European leadership is.

OGDEN: Absolutely. And, let me just elaborate a little bit
what Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized, which is that if you
just look at the refugee crisis, for example, and the absolute
breakdown of Europe to even absorb and handle this under the
current economic conditions. This has pushed people to begin to
discuss the possibility of what the LaRouche movement has been
advocating for quite a long time; which is a new Marshall Plan, a
new program of economic development for the Middle East and North
Africa. It is what was published by the Schiller Institute and
{Executive Intelligence Review} in a major book-length
publication a number of years back, called ”A New Marshall Plan
for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean”. What Helga LaRouche
emphasized is that at the point that the EU is really detonating
underneath people’s noses, there is no solution within the
current geometry.
The only solution is to go with this kind of Marshall Plan,
and to work with China and the BRICS and other countries, to
extend the Silk Road project into this region and to develop the
Middle East and North Africa in order to have an incentive for
millions and tens of millions of refugees not to leave to seek a
better condition. And Helga LaRouche’s emphasis was that this is
a very substantial example of what Xi Jinping has called the
”win-win” paradigm; the ”win-win” system. It is a win for
everybody, for Europe and the United States to work with China
and Russia to develop the Middle East and North Africa along the
Silk Road routes. This kind of cooperation between China and the
rest of the world is what China is seeking in inviting the rest
of the world to engage in; and this is the only way to solve the
crises and shift the geometry overall which is creating the
existential threat which is now being faced by Europe.
Now, this new paradigm; this is exactly what we have been
talking about for quite a while, but I think the foundation for a
new paradigm cannot be seen as merely some sort of extension of
former or present geopolitical ideas about how the world works.
This is not merely a rearrangement of political and economic and
strategic alliances between countries that would still be
dominated by the same axiomatic world view which is what has
brought us to this crisis point to begin with. Rather, there
needs to be a true renaissance; a new calibration, a
re-examination of what our view of mankind is. What our view of
man as a species is, and what mankind’s role within this galaxy
and his relationship to the entire universe; and indeed, what his
responsibility is as a uniquely creative species in this universe
must be.
So, on that subject, Jason Ross is joining us from the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, and I think we’re going to have a
somewhat exciting discussion of what are the implications of the
really profound work that Albert Einstein engaged in over a
century ago; and which is now grabbing the headlines again in the
form of this experiment that has revealed the affirmation of
Einstein’s hypothesis concerning the shape of space-time.

JASON ROSS: Thanks. As I imagine everyone has heard by now,
on September 14th of last year, a gravitational wave was detected
by the interferometer experiments that we had set up in
Washington state and in Louisiana. Over a few months, that signal
was studied to make sure that that really was what had occurred;
and a paper was submitted in January and published in February
announcing the news that a gravitational wave phenomenon
representing the merging of two black holes had been detected.
This meant that a change in space-time had been experienced in
that detector; where maybe we don’t know how the experiment
worked.
Very briefly, two tracks at right angles to each other,
allowed light to move up and down those tracks. Those tracks
reach 4 kilometers long. Due to some very clever engineering, the
effect of length was 100 times that; and by the motion of these
gravity waves — meaning a change in the shape of space due to a
varying intensity of gravity due to these two black holes
spinning around each other — the length of the two tracks varied
by an amount that was about 1/10 the diameter of a proton over a
track length of 4 kilometers. This is equivalent to the star
nearest to us getting closer and further away by the width of a
hair. It’s amazing that was actually able to be measured; that’s
an astonishingly tiny change.
And it says something about the difficulties and why it’s
been — as Matt said — it’s been a century since Einstein had
proposed the existence of these gravity waves; and now they’ve
been detected. So, the recent upgrades to these detectors here in
the US made this possible; there are other detectors around the
world. Some of them are being upgraded; new ones are being
brought on line. There is a proposal for a space-based
interferometry experiment — the Lisa experiment; which NASA had
been a part of, and has now left it to the European Space Agency,
currently scheduled to launch in 2034. Perhaps it’ll be sent
sooner than that, based on this news.
But what does all of this mean? What does it tell us about
— what are the implications? Well for one thing, this means we
really have an entirely new tool for looking at the universe that
we live in. All of our knowledge about the heavens beyond us,
comes from sight, or various forms of sight. You can’t smell a
star, you can’t taste it; you can’t hear it, you can’t fell it.
You can see it. So various forms of seeing are the way we learn
more about our surroundings. From simple observations with the
eyes here on Earth, which were all that were available to Kepler
when he determined how the planets moved; the use of telescopes
in the optical range — simple telescopes that could be seen with
the eye — into more complex telescopes, including ones that see
what we wouldn’t typically call light; radio telescopes.
Telescopes in Earth orbit, looking in other wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum; infrared telescopes, ultra-violet
telescopes, x-ray telescopes. We’ve got a lot of ways of

