Vi har et par emner, vi vil fremlægge her i dag, men vi lægger ud med en umiddelbar gennemgang fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche af de begivenheder, der fandt sted i dag, og vore marchordrer for de kommende par dage. Det er i dag naturligvis indsættelsesdag. Vi er nu officielt kommet til slutningen af 16 år med Bush/Obama-æraen. Vi står på tærsklen til noget nyt; vi har et nyt, officielt præsidentskab. Hvad dette nye præsidentskab vil blive, står endnu uklart; det er stadig udefineret, og det er Lyndon og Helga LaRouches vurdering, at vores job ikke har ændret sig. Det er stadig vores opgave at lægge Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love på bordet. Vi er, og må fortsætte med at være, dette lands intellektuelle lederskab, og det er vores ansvar nu at indvarsle et nyt, internationalt paradigme, som USA i høj grad må blive en del af – det, vi kan kalde for det »Nye Paradigme for Udvikling«.

Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er i dag 20. januar, 2017; indvielsesdag. Dette er vores special-webcast på indvielsesdagen fra LaRouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg to kolleger – Benjamin Deniston her i studiet; og, via video, Michael Steger, som er med os i dag fra Houston, Texas, hvor han har tilbragt nogen tid sammen med Kesha Rogers.

Vi har et par emner, vi vil fremlægge her i dag, men vi lægger ud med en umiddelbar gennemgang fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche af de begivenheder, der fandt sted i dag, og vore marchordrer for de kommende par dage. Det er i dag naturligvis indsættelsesdag. Vi er nu officielt kommet til slutningen af 16 år med Bush/Obama-æraen. Vi står på tærsklen til noget nyt; vi har et nyt, officielt præsidentskab. Hvad dette nye præsidentskab vil blive, står endnu uklart; det er stadig udefineret, og det er Lyndon og Helga LaRouches vurdering, at vores job ikke har ændret sig. Det er stadig vores opgave at lægge Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love på bordet. Vi er, og må fortsætte med at være, dette lands intellektuelle lederskab, og det er vores ansvar nu at indvarsle et nyt, internationalt paradigme, som USA i høj grad må blive en del af – det, vi kan kalde for det »Nye Paradigme for Udvikling«.

Dette er nogle af de emner, vi vil diskutere i dybden senere i programmet, med vægt på to, store projekter, der er eksempler på, og paradigmatiske for, dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling: Kra-kanalprojektet i Thailand og Transaqua-projektet i Afrika – to projekter, som hr. og fr. LaRouche i årtiernes løb har været meget involveret i, og som blot eksemplificerer den form for store projekter for menneskelig udvikling, som må forfølges i de kommende måneder og uger, både internationalt, men også store projekter af den art, som vi må gennemføre herhjemme i USA.

Lad mig begynde med en næsten ordret gennemgang af nogle kommentarer, som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche kom med umiddelbart efter præsident Donald Trumps indsættelsestale her i eftermiddag, og vi vil så diskutere dette lidt mere i detaljer, før vi går videre med en gennemgang af disse store, internationale udviklingsprojekter.

LaRouche sagde omgående, at det er meget uklart, mht. principper, hvad præsident Donald Trump har i sinde ud fra det, han fremlagde i sin indsættelsestale i dag. Lyndon LaRouche sagde, »De er meget forvirret på overfladen, og vi må vente og se, hvad der ligger under denne overflade. På baggrund af det, der blev fremlagt i denne tale, er der ingen klarhed over principper i det.«

Helga LaRouche sagde: »Det vigtigste på hjemmefronten er, hvordan Donald Trump vil honorere de løfter, han har afgivet. Hvilke handlinger vil han faktisk tage?« spurgte hun. Med hensyn til den internationale front, var Helga LaRouches vurdering, »Trump burde vide, at det ikke fungerer sådan; blot at sige ’Amerika først’. Spørgsmålet er: Hvordan finder man fælles interesser, som er fælles for mange nationer, og ikke kun ’Amerika først’? Hvad er de fælles mål for mange nationer, og hvordan handler man for at forfølge disse mål?«

Dernæst sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Problemet er, at princippet endnu ikke er klart. Det kunne gå i retning af et forenende princip; men, ud fra det, der blev fremlagt, står det endnu ikke klart, at det nødvendigvis vil blive det, eller præcis, hvad dette princip vil være.« Helga LaRouche gentog, »Generelt set var talen en meget blandet pose. Der er bestemt løfter om, at dette kunne gå i den rigtige retning, men vi må se konkrete planer for handling. Vi, LaRouche-bevægelsen, LaRouche Political Action Committee, må forstærke vores mobilisering for Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love. Det er godt, at Obama er ude. Vi vil få en frisk vind, en frisk brise, men der er brug for langt mere klarhed.«

Sluttelig sagde Lyndon LaRouche: »Vi vil ikke gå for meget ind på deres argumenter. Lad dem selv forklare deres egne argumenter.« Helga LaRouche sagde: »Vi behøver ikke nødvendigvis støtte ethvert aspekt af, hvad præsident Trump siger. Vi behøver heller ikke være overdrevent kritiske, men vi bør fokusere på vore egne principper og vore egne mål.«

Først og fremmest: Hvad er disse mål?

Nummer 1 – og det er stadig dagsordenen – må Glass-Steagall omgående genindføres som landets lov. I løbet af de seneste 24 timer har vi atter set et udbrud, i vid udstrækning pga. den mobilisering, som I, dette webcasts seere, og medlemmer af LaRouche-bevægelsen i USA har været engageret i; Glass-Steagall er nu tilbage i forreste front, tilbage på dagsordenen. Dette sås tydeligst af de spørgsmål, der blev stillet under høringen for godkendelsen af den udpegede finansminister, Steven Mnuchin, og som rejstes af senator Maria Cantwell. Hun har, som folk ved, længe været en støtte af en tilbagevenden til Glass-Steagall, i mange år. Hendes første, og eneste spørgsmål til Steven Mnuchin, var, »Støtter De Glass-Steagall?«

Steven Mnuchins svar – og dette er Helga LaRouches analyse – var, »ægte sofisteri«. »Lyndon LaRouche har været meget klar omkring, at dét, vi har brug for, er den originale Glass-Steagall, uden ændringer. Så kommer denne Mnuchin-fyr og taler om en modificeret Glass-Steagall og blander det med Volcker-reglen«, sagde hun. »Dette er ægte sofisteri. Det er virkelig godt, at Maria Cantwell har meldt klart ud om dette spørgsmål, og nu må vi lægge meget pres på hende og andre, inklusive på præsident Donald Trump, for at få den ægte Glass-Steagall vedtaget. Som Maria Cantwell sagde, så kræver det en klar, skarp linje mellem investeringsbankaktivitet og kommerciel bankaktivitet sådan, som Glass-Steagall oprindeligt blev udarbejdet af Franklin Roosevelt.«

Men Glass-Steagall er blot det første skridt til det fulde program for de Fire Love; og jeg mener, vi vil diskutere dette, ikke nødvendigvis stykke for stykke, men som en generel gennemgang, det princip, der forener Lyndon LaRouches program. Og vi må, som Helga LaRouches analyse siger, tænke på det som blot Dag Ét af de første 100 dage.

Hvad vi omgående må få at se, fra dette øjeblik, er en omgående forbedring i de amerikansk-russiske relationer. Det er der allerede positive indikationer på. Der er en invitation til præsident Donald Trump til at deltage, eller sende en delegation til at deltage, i Astana Fredsforhandlingerne i Kasakhstan; fredsforhandlingerne om Syrien. Det kunne ikke være mere presserende, end det er nu, med nyhederne her til morgen om, at ISIS på tragisk vis nu har ødelagt de storslåede, romerske ruiner i Palmyra, det smukke amfiteater og de andre ruiner. Så det er presserende vigtigt.

Men samtidig må der blive et seriøst partnerskab mellem USA og Kina. Den store mulighed for dette – i kølvandet på præsident Xi Jinpings tale om en fremtid for en fælles og almen skæbne, som var temaet i hans tale for Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum under sit nylige besøg i Schweiz – er en konference, der kommer til maj i Kina, om Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, og som mange statsoverhoveder vil deltage i. En eksplicit invitation er blevet overgivet til Donald Trump personligt for hans personlige deltagelse i denne konference.