side of the Moon, where China is going to be within just a
few years sending a lander. The potential to do long wavelength
radio telescope work from that location; this represents
something new.
But what we’ve got with this successful detection based on
the change in space-time with the LIGO [Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory] experiments, this is something
totally different. This is like bringing in a new sense all
together. We’ve been seeing the universe; now we can probably
hear it would be the best analogy. It represents a vibration,
like the sound vibrations our ears are able to pick up. Only this
time, it’s incredibly faint, and it’s about space itself
vibrating; that really is what it is. So, that’s tremendously
important.
On the history of this, it’s important to keep in mind
people are very excited about this; there’s good reason to be,
it’s quite a development. But this can only indirectly be called
a scientific breakthrough; the science behind this — Einstein
proposed this in 1916. He had some more thoughts and wrote
another paper in 1918; some more discussion about it. Hypotheses
about black holes, breakthroughs in computing ability to try to
model these types of things; all of that took place. But what
could be called the fundamentally scientific change occurred 100
years ago with Einstein’s theory of relativity; with gravity
waves being one of the implications. Being able to detect them is
wonderful; it’s an amazing technological advancement. It shows
that we are capable of precision that was totally undreamed of in
Einstein’s time, certainly, or even a few decades ago. The
development that we’ve made has been tremendous.
But I think it’s fair to say this was not a scientific
breakthrough in the real sense of science. It is a new sensation;
it is a new technology. It is a whole new way of looking at
things; and that is tremendously important. I think that if we
look back at what Einstein did that made his hypothesis possible,
we can compare it to the really awful influence of Bertrand
Russell.
So, first on Einstein. We’ve got to recall that what
Einstein did in laying out his revolutionary theories was not
something that he derived; it wasn’t something that he proved. It
wasn’t something that he showed was true based on what was
already known. What Einstein said about the universe contradicted
the Newtonian view of space and time that had become dominant.
Einstein said that that simplistic view of space and time, which
went along somewhat intuitively with our senses, was in fact
untrue; and that basic concepts like simultaneity, or knowing
that two events happen at the same time, such a basic concept as
that. That there’s one time that applies everywhere; Einstein
showed that was untrue. That’s a very unintuitive thought. The
idea that space could have a shape to it; that’s a very
unintuitive thought. It’s not suggested by appearances.
But what Einstein was doing was implementing a world outlook
that goes back to Cusa — although I’m not going to talk about
him right now — but to Leibniz and to Bernhard Riemann. If we
consider the work of Leibniz, 1646-1716, the founder of physical
economy; there’s plenty to say about him, and plenty will be said
on this website. One of the specific things that he looked at was
in the world of physics, Leibniz’s demonstration that there was
no absolute space; that there was no absolute time. This was
contrary to Descartes, Newton, and others. Leibniz said there’s
no distinction between rest and motion, for example. If there’s
no absolute space, you can’t say that anything is at absolute
rest; that was a concept used by Descartes. Absolute space was a
concept used by Newton. But Leibniz was in a fight about this,
saying that space was a relation between concurrently existing
things; but it didn’t exist on its own. In a debate that he had
with a top Newtonian — Samuel Clarke — this seemingly physical
discrepancy about is space absolute or not, turned into very
directly a political one. That, both of these two — Leibniz and
Clarke — used their concept of space to make a point about God,
and implicitly also about government; about the basis of the
legitimacy of a ruler.
Clarke, the Newtonian, said that because everything could
have been created anywhere in space once God decided to do the
Creation, that showed that God made a choice without any
necessity; that it was just because God felt like doing then and
felt like doing it where he did, because he felt like doing that.
Sort of like a dog deciding to his business wherever he feels
like it. Leibniz said that if God had to do something without a
good reason, that God would be only all-powerful, but not good or
wise. And Leibniz said that that conception of God has to include
those perfections as well; goodness, wisdom, and power.
Now between the lines, what these two were also saying was a
view of government and a view of society. Implicit in this is
Leibniz’s view that the legitimacy of a ruler or of government is
not simply from having gathered power; but from using it in a
wise way to achieve good ends. That may seem a little bit far
afield, but it’s true; and this is part of the background on this
concept. That from the necessity for goodness came the
nonexistence of absolute space; that’s how Leibniz showed that.
He was right.
Bernhard Riemann, in 1854, delivered a presentation, wrote a
paper on the shape of space. And Riemann said that since the time
of Euclid up to his time, no one had ever really taken on in a
realistic way, what the basis of the shape of space is. That
Euclid said things like the sum of the angles in a triangle are
180; Riemann said that may or may not be true. On a curved space,
for example, it’s not true. The most important aspect is that
Riemann didn’t propose replacing Euclid with a similar geometry;
it’s that he said that the basis of our understanding of space
has to be the physical causes that make things occur within
space. He was right; that was Einstein’s approach. With
relativity, he said that our understanding of space can’t start
from a box; it has to start from physical principles that give
rise to the effects in space, and to the relationship of objects
in space. So light, gravitation, these became the basis of space
for Einstein; and those concepts lie outside of space. They
aren’t geometrical concepts in the way Euclid’s concepts were
geometrical. Light is a real thing; gravity is a real principle.
So, Einstein, in following on this and implementing it, and
developing his theories, developing his breakthroughs of
relativity, created something that contradicted; he made a new
hypothesis. To contrast that, let’s look at the past 100 years.
We’ve now affirmed something that Einstein had proposed 100 years
ago; but where are the new Einsteins? Where are the new theories
that contradict? Where are the new concepts that don’t follow
from what we already know, but introduce fundamentally new
principles? And more importantly, why is that not understood as
what science really is?
To say just a little bit about Bertrand Russell’s role in
all of that, LaRouche has called Russell the most evil man of the
20th Century; and we have given ample demonstrations of that.
Some of the more straightforward evidence of it is his views
about keeping the world population down; especially dark-skinned
races, who Russell particularly was upset about there being more
of. Proposing a scientific dictatorship, using murder to
eliminate people who became intelligent and opposed the ruling
class, keeping science secret from the majority of people; this
is some of the nice outlook that Russell had on things. He also,
in his own work as a ”professional” you might say, worked on
destroying the concept of science and turning it into
mathematics. He did this before and after the year 1900; this is
somewhat earlier in his life, where he wanted to throw away what
Einstein ended up doing, which was creating a new concept that
contradicted the past. And say instead, that every thought in the
future, will have to derive from thoughts in the past; that we
can replace creativity with logic.
Russell really put that into practice. Many people who are
familiar with Russell might think of him as being an anti-war
demonstrator, as being a peace-loving activist. Somebody who was
opposed to war, to conflict; especially to nuclear weapons. And,
included in that, technology itself; the concept that science is
dangerous, that perhaps science should be held back, because
these technologies allow us to exterminate ourselves. The idea
that the appropriate response to that would be to eliminate
technologies, rather than to have a productive, future-oriented
basis for relations among nations. This really sprung up in a
major way around anti-nuclear activism, of which Russell was a
major proponent.
So, I think what we can reflect on, what we can take from
the excitement around these gravitational findings, is that: 1)
it’s an opportunity to really go back and really develop and
understanding of who Einstein was. How did he think? Who was this
man, who a century ago, put forth the hypothesis that was
detected in this way only this year. Who was Riemann? How did he
actually think? We can reflect on the opportunities that we have
for the use of these kinds of instruments to provide us an
entirely new window to understanding the universe around us. Not
only are we seeing things in a different band, we’re using a
different sense all together. We’re hearing the universe; we’re
able to listen in on a completely different kind of physical
process than the electromagnetic ones that are the basis of all
astronomy otherwise. Using light, radio waves, x-rays and that
sort of thing. And I think it also demonstrates that the ability
to develop new technologies, to rise to a challenge, certainly
exists. And we saw this in the Apollo program, which similarly,
going to the Moon itself did not involve as much new science as
it did new technologies, new social organizations to implement
those technologies. Which we saw with some of the breakthroughs
of the truly amazing apparatus used to detect these gravitational
waves. But we have to have grand objectives. I mentioned the LISA
experiment; a space-based interferometry experiment, similar to
ones which did this recent detection, which NASA had been a major
player in and then pulled back on, as part of the Obama
destruction of a national mission, a natural future. NASA, as the
leading representative of that future orientation of the nation.
So, we have to have human objectives for the nation, for
ourselves. We have to, as a nation, have objectives like what
China’s doing now; as represented by China’s moves towards the
Moon from the Helium-3 standpoint. From the sheer excitement of
the population of China being asked to put forward proposals for
experiments to take up to the Moon. This is something that people
are actually thinking about as citizens of this nation. ”Wow!
What are we going to send up there?” ”What are we going to take
to the Moon for the next trip?”
We’ve got a lot of objectives that have been defined that we
have just been sitting on for decades. And if we eliminate the
source of this culturally, the frankly unscientific view of
science, this anti-human view of humanity, we can do great
things. And we can do it by removing Obama and giving this nation
a future-oriented mission again.

OGDEN: Well thank you very much, Jason. I think that’s
certainly exciting; the idea to be able to directly perceive
changes in space-time itself. So, I’d like to thank Jason for his
presentation, and I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us remotely
today. And I’d like to thank all of you for joining us; and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

8. februar 2016 – Tørke og fødevaremangel berører nu mange millioner mennesker fra Zimbabwe og i hele Sydsudan og ind i Afrikas Horn. Den udtørrede situation har forbindelse til vejrfænomenet El Niño og er af denne grund ligeledes til stede i andre lokaliteter i Stillehavsområdets Indiske Hav, inklusive i Sydasien og tværs over til Centralamerika. Men sårbarheden over for lidelse, fordrivelse og død er resultatet af at tillade det afdøde, britisk-baserede »markeds«-system at blive hængende, med dets planer for at forhindre de fysiske midler til at forsvare og fremme menneskeheden.

Der er erklæret katastrofetilstand i sidste måned i Etiopien (befolkning 100 millioner) og Zimbabwe (befolkning 16 millioner). Sydsudan er underkastet en ekstrem situation, og Egypten har indledt et nødhjælpsprogram for at afhjælpe den. For eksempel har Etiopien lige nu og her brug for fødevarehjælp til mere end 10 mio. mennesker.

I dag sagde FN, at der hersker en ekstrem nødtilstand for børn i Somalia (befolkning 10,8 mio.). FN’s direktør for fødevarehjælp til Somalia, Peter de Clercq, sagde, »Niveauet af fejlernæring, især blandt børn, er særdeles bekymrende, med næsten 305.000 børn under fem år, der lider under akut fejlernæring. Vi skønner, at 58.300 børn vil dø, hvis de ikke kommer under behandling.«

Husk, at, i 2011 døde henved 260.000 mennesker i Somalia pga. manglende rettidig hjælp. Næsten 1 mio. somaliere – 1 ud af 12 – kæmper for blot at få noget at spise. FN erklærede, at henved 4,7 mio. mennesker, næsten 40 % af befolkningen, har et overhængende behov for nødhjælp af enhver art – vand, mad og medicin.

I det område, der kendes som Centralamerikas »Tørre Korridor«, (Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua og Costa Rica), berører en to år lang tørke 4,2 mio. mennesker, af hvilke 3,5 mio. med nød og næppe kan få mad. I Guatemala er 100 % af landets majs- og rishøst blevet udslettet, og regeringen har erklæret en fødevare-katastrofetilstand. Det er den samme historie i de andre lande. I dag advarede Kontoret for koordinering af humanitære anliggender (OCHA) om, at 2,8 mio. mennesker har behov for akut humanitærhjælp, de fleste af dem i Guatemala og Honduras.

Det, der mangler i hele dette område og i Afrika, er platformen til understøttelse af produktion: elektricitet, offentligt sundhedsvæsen, sikker, moderne landbrug, transport, en pålidelig styring af ferskvandsressourcer og andre karakteristika for et samfund i fremgang. Kinas udenrigspolitik intervenerer for at afbøde denne mangel. Men arven efter koloniperiodens håndhævelse af primitive vilkår eksisterer stadig. En grum indikator for dette er, at de katastroferamte områder i Etiopien i de seneste år specifikt er blevet udråbt som »succeshistorier« inden for landbruget af Bill Gates og Rockefeller Foundations’ AGRA, Alliance for en Grøn Revolution i Afrika, som har påtvunget deres svindel med »husmandssteder« inden for landbruget i området.

I december 2015 udstedte FN en appel om en rekordstor finansiering af nødhjælp til 20,1 mia. dollar i 2016 for at hjælpe 87 mio. mennesker i 37 forventede nationale og regionale kriser i år. Deres appel inkluderede ikke engang alle de kendte katastrofeområder, såsom El Salvador, Malawi, Zimbabwe og Papua Ny Guinea, som befinder sig i El Niño-området.

(Zepp-LaRouche 32 min.)

Kun, hvis man anvender en Marshallplan, en Silkevejs-Marshallplan i regionen, hvor alle disse lande … arbejder sammen og siger: Vi vil tage hele området fra Kaukasus til den Persiske Golf, fra Afghanistan til Middelhavet, som ét område, og vi vil sætte en reel udvikling i gang. Vi erklærer ørkenen krig; vi skaber nyt vand! … Så kan man udvikle landbrug. Man kan udvikle skovbrug. Man må bygge infrastruktur, der er lige så tæt som f.eks. i Tyskland. Tyskland er et perfekt eksempel på et infrastrukturmæssigt meget veludviklet land. Så kan man bygge nye byer, og man kan opbygge industrier.

GDE Error: Requested URL is invalid

22. januar, 2016 – Efter introduktionen af insektgiften DDT i begyndelsen af 1940’erne, blev det globale dødstal på grund af mange insektbårne sygdomme, især malaria, øjeblikkelig reduceret. Der var spektakulære, livreddende resultater over hele kloden. I 1946 havde Sri Lanka (dengang det britiske Ceylon, med en befolkning på 6,657 mio.) 2,8 mio. tilfælde af malaria, og 12.500 døde det år, før man anvendte DDT. Efter at man påbegyndte storstilet sprøjtning mod myg i østaten, faldt antallet af malariatilfælde i 1963 til 17, med kun et dødsfald! I staten Georgia, USA, blev malaria, der tidligere var meget udbredt, totalt udryddet i 1950, efter at DDT-sprøjtning blev introduceret i 1945.

Landbruget havde også betydelige fordele, idet DDT også var effektivt imod planteinsekter, biller, flåter og andre skadelige insekter.