Det, der står klart, er, at vi befinder os midt i en global proces for dramatisk og radikal forandring. Der kommer et betydningsfuldt skifte i dynamikken, som allerede finder sted, men som vil fortsætte med at udkrystallisere sig i de kommende måneder. De franske valg er i horisonten. Ifølge nogle beregninger er 75 % af vælgerne nu for at reducere sanktionerne mod Rusland. Dernæst er der de tyske valg, der kommer lidt senere efter de franske. I løbet af disse måneder kunne vi få at se en meget anderledes verden komme til syne. Det står klart, at det ikke længere er »business as usual«. Bush/Obama-æraen er forbi, og vi står nu på tærsklen til noget helt nyt.

Jeg vil gerne invitere Michael [Steger] og Ben [Deniston] til at sige lidt mere om dette, før vi går over til disse projekter, men, lad mig blot sige, om denne nye æra, som Helga LaRouche refererer til som nødvendigheden af at definere fælles interesser blandt mange nationer, og dernæst at samarbejde om at opnå disse interesser, eller, som præsident Xi Jinping udtrykker det, en fremtid for en fælles skæbne.

To store projekter, som jeg nævnte det, og som eksemplificerer mulighederne for at engagere sig på et sådant niveau og indvarsle dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling, er Kra-kanalen i Thailand, der nu er meget konkret tilbage på dagsordenen – jeg kommer med flere detaljer senere – og Transaqua-projektet i Afrika. Det, vi ser, er, at den Nye Silkevej, Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, går støt fremad og nu bærer frugt efter årtiers arbejde fra LaRouche-bevægelsens side internationalt. Senere i aftenens udsendelse vil vi vise et kort klip af en video, vi har lavet, og som belyser Kra-kanalens historie, og som i de kommende dage vil blive ledsaget af et interview med en af hovedarrangørerne af dette projekt, Pakdee Tanapura. Og så får vi en slags generel præsentation af dette Transaqua-projekt i Afrika.

Men dette er store projekter, der blot eksemplificerer det, der, kan man sige, må blive det »nye normale« i dette Nye Paradigme for Udvikling, og for det, som USA som en presserende sag må deltage i.   

Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet:

LET'S MAKE THIS DAY ONE — INAUGURATION DAY —
OF A NEW ERA FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR MANKIND AS A WHOLE!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast, January 20, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's January 20th, 2017. Today
is Inauguration Day, and this is our Inauguration Day Special
Webcast from Larouchepac.com. I'm pleased to be joined today by
two of my colleagues — Benjamin Deniston, here in the studio;
and, via video, Michael Steger, who is joining us today from
Houston, Texas, where he's been spending some time with Kesha
Rogers.
        We have a few items that we're going to present to you
today, but we're going to begin with an immediate overview from
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche of the events that occurred today,
and our marching orders for the days to come. Obviously, today is
Inauguration Day. We've come now, officially, to the end of 16
years of the Bush/Obama era. We're on the verge of something new;
we have a new Presidency, officially. What that new Presidency
will be, is unclear; it is very much still undefined, and Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche's assessment is, our job has not changed. We
still have the task of putting Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws on the
table. We are, and must continue to be, the intellectual
leadership in this country, and we are having the responsibility
now of ushering in a new international paradigm of which the
United States must very much indeed be a part — what we can call
the "New Development Paradigm."
        That will be some of what we will discuss in substance later
in this broadcast with an emphasis on two major projects which
are exemplary and paradigmatic of that New Development Paradigm:
the Kra Canal Project in Thailand, and the Transaqua Project in
Africa — two projects with which the LaRouches have been very
much involved over decades and which are merely exemplary of the
kinds of great projects for {human} development that must be
pursued in the coming months, in the coming weeks, both
internationally, but also great projects of that type which we
must carry out here at home in the United States.
        Let me begin with an almost verbatim overview of some
comments that both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche had, immediately
following President Donald Trump's inaugural speech this
afternoon, and then we will discuss that in a little bit more
detail before we get to the overview of these great international
development projects.
        What Mr. LaRouche said, right off the bat, is that it's very
unclear, in terms of principle, what President Donald Trump has
in mind, just based on what he presented in his inaugural speech
today. Lyndon LaRouche said, "It's very confused on the surface,
and we will have to wait and see what is underneath that surface.
On the basis of what was presented in that speech, there is no
clarity of principle there."
        Helga LaRouche said, "The most important thing on the
domestic front is how Donald Trump will deliver on the promises
that he's made. What are the actions that he will actually take?"
she asked. Regarding the international front, Helga LaRouche's
assessment was, "Trump should know it doesn't work that way;
merely saying 'America First.' The issue is: how do you find
{common} interests, shared among {many} nations, not just
'America First'? What are the common objectives of multiple
nations, and how do you act in pursuit of those objectives?"
        Lyndon LaRouche then said, "The problem is that the
principle is not clear yet. It could go in the direction of a
unifying principle; but from what was presented, it's not yet
clear that it necessarily will, or exactly what that principle
will be." Helga LaRouche's reiterating remarks were: "Overall,
the address was a very mixed bag. There are certainly promises
that this could go in the right direction, but we need to see
concrete plans of action. We, the LaRouche Movement, the LaRouche
Political Action Committee, must increase our mobilization on
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Laws program. It is good," she said, "that
Obama is out. We will get a fresh wind, a fresh breeze, but a lot
more clarity is still needed."
        And then, finally, Lyndon LaRouche said, "We don't want to
get too close to their arguments. Let them clarify their own
arguments." And Helga LaRouche said, "We don't necessarily need
to support every aspect of what President Trump says. We also
don't need to be overly critical either, but we should be
focusing on our own principles and our own objectives."
        Now, first and foremost, what are those objectives?
        No. 1 — and the agenda still stands — Glass-Steagall must
be immediately reinstated as the law of the land. We saw, over
the last 24 hours, an eruption again, largely due to the
mobilization that you, the viewers of this webcast and members of
the LaRouche Movement in the United States have been engaged in;
Glass-Steagall is now back in the forefront, back on the agenda.
This could be seen most clearly by questions that were raised
during the confirmation hearing of Treasury designate-Secretary,
Steven Mnuchin, that were raised by Senator Maria Cantwell. Maria
Cantwell, as people know, has been a long-standing supporter of a
return to Glass-Steagall for many years now. Her very first
question and her {only} question of Steven Mnuchin was, "Do you
support Glass-Steagall?"