Miljøbevægelsen – tidligere fortalere for racehygiejne – gik i aktion for omgående at fryse dette. Det lykkedes dem. I 1972 blev DDT ved en regeringsbeslutning forbudt i USA. I 1976 udstedte Verdenssundhedsorganisationen WHO et internationalt forbud, i form af en anbefaling (advarsel) mod DDT. Selvom lande rent teknisk stadig frit kunne vælge at anvende DDT, og USA endda kunne fortsætte med at eksportere DDT, så stoppede fabrikkerne med at fremstille det, og det blev svært at få fat på. Der var andre forhindringer. F.eks. afskar det britiske Udenrigsministerium og US AID (agentur for international udviklingshjælp) hjælp til lande, der anvendte DDT. I 1995 satte FN’s miljøprogram en bevægelse i gang for at lave en global traktat mod DDT samt en liste over andre dæmoniserede kemikalier, der kulminerede i Stockholm-konventionen i 2001, som formelt krævede, at 11 kemikalier (kaldet POP’s – ”vedholdende organiske forurenende stoffer”) ikke anvendtes.

Som et resultat er 70 millioner mennesker unødigt døde af malaria i perioden 1973 – 2014, ifølge WHO’s statistikker. I dag optræder sygdommen i 97 lande. Dødstallet for malaria på verdensplan ansloges at være 584.000 for 2013, med det totale antal smittede i størrelsesordenen næsten 200 millioner. 90 % af dødsfaldende forekommer i Afrika.

Føj yderligere hertil dødsfaldene og lidelserne som følge af dengue-feber, chicungunya-feber, Vestnil-feber og andre mygge- og insektbårne sygdomme, som nu spredes internationalt. Den seneste svøbe er Zika-virus i de amerikanske lande.

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethan) blev første gang kunstigt fremstillet i 1874, men dets insektdræbende egenskaber blev først identificeret i 1939 af den schweiziske kemiker, Paul Hermann Müller. DDT blev hurtigt taget i brug under 2. Verdenskrig, for at kontrollere malaria og tyfus blandt soldaterne og civilbefolkningen; efter krigen blev det hurtigt den førende insektgift i landbruget, såvel som et generelt middel mod lus og andre insekter. I 1948 modtog Müller Nobelprisen i fysiologi og medicin.

Dette blev genstand for bandlysning af den flok, der var fortalere for befolkningsreduktion. Prins Philip refererede specifikt til Sri Lanka, da han fordømte DDT:

”Jeg var i Sri Lanka fornylig, hvor et FN-projekt i slutningen af 1940’erne satsede på at udrydde malaria. Det er en ø, og det var derfor muligt at tilintetgøre myggen, der var bærer af sygdommen. Det, som folk ikke indså, var [sic], at malaria i realiteten kontrollerede befolkningstilvæksten. Konsekvensen var, at befolkningen inden for omkring 20 år fordobledes …” Det talte han om i 1981.

Miljøbevægelsens intrigante plan gav DDT betegnelsen ”forurener” af miljøet og et kræftfremkaldende stof for mennesker, dyr og planter. Bogen ”Silent Spring” fra 1962 (da.: Det tavse forår) af Rachel Carson blev samlingspunktet for disse beskyldninger.  Skidt med, at Carsons ”videnskab” var fup. Forbuddet mod DDT i USA var en af Agenturet for Miljøbeskyttelse (EPA)’s første handlinger, hvis etablering i 1970 i øvrigt i sig selv var en bevidst del af den ’grønne’ bevægelses nedbrydning af USA’s institutioner.

[I tillæg til det iscenesatte forbud mod DDT har man forfulgt en omfattende begrænsning af andre nyttige kemikalier – forskning og udvikling, så vel som tilgængelighed – siden 1970’erne, gennem underminering af patentloven.]

I 2006 ophævede WHO forbuddet mod DDT efter 30 år. Der er imidlertid ikke arrangeret nogen mobilisering af målrettet anvendelse af DDT, eller udvikling og anvendelse af et erstatningskemikalie der, hvor der findes resistens over for DDT. I stedet har der i årevis været praktiseret en kynisk, anti-kemikaliekampagne for at få donorlande og organisationer til at forsyne afrikanerne med myggenet til deres senge. Det har formindsket statistikken for dødsfald og sygdom, men malaria er stadig vidt udbredt, og en dræber. Kampagnerne imod DDT og for myggenet er så meget desto mere modbydelige, fordi de udføres i velgørenhedens navn.

24. januar 2016 – Fuldstændig uventet for de fleste brugte den tyske finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble lejligheden som deltager på diskussionspanelet om »Europas fremtid« på det Økonomiske Verdensforum i Davos, Schweiz den 21. jan. til at foreslå, at en »koalition af de villige« skulle investere »milliarder« i udviklingen af Mellemøsten og Afrika. Dette kommer mindre end en uge efter Zepp-LaRouches seneste artikel om spørgsmålet, med overskriften: »Løsningen på den europæiske flygtningekrise er en Silkevejs-Marshallplan!«.

Vi må »investere milliarder i disse områder« for at dæmme op for strømmen af folk, der flygter til Europa, sagde Schäuble. »Vi behøver en Marshallplan for de områder, der er ved at blive ødelagt«, erklærede han. Og i betragtning af, at en række europæiske lande har nægtet at acceptere påtvungne kvoter af flygtninge, foreslog han en »koalition af de villige« til at finansiere en udviklingsplan og lovede støtte fra Tyskland. Han erklærede sig endda enig med den græske premierminister Tsipras i, at de ville være skamfuldt for Europa at forvandle sig til et »fæstning« og nægte de mennesker, der befinder sig uden for grænserne, adgang.

Stifter af Schiller Instituttet Helga Zepp-LaRouche har længe foreslået et initiativ i lighed med Marshallplanen for Sydvestasien og Afrika, og hun er medforfatter af en EIR-Specialrapport om projektet for Verdenslandbroen, der inkluderer netop disse områder. I en artikel med et internationalt overblik, skrevet 22. jan., (»Kinas Ny Silkevejspolitik er løsningen på flygtningekrisen!«) spørger hun, hvad man skal mene om den tyske finansministers tilsyneladende pludselige skift i dette spørgsmål: At netop Schäuble, super-europæeren og bankernes mand og Trojkaens nedskæringsfortaler, pludselig skulle have åbnet sit hjerte for disse staters udvikling? Allerede Henrik IV forsvarede det synpunkt, at, for den gode sags skyld behøvede ikke alle at være motiveret ud fra de højeste idealer; for at opnå målet kræves der hos mange også, at deres egen skjorte brænder. For Schäuble ved, at, uden Schengen – aftalen om at ophæve grænsekontrol inden for EU – ingen euro, og uden euro, intet EU. Eftersom der ikke er nogen solidaritet i EU, er det bedre ikke at udøve pres, der blot gør nederlaget for Lissabontraktatens EU endnu mere åbenlyst, men blot forlade sig på ’de villige’«.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche fortsætter sin artikel med at understrege betydningen af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jingpings nylige besøg i Mellemøsten og hans tilbud om, at disse lande kan gå med i politikken med den Ny Silkevej. Og det på et tidspunkt, hvor det overforgældede finanssystem har kurs mod et nyt kæmpekrak. Som finansminister er Schäuble udmærket klar over dette. Hvis han derfor er seriøs mht. en Marshallplan for Mellemøsten og Afrika, må han promovere Glass/Steagall-reformer i hele Europa, som den eneste måde, hvorpå en reglementeret afskrivning af den giftige gæld og en udvikling af realøkonomien kan organiseres.

Dette er, slutter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, prøven, der skal vise, om Saul virkelig har konverteret til Paulus.

Der findes i øjeblikket kun et eneste, strategisk tiltag, der kan skabe en løsning på de forskellige kriser – den finansielle, økonomiske, flygtningerelaterede og moralske krise – og det er den kinesiske regerings tilbud om samarbejde om opbygningen af den Nye Silkevej, på basis af en win-win-strategi. Vi må omgående gøre en ende på City of Londons og Wall Streets kasinoøkonomi, til hvis undersåtter Schäuble, Spahn, Kerber og den tidligt falmende Jörg Asmussen hører, gennem den omgående vedtagelse af en bankopdelingslov i traditionen efter Franklin D. Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov. Og dernæst må vi have et kreditsystem som det, Tyskland havde med KfW (Kreditanstalt for Genopbygning) under genopbygningen efter Anden Verdenskrig. 

Titelbillede: Forsiden til Sebastian Brants satiriske skrift, ‘Narreskibet’, fra 1494.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

I denne nyhedsorientering har vi valgt at bringe en række uvurdelige, strategiske vurderinger vedrørende kampen imod Islamisk Stat, flygtningekrisen i Europa og det igangværende finanskollaps, som er fremkommet i løbet af december måned på de ugentlige webcast, der finder sted hver fredag aften amerikansk tid på www.larouchepac.com. LaRouchePAC er en amerikansk politisk aktionskomité, grundlagt og vedvarende inspireret af den amerikanske økonom og statsmand, Lyndon LaRouche. Jeffrey Steinberg (t.v.) er en ledende medarbejder til Lyndon LaRouche og er også efterretningsredaktør for tidsskriftet Executive Intelligence Review. Ben Deniston er leder af LaRouchePAC’s Videnskabsteam.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Det, som EU hidtil, og igen på dette seneste topmøde-komsammen, har foreslået som respons til flygtningekrisen, er den totale moralske og politiske bankerot. Den idé, at man ved hjælp af kanonbåde skulle drive millioner af flygtninge fra Sydvestasien og Afrika tilbage, og tage tusinder og atter tusinder af dødsfald gennem drukning med i købet, alt imens man samtidig vil bevare den neoliberale, økonomiske politik, som er den faktor, der for Afrikas vedkommende har forårsaget underudviklingen, i hvilken årsagen til masseflugten igen skal findes, er lige så virkelighedsfjern, som den er modbydelig.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Men hverken menneskehedens udslettelse i et termonukleart Armageddon eller ofringen af menneskeliv til fordel for finansoligarkiet er uundgåelig. At forhindre dette kræver først og fremmest, at man overvinder partianskuelser eller geopolitiske anskuelser og i stedet erstatter dem med et upartisk samarbejde på alle niveauer, for menneskehedens fælles interesser. Ikke overraskende viser EU, der siden Maastrichttraktaten har udviklet sig til et monstrum, i lyset af flygtningekrisen og det forestående finanskrak, sig ikke alene at være en mislykket model, men EU er yderligere nu ved at gennemføre en åbenlyst fascistisk politik. Det seneste fremstød i denne retning er Bruxelles meddelelse om, at den under alle omstændigheder allerede afskyelige EU-grænsekontrol-organisation Frontex skal erstattes af en ny organisation, der kontrolleres fra Bruxelles, og som deporterer flygtninge med egne grænsevagter, opererer i ikke-EU-medlemsstater og kan sætte sig ud over indvendinger fra medlemsstater. Dermed ville det i flygtningespørgsmålet komme til den største overførsel af suverænitet til Bruxelles, siden euroens indførelse.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

7. december 2015 – Avisen Xinhuas dækning af Xi Jinpings historiske Afrikaturne i denne måned inkluderer nogle ting, som den vestlige dækning har udeladt – nemlig, at afrikanske ledere, ud over at være taknemlige for Kinas løfte om en 60 mia. dollar stor investering hen over de næste tre år, også understregede, at Kina, ulig de vestlige kolonimagter, ikke opstiller betingelser og politiske begrænsninger over for de afrikanske nationer, men seriøst har opbygning af nationer til formål.

Xi sagde i sin hovedtale på Forum for Samarbejde mellem Kina og Afrika (FOCAC) i Sydafrika i sidste uge: »Kina er af den stærke overbevisning, at Afrika tilhører det afrikanske folk, og at afrikanske anliggender bør besluttes af det afrikanske folk.«

Adji Ayassor, statslig minister i det Togos Ministerium for Planlægning af Økonomi, Finans og Udvikling, sagde fredag til Xinhua, at den kinesiske præsidents hovedtale sagde »sandheden om samarbejdet mellem Kina og Afrika«. I modstrid med det, som nogle i Vesten hævder, så er Kina »ikke i færd med at kolonisere Afrika«, sagde han. »Vi mener, det er den bedste måde at udvikle Afrika på … Det (Kina) følger en ægte kurs for udvikling i Afrika. Det er et ægte samarbejde.«

Zimbabwes præsident Robert Mugabe, der i øjeblikket også indtager formandsposten, der går på omgang, for Den afrikanske Union (AU), takkede i sin tale ved åbningsceremonien Kina for sin »betingelsesløse støtte« til Afrika og angreb aktioner fra vestens side, der har kørt fremskridt i Afrika af sporet. »Kina har aldrig forsøgt at kolonisere os, og alt imens visse med henblik på at forringe har fremført, at vores samarbejde med Beijing kun skulle være drevet af handelsinteresser, så stemmer kendsgerningerne på jorden ikke overens med en så forvrænget anskuelse«, sagde Mugabe.

Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta sagde til reportere den 5. dec., at »den opfattelse, at Kina er den nye koloniherre, er en total misrepræsentation af Beijings aktiviteter her i Afrika … Opnåelse af gensidig gavn er grundlaget for samarbejdet mellem Kina og Afrika. Jeg tror ikke, man kan kalde en partner, der hjælper os med at bekæmpe fattigdom og andre udviklingsmæssige udfordringer, for en kolonimagt.« Kenyatta sagde, at det, Kina gør i Afrika, er det, som koloniherrerne ikke gjorde i fortiden, nemlig at hjælpe Afrika ud af fattigdom. »Kina er parat til at med vores udvikling og imødekomme vore socioøkonomiske mål, uden at påtvinge os sin egen dagsorden. Dette er et fremragende aspekt ved vores samarbejde med Kina.«

Foto: Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta.  