Steven Mnuchin's answer — and this is Helga LaRouche's analysis
— was "real sophistry." "Lyndon LaRouche has been very clear
that what we need is the {original Glass-Steagall, without
modification}. And here comes this Mnuchin guy, going on about a
{modified} Glass-Steagall, mixing it in with the Volcker Rule,"
she said. "This is real sophistry. It is very good that Maria
Cantwell has now put herself on the spot on this issue, and now
{we} have to put real pressure on her and on others, including on
President Donald Trump, to get the real Glass-Steagall in place.
As Maria Cantwell said, that requires a clear bright line between
investment banking and commercial banking in the way that
Glass-Steagall was originally designed by Franklin Roosevelt."
        But Glass-Steagall is merely the first step in the full Four
Laws program; and I think we're going to discuss that, not
necessarily piecemeal, but in terms of the broad overview, the
principle which unifies Lyndon LaRouche's program. And the way to
think about that is what Helga LaRouche's analysis was, that this
is merely Day One out of what must be the First 100 Days.
        What we have to see, immediately, from this moment on, is an
immediate improvement in U.S.-Russian relations. There are
already positive indications of that. You have the official
invitation of now-President Donald Trump to attend, or to send a
delegation to attend, the Astana Peace Talks in Astana,
Kazakhstan; the peace talks for Syria. This could not be more
urgent than it is right now, with the news that we received this
morning, that ISIS has, tragically, now destroyed the grand Roman
ruins of Palmyra, the beautiful amphitheater, and the other ruins
there. So, this is of urgent importance.
        But, simultaneously, there must be a serious partnership
between the United States and China. The grand opportunity for
that, following President Xi Jinping's keynote speech on the
future of shared and common destiny — that was his theme at the
Davos World Economic Forum during his recent trip to Switzerland.
[http://america.cgtn.com/2017/01/17/full-text-of-xi-jinping-
keynote-at-the-world-economic-forum] The most immediate
opportunity is a conference that's coming up in May, in China, on
the subject of the Belt and Road Initiative, which many head of
state will be attending. There has been an explicit invitation
extended, for Donald Trump, himself, to attend this conference.
        What is clear, is that we are in the midst of a global
process of dramatic and radical change. There will be a major
shift of dynamic which is already ongoing, but which will
continue to crystallize in the coming months. The French
elections are on the horizon. According to some calculations, 75%
of the electorate are now in favor of rolling back the sanctions
against Russia. Then you have the German elections coming later
after that. Over the course of these months, we could see a very
different world emerging. What is very clear is that this is no
longer "business as usual." The Bush/Obama era is over, and now
we're on the verge of something completely new.
        Now, I would like to invite Michael and Ben to say a little
bit more about this, before we get into these projects, but let
me just say, this new era, what Helga LaRouche is referring to as
the necessity of defining common interests among multiple
nations, and then working together to achieve those interests,
or, as President Xi Jinping put it, a future of shared destiny.
        Two great projects, as I mentioned, which exemplify the
opportunities to engage on that kind of level and to usher in
this New Development Paradigm, are the Kra Canal in Thailand,
which is now back on the agenda in a very real way — and I'll
get into some of the details on that later — and the Transaqua
Project in Africa. What we see is that the New Silk Road, the
Belt and Road Initiative, is steadily moving forward, and it's
coming to fruition after decades of work by the LaRouche Movement
internationally. Later in this show, we will be playing a brief
clip of a video that we made highlighting the history of the Kra
Canal, which also will be accompanied in the coming days by an
interview with one of the key organizers of that project, Pakdee
Tanapura. And then we will have sort of an overview presentation
of this Transaqua Project in Africa.
        But what these are, are great projects which are merely
exemplary of what must become, you could say, the "new normal" in
this New Development Paradigm, and what the United States must
{urgently} become a participant in.
        Let me leave it at that. We can have a little bit more
discussion and then get into some of the bulk of those projects.

MICHAEL STEGER: Well, I think everyone's fairly happy watching
this broadcast, given the fact that especially the last eight
years under Obama were a kind of psychological terror. There's
definitely a relief. The one thing that's clear, is that it's a
moment of action. Perhaps President Trump understands that. As,
Matt, you indicated, as Lyn said, himself, we have to see what
this actually means. But we, the LaRouche PAC and the LaRouche
Association internationally know very well what this means. It's
largely determined by the actions that both Russia and China have
taken over the last three years around the New Silk Road
initiative and a real collaboration, as Vladimir Putin himself
called for in the 2015 United Nations General Assembly — an
anti-Nazi coalition, like you saw in World War II — has to be
brought together, a collaboration of nations.
        And what that means — I think President Putin understands
this — and I think it's very important that the American people
grasp this. The eradication of this kind of terrorism, is the
elimination of the British Empire, in the essence of a
construction orientation; that you're actually building up the
civilizations again, you're building up the populations. You're
taking the areas of Southwest Asia, North Africa; the project of
the Transaqua is in a key area to begin to develop many parts of
Africa that are right now threatened by this terrorist scourge.
The same is true from India through Pakistan, the Kra Canal. The
areas of Myanmar and Thailand and into Malaysia are also
threatened. The Philippines.
        So these questions of development are really the means by
which an international coalition eradicates the terrorism;
eradicates the drug trade; and begins to collaborate on mankind's
true destiny, which is really much greater than simply solving
some of these basic problems.
        I'll say that for now. I think Ben might have more to say.

        BEN DENISTON: That's exactly the issue. Maybe we can get it
to it a little bit more, but you look at the United States, you
look at the issue of Mexico and our relation to Mexico, for
example, which has been a big subject of discussion. But what
hasn't been put on the table, is, again, the kind of campaign and
the programs that the LaRouche Movement has led up for major
development projects. Mr. LaRouche, again, has a very rich and
high-level history of relations with top Mexican officials,
including one-time President José López Portillo of Mexico,
with whom he had a direct personal relationship around this idea
of common development.
        This can be directly taken to one of the key issues we'll
get into — the issue of water development, as we'll discuss in
the case of Africa; but that can serve as a model for the kind of
projects that we could bring back to the United States. What
Michael is saying here is critical: development is the key;
development is the future; development is what's needed to
actually {solve} these problems, not just address immediate
crises, not just deal with catastrophes as they occur. But
actually how do you move the world in many of these regions that
have been plunged into years if not decades of horrific
activities led by the Saudis, Obama, Bush — all of these
factions? How do you actually bring that into some real solutions
and resolutions that will create a long-term substantial change?
        I think what Mrs. LaRouche said was very right on, in terms
of her response to the inauguration speech; is that it's a new
world.  We can no longer be thinking about individual nations
alone; that's just part of the natural state that mankind is at,
at this point.  Mankind has developed to the point where we're a
global force; the level of development and growth needed is
something that goes beyond individual national boundaries.  You
have to do it with respect to nations and their interests and
their boundaries and their cultures; but it's also undeniable
that we're at a point where we have to think as a global species
— and really, an interplanetary species.
        That's the basis for the future of mankind now.  Where do
you define these common areas of mutual benefit, mutual interest
that nations can participate in; which creates a net higher
amount of wealth and growth for all participants involved?
There's a principle!  Mr. LaRouche was raising the issue of
where's the principle; that's an actual scientific principle
rooted in the scientific nature of mankind as a creative species,
and rooted in the very historical view of the point of human
development that we're currently at.  That is a principle; that
is something which you can continue to come to as the defining
point for policy and what's needed now.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely!  There is obviously a sense of dramatic
change which is sweeping the country; and I think that President
Trump addressed what is a reality.  That there is a desperation
among the American people; and that is obviously what rendered
this election.  The forgotten men, the forgotten women who feel a
desperation and a despair as they look at these old abandoned
factories, as he said, standing like tombstones scattered across
the territory of this country.  People who feel like they have no
voice; and the sense that they now have the opportunity to
participate once again in the policies of the United States.  But
participating in the policies of this country means a necessity
for a deeply held education and profound understanding of
principle, not just policies but a principle around which those
actions can be taken.  The sentiment of saying we're going to
look at ourselves as standing on the threshold of a new
millennium and unlocking the mysteries of space; and using
American labor to build infrastructure across the United States,
and roads and railroads and tunnels and bridges, is a positive
one.  But the understanding of where mankind is at in our history
as a species right now, and what are the true scientific
challenges that are facing us that require our creativity [in
order] to be solved.  That is where the real questions lie in
terms of clarity of principle.  And great leaders of the United
States always had an understanding of what the principles were
that mankind as a whole must resolve; the principled questions
which are there to be solved.
        So, we're going to take a look at these two case studies
which we're selecting because of, first of all, their magnitude
in terms of the importance of their role in this interconnection
of a World Land-Bridge or a new land-based and maritime Silk
Road, as it's being called with the initiative from Xi Jinping;
but also because of the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
played in these two projects over a number of decades, and the
fact that their progress at this point does actually represent a
milestone in terms of the coming to fruition of a campaign of
inaugurating this new era of development for mankind.
        So, we're going to start with a short excerpt from a video
that LaRouche PAC made a number of years ago on the Kra Canal;
the Thailand canal which has a long history going back over a
century in terms of people looking at the different possible
routes of cutting a canal through the isthmus of Thailand.  But
it's also something that Mr. Lyndon LaRouche personally was
involved in, in the 1980s.  There are a lot of new developments
and hopeful developments around this, including a new book that
just was published called {Kra Canal: The Strategic History of
Thailand}, which Pakdee Tanapura, who is an associate of the
LaRouche Movement in Thailand and who was one of the prime
organizers in the 1980s, is a contributor to this book; but also
a number of generals and admirals and other high-ranking and
leading figures inside Thailand.  This book is now being printed
in 10,000 copies and is being circulated among some of the
leading government institutions.  With the passage of the
previous king and the new king coming to power in Thailand, there
is a strong openness; not to mention that there is a strategic
shift now underway in Asia as a whole.  The abandonment of the
Obama Asia Pivot, the crumbling of the TPP; there's a strong
potential in terms of the possibility of this project moving
forward.
        So, I'll have a little bit more to say about this after we
play this clip; but again, this project — taken together with
the other project we're going to talk about today — are merely
exemplary of the type of new era of development that we must
inaugurate today.