5. december, 2015 – Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, der nu afslutter sit højt priste Afrika-besøg, har i betydelig grad opgraderet det kinesisk-afrikanske forhold til at være ”en vidtgående strategisk forbindelse” og fremlagt en omfattende strategi for afrikansk industrialisering. ’Hvirvelvinden’ af en rundrejse, som den kinesiske præsident har foretaget – hans andet præsidentbesøg i Afrika – huer næppe iagttagerne i det Hvide Hus’ Afrikakontor. I sin tale til det Kinesisk-Afrikanske Samarbejdsforum (FOCAC) d. 4. december understregede Xi den fundamentale betydning af at reducere fattigdom. ”Fattigdom er den underliggende årsag til kaos”, sagde han.

“Og udvikling er nøglen til at løse alle problemer.” Han bemærkede, at den nuværende situation åbner for enorme muligheder for udvikling, men også farer, der må konfronteres, inklusiv terrorisme, miljøforringelser og hegemonisme.

Besøget har skabt en kolossal følelse af optimisme blandt afrikaeksperter. ”Kinas strategier for udvikling og samarbejde har hjulpet det afrikanske kontinent med at skabe en ganske hurtig, synlig og betydelig økonomisk og social omstilling”, sagde professor Gerishon Ikiara, meddirektør ved Nairobi Universitetets Institut for Diplomati og Internationale Studier i Kenya. ”For tyve år siden indgik Kinas samarbejde med Afrika om industriel kapacitet dårligt nok i internationale diskussioner. I og med, at afrikanske lande nu betragter Kina som den mest velegnede partner i deres nationale industrialisering og andre udviklingsprogrammer, har denne situation imidlertid ændret sig radikalt”, sagde Ikiara.

“Det er mislykkedes for Afrika opnå en meningsfuld udvikling inden for vareproduktion i de seneste årtier”, sagde Fay Chung, en afrikansk lærd i Zimbabwe af kinesisk herkomst”, men nu er der kæmpestore muligheder for et industrielt samarbejde mellem de to parter, såvel som tilstrækkeligt rum for yderligere udvikling.”

Da Forum for Kinesisk-Afrikansk Samarbejde blev etableret i år 2000, var handelsvolumenet mellem Kina og Afrika $10 mia. Nu er Kina blevet kontinentets største handelspartner, med et tovejs handelsvolumen, der i henhold til Kinas Handelsministerium forventes at nå $300 mia. i 2015. Men kursen fokuserer nu klart på infrastruktur, i særdeleshed transport og ”kapacitetsopbygning”. Kina vil uddanne 200.000 afrikanere til kvalificeret teknisk personale i Afrika og vil give teknisk uddannelse til 40.000 afrikanere, der bringes til Kina for oplæring.

Alt imens præsident Xi, og senest udenrigsminister Wang Yi, har fremhævet behovet for skabelsen af et stærkt grundlag for Afrikas industrialisering, så vil kinesiske investeringer også blive rettet mod en stigende landbrugsproduktion og -produktivitet, med fokus på storlandbrug, oplagring og forarbejdning af korn og dyrehold. Kina vil starte landbrugsprojekter i 100 afrikanske landsbyer og vil sende 30 hold kinesiske landbrugseksperter til at hjælpe med programmerne.

For at fremme den kulturelle udveksling – en af de fem vigtige ”grundpiller”, som den kinesiske præsident har anført som grundlæggende for det forstærkede forhold – vil Kina bygge fem kulturcentre, introducere TV-udsendelser via satellit i landsbyer og bringe 900 afrikanske, akademiske lærde til Kina. Kina vil også udvide antallet af direkte flyforbindelser mellem Kina og afrikanske byer, for at forøge kulturel udveksling og turisme.

3. december, 2015 – Xi Jinping er i Sydafrika, hvor han og hans stab har underskrevet 26 aftaler til en samlet værdi af $6.5 mia. med præsident Jacob Zuma og afrikanske virksomheder. BD-Live rapporterer fra Sydafrika, at handelsaftalerne omfatter:

China Industrial Development Corporation og Beijing Auto Works underskrev en kontrakt til $835 mio., den største af aftalerne, om at bygge en bilfabrik i Sydafrika, hvis produkter skal sælges til andre afrikanske lande. Den forventes at skabe 2.500 direkte og 7.500 indirekte jobs.

• China Development Bank tilvejebringer en lånefacilitet på $500 mio. til det sydafrikanske elektricitetsselskab, Eskom, til understøttelse af forsyningsselskabets infrastrukturplan.
• Transnet sikrede en $2.5mia. finansieringsgaranti fra China Export Credit Insurance Corporation, oven i et tidligere $2.5mia. bilateralt lån fra China Development Bank, til finansiering af jernbane-, havne- og pipeline-projekter. China North Rail og China South Rail vandt sidste år en kontrakt om at bygge mere end halvdelen af 1064 lokomotiver på Transnets anskaffelsesprogram.

I morgen holder Xi åbningstalen ved det andet topmøde i Forum for Kina-Afrika Samarbejde (FOCAC), der finder sted 4.-5. december i Johannesburg, Sydafrika. Den forudgående FOCAC konference fandt sted i Beijing i 2006. Efter den første fandt sted i år 2000 i Beijing med præsident Jiang Zemin, har der siden været afholdt en FOCAC ministeriel konference hvert tredje år. FOCAC-topmøderne og -konferencerne har fokuseret på fortsat forbedring af samarbejdet mellem Kina og Afrika, et samarbejde, der i mellemtiden er vokset hurtigt.

Efter at have tilbragt en dag ved COP21 konferencen, blev Xi hilst varmt velkommen i Zimbabwe, hvor han mødtes med præsident Mugabe, og underskrev flere aftaler om infrastruktur, finansiering og kultur. I en artikel af Xi publiceret i Zimbabwe Herald, stod der, at de tætte bånd mellem Kina og Zimbabwe er en hjørnesten i Kinas udenrigspolitik. Kinesiske investeringer i Zimbabwe er steget hurtigt, fra $600 mio. i 2013 til bilateral handel for $1.24 mia. i 2014.

Det kinesiske engagement i afrikansk udvikling, som demonstreredes ved Xis besøg i Zimbabwe og Sydafrika, viser, at historierne i den vestlige presse om en forestående negativ indvirkning på Kinesisk udviklingsbistand grundet en afmatning i Kinas vækstrater, endnu ikke har berørt Kinas engagement i Afrika.

Foto: Zimbabwes Robert Mugabe hilser Kinas Xi Jinping velkommen.

4. december 2015 – I sin åbningstale til topmødet for statsoverhoveder ved det andet Kinesisk-Afrikanske Samarbejdsforum (FOCAC), der begyndte i dag i Johannesburg, Sydafrika, annoncerede præsident Xi Jinping en pakke til $60 mia. i udviklingsbistand og hjælp til Afrika fordelt på ti forskellige programmer over de næste tre år. Topmødets tema, der på forhånd var godkendt af Xi og værten, den sydafrikanske præsident Jacob Zuma, er opbygning af relationer mellem Afrika og Kina, baseret på win-win samarbejde om fælles udvikling. Formålet for topmødet er at uddybe og opgradere det kinesisk-afrikanske samarbejde.

Xi sagde, at fremdriften i Afrikas rivende vækst ”ikke er til at stoppe.” I løbet af de sidste 15 år er omfanget af den afrikansk-kinesiske handel vokset fra $10 mia. til $220 mia., og de direkte kinesiske investeringer i Afrika er steget fra $500 mio. til $30 mia. Det kraftigt stigende antal infrastrukturprojekter, som Kina sammen med afrikanske lande engagerer sig i, eksemplificerer det win-win samarbejde, som Xi i dag baserede sine forslag på. Zuma bifaldt den hastigt voksende fællesindsats, der nu gør Kina til Afrikas største handelspartner.

Xi er på sin syvende rejse til Afrika. Dette er hans anden rejse, siden han blev statsoverhoved. Han annoncerede Kinas planer om et win-win samarbejde med Afrika på et tidspunkt, hvor afrikanske lande kæmper med et fald i indtægter, der skyldes prisfaldet på de råvarer, de sælger. På grund af manglende industrialisering er Afrika i stor udstrækning afhængig af at sælge disse råvarer.

Xis engagement i udvikling og samarbejde knuser de nedslående påstande fra de førhen industrialiserede, vestlige lande, som hævder, at den ubetydelige nedgang i den kinesiske økonomis vækstrate vil resultere i en katastrofe for Afrika.

Xis tilbud inkluderer rentefrie lån til $5 mia., og $35 mia. i lån med favorabel rentesats. Det kinesiske samarbejde vil omfatte programmer for landbrug, industrialisering, sundhed, kultur, sikkerhed og reduktion af fattigdom. Der er afsat nødhjælp til EUR143 mio. til lande, der har haft en dårlig høst som følge af El Niño. Xi sagde også, at ikke-rentebærende gæld for de fattigste lande vil blive eftergivet ved udgangen af året.

Xi sagde, at Kina vil give $60mio. til den Afrikanske Union til finansiering af fredsbevarende operationer. Zimbabwes præsident Robert Mugabe, præsident for den Afrikanske Union, karakteriserede Xis forslagspakke som ”historisk”. Afrikanske iagttagere anser Kina for at være Afrikas mest velegnede partner, fordi de ved, at den kinesiske udviklingsstrategi ikke vil ofre Afrikas langsigtede interesser.

Foto: Reception i FOCAC. Xi Jinping til venstre i billedet, Jacob Zuma ses til højre.

4. december, 2015 – Som et led i deres helhedsplan for krigsførelse imod BRIKS  har briterne nu en ny plan for at omvælte den sydafrikanske regering. Den blev annonceret af den sydafrikanske veteran-journalist og britiske agent Allister Sparks 2. december på websiden Business Day (BDlive.co.za) i artiklen ”Ønskes: blød exitstrategi for Zuma – før 2019”. Sparks insisterer på, at Zuma må gå af nu. Fordi Zuma har forvaltet økonomien så dårligt (han nævner intet om globalt kollaps), at ”vi” ikke har råd til at lade ham afslutte sin valgperiode.

Sparks siger, at forhindringen ligger i Zumas frygt for, at de mange anklager om korruption vil vende tilbage og hjemsøge ham, når han forlader posten. Derfor må det regerende ANC og den Demokratiske Alliance enes om at ændre forfatningen, for at bemyndige den nye præsident til at give Zuma amnesti, som den amerikanske præsident Gerald Ford gjorde for Richard Nixon efter Watergate-skandalen. Sparks håber, at Zuma vil blive erstattet af vicepræsident Cyril Ramaphosa, som ikke er kendt for at støtte hverken kernekraft eller BRIKS:

Men som Sparks ved, er præsident Zuma ikke interesseret i en exit, ”blød” eller på anden vis. Så hvad taler han om? Eller snarere, hvad er det han ikke taler om?

Den britiske plan er at tvinge ANC til at droppe Zuma ved at mobilisere maksimal støtte til deres sydafrikanske Mussolini, Julius (”Juju”) Malema, der talte i Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House) få dage før Sparks’ erklæring. Invitationen til at tale i Chatham House svarer til at blive ’salvet’ af oligarkiet som et aktiv. Malema talte den 25. november til Oxford Unionen, den hæderkronede debatselskab ved Oxford Universitet, før han den 27. november holdt sin tale i Chatham House, hvor han desuden deltog i en dialog med Financial Times’ nyhedsredaktør Alec Russell. I London talte han også med nogle af de multinationale selskaber og holdt en tale i Sydafrikas Handelskammer. Den britisk styrede sydafrikanske Mail & Guardian rapporterede: ”Malema var et ’hit’ i Storbritannien.

Malema, en intetvidende bølle, svindler og Louis Vuitton-revolutionær, har opbygget sit angivelige ”marxistiske” parti, De Økonomiske Frihedskæmpere (EFF), på omfordelings-demagogi med støtte fra Winnie Mandela og økonomisk støtte fra velhavende sorte sydafrikanere med forbindelser til London og Wall Street. De har også holdt ham ude af fængsel. Ved valget i 2014 dukkede EFF frem som en national kraft med 25 ud af de 400 sæder i Nationalforsamlingen; i provinsvalgene vandt det dengang mere end 8 % af stemmerne i Free State, og mere end 10 % i Gauteng. Malema er en effektiv demagog.

Inden for den samme tidsramme, som Malemas besøg i Storbritannien og Sparks’ annoncering af regimeskifte fandt sted, aflagde Prins Harry fra 30. november til 3. december i Sydafrika et officielt besøg, der, som han sagde, var ”på vegne af Dronningen”. Kongelige besøg er sjældne, og har som regel et u-annonceret politisk formål. Harry mødtes i en time med præsident Zuma den 3. december, efter at han den 1. december mødtes med den pensionerede anglikanske ærkebiskop Desmond Tutu, der nu er erklæret modstander til ANC. Dronningen gjorde fornylig Tutu til æresmedlem af Order of the Companions of Honor.