VIDEO voice [begins mid-sentence]:  century, the concept of the
preferred location for the canal route generally shifted towards
southern Thailand, as compared to the earliest proposed routes.
        We can compare the dimensions of a proposed Kra Canal with
other well-known canals.  The width of the Kra isthmus at its
narrowest point is around 27 miles.  Compare this to the width of
the Panama Canal — about 48 miles.  The length of the various
Kra Canal proposals range from between 30 and 60 miles.  The Suez
Canal, for comparison, has a length of 119 miles.  The height of
the interior mountain chain where the Kra Canal would be
constructed is about 246 feet.  Compare this to the height of the
Gaillard Cut of the Panama Canal, which is slightly lower at 210
feet.
        The Straits of Malacca are not sufficiently deep for many
large ships to pass through; the straits are 620 miles long, but
very narrow — less than 1.6 miles at the narrowest, and only 82
feet deep at the shallowest point.  Currently, large ships are
required to travel much further south to the Lombok Straits near
Java; which have a depth of 820 feet.

        OGDEN:  This is the beginning of the clip that we're going
to play for you.  We're going to explore a little bit more of the
advantages of cutting this Kra Canal through the Thailand
isthmus.  What Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, is that you're
linking together two very crucial oceans in the world — the
Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean; this is a key connection in
terms of this new Maritime Silk Road, and will completely
transform the potential relationships between the countries in
the Asia-Pacific region as a whole.  So, we'll continue playing
this clip for you right now.

        VIDEO voice:  Clearly, a Kra Canal poses a more reasonable
option than travelling so much further south for larger ships; or
for any ship taking the 620-mile detour through the congested and
pirate-infested Straits of Malacca.
        The 600-plus-mile Malacca Straits are by far the most
heavily travelled of the world's canals, with more than twice the
traffic of the Suez and Panama Canals combined.  By a recent
estimate, one-fifth of world trade goes through the Malacca
Straits; congestion or obstruction of the straits would
dramatically increase the cost of trade.  The maximum capacity of
the Singapore-Malacca Straits being 200,000 ships annually.  A
more recent assessment estimates that the traffic of the straits
has been increasing at an annual rate of 20%.
        In 1973, Tams Engineering had conducted a study of choices
of Kra Canal routes, and suggested that route 5-A was the most
suitable for the construction of a Kra Canal.  At either end of
the canal would be located industrial zones estimated to span
collectively about 100,000 acres.  A decade later, in 1983-84,
the Fusion Energy Foundation and {Executive Intelligence Review},
together with the Thai Ministry of Communication, held two
successful conferences on the Kra Canal project.  FEF updated the
earlier feasibility study done by Tams, and developed further on
the project's economic and industrial benefits.  The Fall 1984
conference entitled "Industrialization of Thailand and the Kra
Canal" took place in Bangkok, Thailand.  The conference brought
together businessmen, engineers, and government officials from
all of the ASEAN countries, to hash out the feasibility of
building the canal.
        PAKDEE TANAPURA:  The idea of building the canal, of course,
was picked up again in 1983 when Lyndon LaRouche travelled to
Thailand and organized an international conference on the Kra
Canal.  The participation was very good; we had representatives
from India, representatives from Indonesia, representatives from
Malaysia, representatives from Japan.  In 1983, we didn't have a
representative from China, but the Chinese are very observant
about what we were doing.  We had participation of the Ministry
of Transport and Communications of Thailand, the Minister, Mr.
Samatzu Tamaraif [ph] himself came to deliver a speech at the
conference along with Lyndon LaRouche.  Also, we had the
participation of the GIF, the Global Infrastructure Fund group;
from Japan, we had Dr. Yamamoto from the GIF group, as well as
participation from Japan; a very prominent figure, Mr. Nakajima
of the Mitsubishi Research Institute — a very prominent figure
from the Mitsubishi Group.  We had Mr. Saito also from the
Toshiba Group, and we had lots of participation from [inaud;
28:55].  So, that was back in 1983.
        VIDEO voice:  The four panels covered all aspects, including
a presentation by EIR/FEF researchers on the use of PNEs — or
peaceful nuclear explosions — as the fastest, most efficient and
cost effective method of construction.

        OGDEN:  So, the full video that that was just an excerpt
from, is available on YouTube — "The Kra Canal; The Development
of Southeast Asia"; and the link to that video is available in
the description of this YouTube video.  But as you heard Mr.
Pakdee Tanapura mention, Lyndon LaRouche was a keynote speaker at
both the 1983 conference and the 1984 conference that were
organized there in Bangkok, Thailand with very high-level
representation from almost every Asian country and from the Thai
government itself.
        What Lyndon LaRouche said in a recent interview, and he
continues to emphasize, is the absolute critical nature of the
Kra Canal.  But he delivered an interview in 2014 to the {Fortune
Times} of Singapore, on the Kra Canal project.  I'm just going to
read a short excerpt of what Mr. LaRouche said, which will
clarify, I think, why this is such a key project in the overall
global development perspective that we're talking about.  Mr.
LaRouche said the following:
        "Divide the maritime region of East and South Asia into
three principal categories: China — a giant; India — a giant;
and the maritime connection throughout Southeast Asia's maritime
regions.  Add the impact of such a triadic maritime and related
connection to the physical economic relations to the Americas to
the east, and the Middle East's underbelly and Africa.  Then, the
potency of a Kra Canal development appears not only as an
eminently feasible feature, but as a strategic, political,
economic force for the planet."  He went on to say, "The sheer
volume of maritime trade between the two great nations of Asia —
China and India — and their connections through the South Asia
maritime regions make the canal probably the most potentially
beneficial and also efficient project for the entire region of
the Pacific and Indian Oceans regions; and the co-development of
the major regions of planet Earth as a whole."
        Then, later, the following year, in 2015, some comments in
an informal discussion, but here's quote from those comments:
"With the completion of the Kra Canal, on top of the Suez Canal
expansion which is ongoing in Egypt, there will be no longer a
separation between the Atlantic and Pacific economies.  China and
India will greatly benefit from those two canal projects, along
with the smaller nations along the Southeast Asian Rim.  This
must be pushed, hard.  This will end the British geo-political
games in the Eurasian region; it will change the economic
character of the entire world."
        So, I think that's the key here.  What we're looking at;
{this} is what Helga LaRouche was referring to when you identify
a vision of common destiny or principles which are shared for the
mutual benefit of many nations, of an entire region, or
potentially even, the entire globe; and then work together to
achieve those benefits.  That's the era of development; that's
the new era of development which we have to inaugurate here.  And
I think that's exemplary — as Mr. LaRouche was just saying — of
these kinds of global visions of how we can bring mankind to the
next platform in terms of our development of the planet for the
mutual benefit of all nations.
        So, let's take that as one project; and then, shift over to
Africa and look at what is now progressing around this really
unprecedented project in terms of water transfer in terms of the
magnitude and the potential benefits for that continent also.