Foto: Jacob Zuma møder Prins Harry under dennes officielle besøg i Sydafrika.

30. november 2015 – Arvind Subramanian, økonomisk chefrådgiver til den indiske Modiregering, opfordrede, på tærsklen til FN’s Konference om Klimaforandring COP21’s knusende, fascistiske slag i Paris, til et »Manhattan-projekt for Kul« og kaldte den politiske kampagne for at gøre en ende på anvendelse af fossilt brændstof for »kulstof-imperialisme«.

Subramanian forklarede, at, i »slutspurten op til konferencen er der et voksende krav – der første gang blev klart udtalt ved dette års topmøde i Gruppen af Syvs førende industrialiserede nationer[1] – om at udfase anvendelsen af fossilt brændstof. USA og andre har også lovet at stemme imod energiprojekter baseret på fossilt brændstof i udviklingslandene, når multilaterale banker stemmer om projekterne.«

Han fortsætter: »For Indien – et land, der kæmper for at forsyne omkring 25 % af befolkningen med basal elektricitet, iflg. konservative skøn – lugter dette af kulstof-imperialisme. Og en sådan imperialisme på vegne af de avanceret udviklede nationer kunne være en opskrift på katastrofe for Indien, og andre udviklingslande …

I et hvilket som helst troværdigt scenarie vil kul levere omkring 40-60 % af Indiens energi frem til 2030. Det vil, og bør, fortsat være landets primære energikilde, fordi det er det billigste brændstof, der er til rådighed.«

I et interview med en stor, fransk avis, Le Figaro, den 27. nov., afslørede økonomen Rémy Prud’homme ligeledes COP21’s »globale opvarmnings-imperialisme og nævnte bl.a. indsatsen for at nedlukke kulfyret produktion af elektricitet i Afrika og Indien. Prud’homme forudsagde et voldsomt sammenstød på COP21-konferencen over denne kolonialistiske politik.

Alt imens en ny, anti-klima-skræmmekampagnefilm, »Climate Hustle« (Klima-plattenslageri) kommer den 1. dec., så er yderligere to angreb på den globale opvarmningssvindel udgivet på nyhedsmedier i selveste de grønne royales Britiske Commonwealth.

Den ugentlige avis i Cameroun, Integration, havde den 24. nov. et interview med tidl. NASA-forsker og meteorolog Tom Wysmuller, der fordømte svindlen. Integration gav interviewet en højtråbende forsideoverskrift: »Thomas Wysmuller: Der er ingen klimatrussel mod planeten«. Wysmuller erklærer, at, hvis alle de forslag, der vil blive fremstillet for COP21, blev vedtaget, ville menneskeslægten blive kastet tilbage til Stenalderen. Han siger, at han ønsker at se Cameroun »hæve sig til et niveau, der bringer den bedste livsstil, sundhedsforsorg og fremgang, man kan håbe på, og dernæst komme hele menneskeheden til gavn!!! Når ens nations intelligens og intellekt fokuserer på at blive ligeværdige partnere i verden, vil verdens øvrige nationer byde éns indlemmelse i det etablerede, økonomiske fremskridt velkommen.« http://journalintegration.com/index.php/dossier/item/256-thomas-

Og snart på engelsk på: http://www.committeerepubliccanada.ca/.

Svindlen blev udtømmende afsløret i »Climate Change Science and the Climate Change Scare« (Klimaforandringsvidenskab og Klimaforandrings-skræmmekampagne) af Andrew Kenny, en sydafrikansk ingeniør, og artiklen blev publiceret samme dag, 24. nov. i @Liberty, det Sydafrikanske Institut for Racerelationers politiske bulletin, og blev dagen efter udlagt i sin helhed på den meget læste sydafrikanske erhvervsnyheds-webside, biznews.com.

Kennys 24 sider lange artikel gør det klart, at plattenslagernes forskrifter vil forhindre industrialisering og fastholde milliarder af mennesker i fattigdom. Idet han fremkommer med mange af de videnskabelige tilbagevisninger, der fremstilles i EIR’s egen Specialrapport, »Skræmmekampagne om global opvarmning er befolkningsreduktion – ikke videnskab«[2], skriver Kenny: »Men vi må stole på videnskab. Det er vores sikreste, og måske eneste, vej til sandhed. Og videnskabens og fornuftens fremskridt har bragt menneskeheden dybtgående, praktiske fordele.«[3]

http://irr.org.za/reports-and-publications/atLiberty/files/

[1] Canada, Frankrig, Italien, Tyskland, Japan, Storbritannien, USA.

[2] http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=8531

[3] Se Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport: En Prometheus-tilgang til nye former for ild: Udvinding af helium-3 på Månen, for en menneskehed med fusionskraft, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=1894

28. november 2015 – Akademikere og forskere fra mange lande deltager i et internationalt symposium, der begyndte i Casablanca tirsdag, den 24. nov., med temaet, »På Silkevejens to yderkanter: Marokko og Kina«. Arrangementet, der er organiseret af Hassan II Universitet i Casablanca, holdes som en del af projektet for Genoplivningen af Silkevejen og er af strategisk betydning for konsolideringen af samarbejde og koordinerede forbindelser mellem Marokko og Kina i de økonomiske, sociale og politiske sfærer.

Som det rapporteres i StarAfrica.com søger projektet blandt andre ting at sætte fokus på Marokkos afgørende rolle i at styrke civilisationen og kulturelle udvekslinger med landene i Østasien, især Kina. Den antikke Silkevej repræsenterede en af de hovedpassager, der forbandt Kina med landene i Centraleuropa via Syrien og andre nationer, så vel som også med Middelhavsområdet. I næsten 1.500 år var den en hovedrute for faste handelskaravaner, der rejste over land og vand mellem disse lande.

Konferencen forventedes at fokusere på fire hovedområder: Silkevejens rolle i styrkelse af de kinesisk-arabisk-islamiske relationer i historiens forløb; Kinas rolle i den marokkanskfødte Ibn Battunas rejse i 1334-1347, i Alexander den Stores fodspor, og videre endnu, og modtagelsen af hans arbejde inden for kinesisk skrift; økonomiske relationer mellem Marokko og Kina; og en gennemgang af og perspektiver for den Nye Silkevej, inklusive de projekter og den indsats, der er involveret.

Ligeledes i den forgangne uge afholdtes det første kinesisk-asiatiske økonomiske topmøde i Marrakesh, Marokko, med fremlæggelser og diskussioner, der fokuserede på infrastrukturudvikling i Afrika, som Kina planlægger at give assistance og midler.