DENISTON:  Regular viewers of our website might have seen this,
but it was just this past December that there was a new
Memorandum of Understanding signed between the Lake Chad Basin
Commission, the Nigerian government, and also a major company out
of China, called China Power.  This is now a new, formal, serious
step towards a feasibility study, a detailed engineering study of
what it would take to actualize this Transaqua project, as it has
been called in its earlier designs.  As it now stands, as the
designs stand and even a slightly smaller version which was cited
in this new Memorandum of Understanding would be the single
largest water transfer project ever created on the planet Earth;
being brought right into Central Africa to address some of major
needs of that region.  This has been on the table for decades —
we'll get into that in a second — but what stands out now,
again?  We're in a new global paradigm, and what appears to be
the key change that's now bringing this out of design and
discussion and general acknowledgement of it being important; but
into actual realization?  Again, we have China's role.  China
Power is the company that led the construction of the Three
Gorges Dam in China.
        So again, we're seeing China playing a key role in bringing
these much-needed, much-discussed mega-projects of development
into fruition.  While it might not technically be included as
part of the whole New Silk Road or what they are now calling the
Belt and Road initiative; it is intimately part of that entire
perspective, that entire program.  This design to bring water
from the Congo River Basin, not necessarily the end of the Congo
River where all the tributaries become the Congo River itself,
but many of the upper tributaries that are at higher elevations
further inland; to bring a fraction — 5%, 8% of this water flow
— divert it to the north and to the west into Lake Chad to begin
refilling Lake Chad.  This was designed in the early 1980s by
certain Italian engineers; in particular, Dr. Marcello Vichi, who
has worked with the Bonifica Engineering Consulting Firm, who has
been very happy to collaborate with the Schiller Institute and
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the past and recently in his
promotion of this project.
        But again, this would be an incredibly amazing contribution
to this entire region.  Just compare it to the level of
discussion you still get in the West around poverty in Africa;
you still just get disgusting discussions of how we need to
provide them with gravity-powered light bulbs because they don't
have electricity, so you can create a mechanism to provide light
by a certain gravity-powered mechanism.  And that's some kind of
amazing contribution to the people of Africa who need
electricity.  That's just such a disgusting low level of thought
from this whole anti-development, Green perspective.  And you
look what China is saying:  Let's bring the most modern, the most
advanced, the largest water infrastructure project ever built on
the planet Earth; and let's engage Africa in building it there.
Just to clarify, despite some of the lies that are put out, this
would not be China coming in and building the entire project with
their own people and their own labor force.  That's often stated,
but it's not the case, and it's being demonstrated that it's not
the case.  Just look at what's already happened and what's
ongoing with the rail projects that China is working with various
African nations in developing.  New standard rail lines in Kenya,
for example; just look at the figures on that.  About 3000
Chinese are employed on that project there; 30,000 Kenyans are
employed, and Kenyans are being trained to run these rail systems
in addition to the skill sets being developed to construct these
things.  It's similar with other rail lines in other African
nations.  So, just to clarify that, this is not China coming in
and employing their own people and exploiting these African
nations.  This is coming in with this "win-win" perspective of an
investment; engaging with the populations there and developing
the region for the benefit of all parties involved.
        Just to emphasize, we have a first slide here [Fig. 1] just
to show a couple of examples; but this is a project and a general
idea that Mr. LaRouche and his associates have been advocating
for decades.  Prior to the design of the Transaqua itself, which
is the name given by this Italian engineer who did a more
detailed initial engineering study for this project, the general
idea was recognized as feasible and made sense if you just look
at the region — which we'll look at in a second — you can see
where there's an abundance of water; you can see where there
might regions where you can transfer it.  It was recognized,
going back to Mr. LaRouche's famous 1975 International
Development Bank, that these kinds of investments into
large-scale water transfer is exactly typical of the kinds of
projects we need for Africa, for example; for nations in Africa.
Similar ideas were featured in the Fusion Energy Foundation
report, "The Industrialization of Africa", just to cite another
example.  This has been often discussed and developed and
proposed in various other publications by {Executive Intelligence
Review}, by LaRouche PAC, by the Schiller Institute.
        But it's probably also worth just highlighting that in March
2016, {Executive Intelligence Review} held a seminar in
Frankfurt, Germany to discuss the development perspective needed
to solve the refugee crisis in northern Africa and stretching
into the Middle East; which has been something that Mrs. LaRouche
has campaigned on for well over year now.  That the solution to
this refugee crisis is to reverse the destruction that's been
caused by Bush's wars, Obama's wars in that region, the support
of terrorism through support of Saudi Arabia and more directly.
But do the complete opposite and engage in large-scale
development of this region to ensure that there's a future for
people; especially for the younger generation.  That's the only
way you're going to fundamentally get rid of terrorism; the exact
opposite of Obama's drone strike policy, where every wedding
party he drones, he creates ten times more future terrorists —
because their lives have been destroyed — than he killed with
his drone strikes.  So, this was a very high-level seminar on
that topic; and one of major projects that was featured, was this
Transaqua project.  It featured two of the leading engineers;
again this Dr. Marcello Vichi — and one of his associates who's
also involved and is an expert on the project — as well as a
representative of the Lake Chad Basin Commission.  This is the
level of promotion and discussion that our organization
{Executive Intelligence Review}, Mrs. LaRouche, also our friend
over in France, Jacques Cheminade who's currently running a
campaign for the Presidency in France, has been a major supporter
of this project.  So, we have a very close history with this
entire thing.  Now again, with China actually taking the lead,
this is becoming a reality.
        Just to put that in a little bit of context, I want to
briefly look at this map; because it's well known that water is a
major issue for many parts of the world.  And it's expected to
become a growing issue for many regions as water use increases,
population grows; and under the assumption that we're not going
to have the level of water infrastructure that we need.  If you
just look at this map, put out by a United Nations report on
global water issues, you can see in the lighter blues, you see
regions where there is water scarcity due to the physical
availability of water; and that's probably not a surprise in the
regions you see.  In the west and southwestern United States, we
see physical water scarcity.  But you see much of Africa is not
light blue, it's dark blue, which indicates economic water
scarcity; meaning the water is there, but the infrastructure
hasn't been developed to utilize the water supplies that are
there.  So, I think that's an immediate reference point that's
worth making.  You have major water supplies available throughout
the African continent; what's been lacking is the ability to
facilitate the kind of projects needed to develop and take
advantage of those.
        Here [Fig. 2] is just a global depiction of river run-off
globally for all the major coastal watersheds combined that run
into different oceans and basins.  Here, you can see where I'm
indicating, the Congo Basin has a very large and significant
water flow out into the South Atlantic Ocean there.  So, it's a
major — maybe not the largest — but a major region of water
flow that's available; the vast majority of which is not being
used for any economic purposes.  The Congo River itself, if
people don't know, is the second largest river on the planet in
terms of discharge into the ocean.  It's kind of hard to compete
with the Amazon itself, but the Congo is the second globally
largest river; running at 1300 cubic kilometers per year of
outflow.  For a comparative reference for Americans, the
Mississippi is 500 [cubic km].  So this is over 2.5 times the
size of the Mississippi River.  The Nile River, another major
river in Africa, that obviously supports a very large population
and development, is more in the range of 80-90 cubic km per year.
So, we're talking about an order of magnitude plus larger than
the Nile River.

Here [Fig. 3] we have a quick breakdown of the different water
basins in Africa.  This graphic is actually labelled in German,
so my German-speaking friends can read this just fine. But the
entire Congo River Basin, as I'm indicating here, so you can get
a sense of the size; all funneling down into the Congo River out
into the Atlantic again.  Then, just bordering it to the north
and to the west, is the Lake Chad Basin.  So this entire region,
all water deposited in here filters into Lake Chad itself.
Currently, this basin and the water in this basin, the water in
the Lake Chad system supports somewhere in the range of 30-40
million people.  Over the past 40-45 years, Lake Chad — in terms
of total surface area — is now only one-tenth of its former
size.  So, if you compare 1972 to today, it's one-tenth of the
size it was then.  There have also been issues of rainfall
decreasing in the past 20 years or so on the order of 15% to 20%.
        So, none of these figures are new or a surprise; this has
been known since our organization has been campaigning for the
development of this project.  But it is a very real and
developing crisis in the region, and it can be alleviated. Here's
a depiction [Fig. 4] of the actual change in the size of the
lake; it's rather dramatic.  The total outlying area here is the
1972 level; it had a low record in 1987, and it's recovered just
a little bit.  But it's still a tenth of its original, expected
size.
        So this rather brilliant, beautiful proposal is to create a
canal — again, that would not connect all the way down to the
headwaters of the Congo River itself; but it would feed off many
of the tributaries up in the highland regions and collect the
water through a series of dams and reservoirs and canals in that
region in the Democratic Republic of Congo and in the Central
African Republic.  You can see here an indication of the Congo
River Basin as a whole, and the catchment region, and this is the
canal that would be developed.  Once it captures the water in
that region, it could then be funneled into canals and existing
rivers crossing the Congo River divide into the Lake Chad Basin,
and then funneled directly into Lake Chad.  What is being
proposed here is something in the range of 50-100 cubic
kilometers per year for the diversion.  The original designs by
the Italian leaders who originally did the engineering studies on
this project, were looking at 100 cubic kilometers per year.
Again, that's something on the order of 8% of the total water
flow of the basin.
        It's also worth noting that this would also provide flood
control for the Congo Basin itself; so you could alleviate some
of the periodic flooding which itself can be very problematic
with the lack of infrastructure in the region.
        So, the original designs are looking on the order of 100
cubic kilometers a year; this new Memorandum of Understanding
threw out the figure of half of that — 50 cubic kilometers per
year.  Both of which are massive figures.  You're talking about
on the order of a Nile River of flow, created by man, refilling
Lake Chad over some number of years.  Again, just to help to get
a sense of some of these figures and what they mean, if you take
all of the western water projects in the United States:  the
Central Valley Project; the Franklin Roosevelt projects of the
'30s; the Pat Brown projects of the '60s; the projects to divert
from the Colorado River into various regions.  You combine all of
that, and you look at what is the total functional capacity of
all these projects; you're talking about a maximum of 20 cubic
kilometers per year.  So, this is already 2.5 if not 5 times
larger than all of California's water projects combined.
        You take China's beautiful brand new South Water North
project; they've completed two of the three routes for that
project; the so-called eastern route, and the so-called central
route.  Those combined are going to be transferring about 30
cubic kilometers a year.  When the western route is added on,
that'll be closer to 45.  But again, even the lower estimate of
the Lake Chad Transaqua diversion project is 50 — is larger than
the South Water North project in its entirety; and it could be
even twice that if the full extent is developed.
        Hydropower will be developed along this region to provide
much-needed electricity; and obviously the water will be used not
just for refilling the lake, but an entire development of this
region.  If the full design is developed in its entirety, you can
have a navigable canal that will be part of that; along with
which, you can have inland ports, new industrial development, all
kinds of economic activity along the canal itself.  The level of
land irrigation for farming that's being discussed — even with
the current proposal of 50 cubic km per year — is equivalent to
the entire California Central Valley.
        If you know what the California Central Valley means for
food production for the United States, this should tell you
something.  You're going to have a California Central Valley
potential of food production right in the central heart of
Africa.  So this is an amazing project that will not just benefit
the immediate nations touching the project; it will have
spreading effects throughout [Africa], and is typical of the type
of principle of development that is needed in this current
period.  You look for these large-scale actions that can benefit
all the partners involved.  China is making an investment;
they're going to benefit from the project by being able to
participate in its construction, but also getting new markets to
work with as these African nations are able to grow and develop.
All these African nations are going to get power, water, skilled
training to construct and operate these projects, the related
industry that can go along with these development corridors.
        This is exemplary of the type of programs that are needed
today.  I think it deserves a very high level of support and
praise for the potential of this thing becoming a reality. Again,
it should serve as a reference point for the level of discussion
needed for the United States.  Much could be said — we've
already taken up a fair amount of time with this, but the United
States' relation to Mexico; you have the entire NAWAPA design in
principle of managing the entire — and then potentials to add in
southern contributions from Mexico itself.  So, you have similar
ideas of joint development that can not only alleviate current
drought conditions that are ravaging California, the southwest
United States, and much of northern Mexico; you can actually
create a qualitatively higher level of ability to support
completely new levels of agriculture development.  You turn
entire territories that are now uninhabitable into potentially
some of the best land that you're going to want to get your hands
on.
        It's this future-oriented level of development on this
scale, rooted in these types of principles, that I think is only
reference point and the only standard that we should really be
holding ourselves to at this point.  So, you take, this is
exemplary; what we just discussed with the Kra Canal.  These are
just a few keystone projects that really signify a new era for
mankind, and define the level of discussion that we need to rise
to in the United States.

OGDEN:  So again, this is the paradigm which we wish to
inaugurate today.  This is something that the United States must
be a part of, when we talk about a vision of common destiny for
mankind; which was the way that Xi Jinping put it in his speech
at Davos.  When we talk about the mutual benefit among nations,
it's defining these sorts of principles of the future and
scientific challenges that can be overcome; and doing that
together among nations, which is the paradigm of the 21st
Century.  We cannot retreat from that.
        I think it's very clear, as President Trump said in his
inaugural address, the time for empty talk is over; now is the
hour of action.  True!  But the question is, what form will that
action take?  And according to what principle will that action be
conceived?  We go back to the Four Laws document of Lyndon
LaRouche.  The principle is very clear in that document; this is
not just a policy paper.  This is document which is formed around
the principle that makes mankind different from animals; that we
can master nature and improve it for the benefit of all mankind.
Increasing the productive powers of the labor force through new
technologies and new principles that are discovered; that's the
core principle of Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws document.  But I think
that's what defines this hour of action which must be taken.
        I'd like to put up on the screen right now the link to our
petition — which we are still circulating — this is
lpac.co/trumpsotu.  Again, this is a petition demanding that
Trump act on his words promising Glass-Steagall, which he said in
his campaign; and it must be a strict Glass-Steagall as LaRouche
has defined it.  This is between now and the State of the Union
address.  So again, if you haven't signed that petition, this is
still the active, leading campaign from LaRouche PAC here in the
United States.
        But let me let Michael say a little bit — if you wish to.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  I think what Ben indicated is that what are
possible today are platform-like projects; and that's sort of the
question for this new administration.  Are we going to take
actions which don't simply address the problems which we
currently face?  But as President Trump said, are we going to
move into the future?  That's not characterized by some linear
notions of time; that requires a physical leap in mankind's sense
of productivity and mankind himself as a species.  The kind of
projects that need to be taken up in the United States, being
here in Houston with Kesha Rogers, we had a chance to meet with
about 25 former rocket scientists from NASA.  Leading figures,
some of whom worked their entire careers in the manned space
program.  They are ready to move forward; they see the potential,
but I think what defines the Apollo-like project today is to
conquer the fusion energy program.  That's something mankind has
yet to do; we've clearly got a capability internationally with
robotics, and combined with the manned space program to begin to
really advance our abilities of exploration on the Moon and Mars.
        But the real question for mankind on Earth, and for mankind
throughout the Solar System, is going to be this fusion platform.
That's the kind of clear and distinct action that, if this
administration takes, we will certainly move into the future in
an un paralleled way.

        OGDEN:  We do see some references in this inaugural speech.
As President Trump said, we're standing on the verge of a new
millennium; and it's one in which we can unlock the mysteries of
space, free Earth from the miseries of disease, and harness the
energies, industries, and technologies of tomorrow.  Fusion power
as my example of what that could be.  But, it's not enough to say
those words; there has to be a clear pathway to achieve that, and
the clear intention from the leadership of the United States to
make that happen.  But it requires an entirely new paradigm of
thinking among the American people and among the nations of the
planet generally.
        We must maintain a sense of common destiny, a shared future
of common benefit; and I think if we take this as an Inauguration
Day, but in a much broader sense of the word.  Not just the
inauguration of a new President in the United States; but
potentially the inauguration of a new era of development for the
planet.  One which is already in motion; that paradigm is already
underway, but it's waiting for the United States to become an
active and willing participant in that new economic and strategic
paradigm.
        So, let me go back to the remarks that Lyndon and Helga
LaRouche made earlier today which I cited in the beginning. Helga
LaRouche was very clear; we must be focussed on our own
principles and our own objectives, and proceed as we have been
proceeding.  We are very clear in terms of the fact that yes, the
Bush and Obama era is over; a fresh breeze could be blowing
through.  A lot can change; this could potentially be the end of
business as usual, but more clarity is still needed.  And that
clarity can only come from the leadership exemplified by the
LaRouche Movement, defined and informed by clear scientific
principle.
        So, let's take these two great projects that we discussed
here today — the Kra Canal and the Transaqua project in Africa
— as paradigmatic of what the new era of development can be.
Let's make the decision that this is not just Day One of the
First 100 Days of new Presidency of the United States.  It's not
just Day One of a new administration, but let's make this Day
One, Inauguration Day, of a new era for development for mankind
as a whole.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today.  Please be
sure to watch the video of the Kra Canal project in full; the
link is available in the description.  And watch out for an
interview with Pakdee Tanapura that will be coming very soon. And
also hopefully, we will have more elaboration of the great and
optimistic vision that Ben laid out in terms of this potential to
develop the African continent as a whole.
        Thank you very much for joining us here today, and please
stay tuned.  We're in for, I think, a wild ride; and we have a
lot of work to do.  Sign up to our email list if you haven't yet;
subscribe to the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.           

19. jan., 2017 – Under en pressekonference i Moskva den 18. jan. med den østrigske udenrigsminister, Sebastien Kurz, og den russiske udenrigsminister Lavrov, fandt følgende ordveksling sted:

Spørgsmål: På det seneste har de vestlige medier svirret med historier om kompromitterende materiale, læk, skræmmehistorier om spionage og plantede historier. Rusland nævnes og anklages for ikke alene hackerangreb, men for næsten alt muligt. Kunne De kommentere på dette?

Sergei Lavrov: Vi er ærligt talt blevet trætte af at diskutere spørgsmålet og russisk indblanding i USA’s interne anliggender, i særdeleshed valgkampagnen, der endte med Donald Trumps valgsejr til præsident. Fordi disse grundløse, ikke-beviste bagtalelsesanklager fortsætter med at cirkulere, vil jeg gerne sige, at det kyniske i denne situation er, at vi bliver anklaget af dem, der rent faktisk selv intervenerede i valgkampagnen.

Rusland har gentagne gange erklæret, at vi er rede til at arbejde sammen med enhver præsident, som det amerikanske folk vælger i overensstemmelse med amerikansk lov … Men, ulig os, så talte flere ledere af USA’s allierede lande imidlertid til fordel for Hillary Clintons kampagne. Den tyske kansler Angela Merkel, den franske præsident François Hollande, UK’s premierminister Theresa May og ledere af andre europæiske stater var aktivt involveret i dette. Hvad mere er, udover direkte at føre valgkampagne for Hillary Clinton, så havde regeringsrepræsentanter for europæiske lande ingen skrupler ved at dæmonisere Donald Trump. For eksempel kaldte min tyske modpart, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, ham for én, der prædikede had. UK’s udenrigsminister Boris Johnson sagde endda, at Donald Trump var utilstrækkelig, alt imens daværende franske premierminister Manuel Valls udtalte, at den Republikanske kandidat blev afvist af hele verden. Og alt dette blev sagt, ikke som en hvisken i en snæver kreds, men højt og for hele verden.

Tiden er måske inde til at indrømme, at det ikke var Rusland, men USA’s allierede, der groft intervenerede i USA’s interne anliggender i valgkampen. Og flere af dem kan i øvrigt stadig ikke beherske sig og dæmpe sig ned. Vi blander os ikke i disse skænderier. Vi holder os, som en principsag, ude af det, der i øjeblikket foregår i USA mellem den afgående administration og Donald Trumps team. Men angrebene fra Barack Obamas team imod den nyvalgte præsident synes imidlertid til tider hykleriske. For blot et par dage siden, den 15. januar, i et interview med The Times og Bild, hvor Donald Trump udtale sin mening om den tyske migrationspolitik, sagde min amerikanske modpart John Kerry, at det var uetisk og udgjorde indblanding i tyske interne anliggender. Og dette siges af mennesker, der forsøgte at prædike for andre lande, inklusive Europa, (f.eks. talte Barack Obama personligt mod Brexit), ikke blot i ord, men som intervenerer i andre landes interne anliggender på en måde, der langt fra er uskadelig, med anvendelse af militærmagt, der har til formål at fremtvinge regimeskifte. Dette er derfor udtryk for ikke alene dobbelte standarder, men sandsynligvis tredobbelte standarder. Vi mener, at de folk, der fremkommer med sådanne anklager imod os, hvor de forsøger at lægge skylden (for egne handlinger) over på en andens skuldre, bør rødme af skam, i det mindste.

Foto: Sergei Lavrov holdt en fælles pressekonference i Moskva med den østrigske udenrigsminister, Sebastian Kurz, der er på statsbesøg i Moskva efter indbydelse fra Lavrov.       

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 19. januar, 2017 – De næste dage vil se mange revolutionære udviklinger, kvalitativt nye udviklinger, der ikke ligner noget som helst andet, som tidligere er set i menneskehedens historie. Men én ting ved vi, som allerede er uundgåelig og ubestridelig. Deres system er færdigt. Det er forbi, og kommer aldrig tilbage. Jo, de kan lave ballade, som de netop gør. De kan lave et blodigt rod, hvis de får lov – men de vil aldrig være i stand til at bringe dette system tilbage fra graven. Gud ske tak og lov, at vi er færdige med det, for altid.

Så snart, vi kendte resultatet af præsidentvalget, sagde Lyndon LaRouche, at det ikke var USA, der havde afvist Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama og alt, hvad de stod for – det var hele verden, der havde afvist dem. Det var et globalt fænomen. Uanset, hvad Angela Merkel måtte mene, så havde verden fået nok af deres myrderi og udplyndring – af Det britiske Imperiums uforskammethed og hybris igennem tre århundreder. Verden havde besluttet at lade dem tilbage i mudderet, og gå videre. Videre til det næste stadium i menneskehedens evolution, som allerede er begyndt.

Det næste stadie i evolutionen er et helt, indbyrdes forbundet kompleks – moralsk, fysisk, psykologisk og videnskabeligt – alle disse aspekter tæt sammenvævet, som det altid har været i Lyndon LaRouches tankegang. Ét ord for dette nye stadium af vor arts evolution er det »Nye Paradigme«. Det Nye Paradigme, hvor, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche så mindeværdigt har sagt det, »vi bliver virkeligt menneskelige«. Dets nye »platform« for økonomisk udvikling inkluderer Verdenslandbroen, som hr. og fr. LaRouche for første gang lancerede som en idé for omkring tredive år siden, og som nu er i færd med at blive virkeliggjort under lederskab af Kina og Putins Rusland.

Med seneste nyt-udviklinger, der vælter frem for hver dag, der går, er projektet for Kra-kanalen igennem Thailand, som Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for siden 1980’erne, pludselig kommet tilbage på toppen af dagsordenen. Det forestående nummer af EIR, dateret den 27. januar, vil citere ham fra et interview i Singapore-avisen Fortune Times fra 2014, om Kra-kanalen:

»Opdel Øst- og Sydasiens maritime område i tre hovedkategorier: Kina, en gigant; Indien, en gigant; og så den maritime forbindelse, i hele Sydøstasiens maritime områder. Tilføj indvirkningen af sådanne tre-i-én maritime og relaterede forbindelser, til de fysisk-økonomske relationer til de amerikanske kontinenter mod øst, og til Mellemøstens underside og Afrika. Så kommer udviklingen af Kra-kanalens potens til syne som ikke alene et eminent muligt træk, men som en strategisk, politisk-økonomisk kraft for hele planeten.«

LaRouche bemærkede også, at den primære opposition til Kra-kanalen internt i Asien er Singapore, og at hovedkilden til modstand fra Singapore er helt igennem globale, britisk-imperiale, militærstrategiske interesser. Men, tilføjede han:

»Den blotte volumen af maritim handel mellem Asiens to store nationer [Kina og Indien], samt deres forbindelser gennem Sydasiens maritime områder, gør Kanalen til sandsynligvis at være det potentielt set mest fordelagtige, og også mest effektive, projekt for hele Stillehavsområdet og Det indiske Oceans område, samt for den samtidige udvikling af de store områder af planeten som helhed.«

Kina og Japan har lagt projektet for Kra-kanalen[1], der er en hovedforbindelse i den Maritime Silkevej, frem på bordet igen. Samtidig, som en del af Silkevejen for Afrika, har Kina engageret sig i Transaqua-projektet, det største infrastrukturprojekt, Afrika nogensinde har overvejet, som det rapporteres i EIR-magasinet fra 6. januar. Som Cladio Celani her skrev, så handler denne idé om »en vandvej, der vil være i stand til at genopfylde Tchad-søen og samtidig skabe en gigantinfrastruktur for transport, energi og landbrug i Centralafrika. Byggeriet af et sådant infrastrukturprojekt ville tilbyde jobs til millioner af afrikanere og lægge fundamentet for fremtidig udvikling.«[2]

Vidtrækkende, som det er, så er Verdenslandbroen blot en del af dette Nye Paradigme. Til dette hører også den nye, »økonomiske platform«, som udgøres udviklingen af det umiddelbare rum (dvs., Solsystemet). Det er fuldt ud opnåeligt, at, i den umiddelbare fremtid, vil nationer gå sammen om et rumprogram, hvis amerikanske komponent alene vil blive langt større end Kennedys Måneprogram. Og vi kan og må have et succesfuldt, internationalt program for at producere stort set gratis energi til menneskeheden, på basis af kernefusion. Disse programmers nødvendige grundlag er et statsligt banksystem og en statslig kreditpolitik, der er målrettet herpå, og som må begynde med en genoplivelse af Franklin Roosevelts beskyttelse gennem Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven.

Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Nye Love« (til USA’s, og verdens, omgående redning) er således den ene, enkeltsående forudsætning for USA’s tilslutning til det Nye Paradigme.

Hele det overordnede design har ligeledes integrerede moralske og kulturelle dimensioner. Snarere end blot et forsøg på at beskrive dem, kan vi henvise læserne til Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt«, som er disse dimensioners førende organisation i nutidens verden. Manhattan-projektets fejring af Martin Luther King sidste weekend legemliggør dette på den meste intense måde.

Der er ingen garanti for succes – meget langt fra. Kreativ, fri vilje – din skabende, frie vilje – kræves, hvis menneskeheden skal bevæge sig opad til dette næste trin, der vinker forude.

Vi slutter med Krafft Ehrickes ord fra 1966, som vi tidligere har citeret her i lederartiklen:

»Fødselstimen, det være sig for et nyt liv eller en ny æra, er sandhedens time, hvor vi udfordres af smerte, tvivl og frygt, og intensiteten af deres angreb forårsager de kompenserende kræfter af styrke, tillid og mod at rejse sig til sjældne toppunkter af intensitet og kraft. Verden synes at bryde sønder under smerten fra denne nådesløse konfrontation af det gamle og det nye.«

Vi kan vinde dette her.

Foto: USA's præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, der i 1933 satte Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven i kraft, som indledte USA's udtræden af 'Den store Depression' og en udvikling, der ved slutningen af hans præsidentskab, ved hans død i 1945, havde gjort USA til den største fysisk-økonomiske magt, verden havde set.   

Med formang Tom Gillesberg.

Lyd:

Kom til koncerten:

En Musikalsk Dialog Mellem Kulturer 

Fredag den 17. februar 2017, kl. 19,

Det Russiske Center for Videnskab og Kultur 

Vester Voldgade 11, København.

Gratis adgang.

Kontakt os!: +45 35 43 00 33; 53 57 00 51

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. januar, 2017 – Med blot to dage tilbage under den morderiske, degenererede Obama-administration, og med nyvalgte præsident Trump, der lover at gøre en ende på »regimeskifte« og genoprette relationerne med Rusland, har den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov og præsident Vladimir Putin taget fløjlshandskerne af med hensyn til den trussel mod menneskeheden, som Obama og hans controllers repræsenterer.

På en årlig pressekonference tirsdag begyndte Lavrov med en erklæring om det internationale samfunds svigt med hensyn til at forenes imod terrorisme. Det er et »systemisk problem«, sagde han, »sammensat af grundlæggende uoverensstemmelser mellem på den ene side den objektive orientering hen imod dannelsen af en polycentrisk verden, og på den anden side, handlingerne fra dem, der forsøger at holde fast ved det forældede koncept om unipolaritet. Jeg refererer til dominansen af, ikke engang så meget én stat, som af en gruppe af stater med deres egne værdisystemer«.

Og hvad er det for værdier, spørger han, som Vesten konstant kræver, at Rusland og verden må vedtage?

»Det er sandsynligvis ikke de værdier, som bedstefædrene til nutidens europæere proklamerede«, sagde Lavrov, »men noget nyt og moderniseret, frit slag, ville jeg sige. Disse værdier kunne man kalde post-kristne. De er radikalt og fundamentalt i strid med de værdier, der er nedarvet fra generation til generation i århundreder i vort land, og som vi ønsker at værdsætte og videregive til vore børn og børnebørn. Når vi og mange andre, under udenrigspolitiske kampe, konfronteres med et krav om at acceptere disse nye, post-kristne, vestlige værdier, inklusive eftergivenhed og en universalitet i en liberal tilgang til den enkelte persons liv, mener jeg, at det er uanstændigt på et menneskeligt niveau. Men, som professionelle diplomater, er det en kolossal fejltagelse og en totalt uacceptabel overvurdering af jeres egen indflydelse på internationale relationer.«

Lyndon LaRouche responderede på disse udtalelser med fuld enighed. »Dette er ligesom Første Verdenskrig«, sagde han. »Værdierne af det 19. århundredes Amerika blev ødelagt i Første Verdenskrig«, en krig, skabt af briterne med det formål at ødelægge amerikansk samarbejde med Europa, især Tyskland, omkring international nations-opbygning. Den optimisme, der karakteriserede Alexander Hamiltons, John Quincy Adams’ og Abraham Lincolns Amerika, druknede i pessimismens og geopolitikkens blod.

Putin advarede ligeledes om, at det »messianske« hysteri i Vesten er gået så vidt, at de nu forsøger at gennemtvinge en ’farvet revolution’ mod den nyvalgte præsident i deres eget land, en præsident, der har brudt med det kontrollerede miljø.

»Man har det indtryk«, sagde Putin tirsdag, »at, efter en testkørsel i Kiev, er de nu parat til at organisere et ’Maidan’ i Washington, for at forhindre Trump i at indtage embedet.«

Hertil bemærkede LaRouche, at det var truslen om at blive myrdet, der tvang den valgte præsident i Ukraine, Viktor Janukovitj, til at flygte, konfronteret med de amerikanskstøttede, neonazistiske bøller på Maidan. I dag er truslen om mord, for at stoppe Trump, en meget virkelig fare. I hele Amerikas historie har det kun været de præsidenter, der trodsede briterne og Wall Street, som blev ofre for politiske mord. I dag er Londons rolle i at orkestrere en »farvet revolution« imod Trump åbenlyst afsløret. Trump selv, i et interview med Londonavisen Times mandag, gjorde nar ad MI6-agent Christopher Steele for dennes vilde fabrikationer om Trump, der skulle være kontrolleret af Moskva, og som blev taget op og faldbudt af den amerikanske presse. Trump sluttede ved at sige til Times-reporteren: »Hvis denne fyr er en britisk fyr, så har I en masse problemer.«

I sit interview sagde Lavrov, at »vore relationer med Kina er de bedste nogensinde i vore to landes historie« og påpegede Putins besøg i Kina i juni 2016. I denne uge er den kinesiske præsident, Xi Jinping, hvis Silkevejsprogrammer er i færd med at transformere verden, i Schweiz, hvor han i sin hovedtale til Davos Forum sagde, at den finansielle krise var forårsaget af »finanskapitalen, der udtog overdrevne profitter, og af, at den finansielle lovgivning ikke havde håndteret dette«. Dette er præcis LaRouchePAC’s budskab til Kongressen – hold Donald Trump fast på sit valgkampløfte om at vedtage Glass-Steagall, omgående, for at underkaste det bankerotte, finansielle system lovmæssig konkursbehandling, før det bryder sammen og trækker den vestlige verden ind i depression, og krig.

Det Nye Paradigme er inden for rækkevidde, hvis det lidende folk i USA og Europa kan række ud efter stjernerne og, som Wilhelm Tell i Schillers drama, sige til verden: »Nej, der er en grænse for tyranens magt.« Den revolutionære gæringsproces, som frembringer Brexit, Trumps valgsejr og flere valg i Europa imod EU-diktaturet og de vanvittige, anti-russiske politikker, frembyder det rette momentum for en sand, international renæssance, der udløser menneskehedens kreative evne til at skabe en fremtid, der er mennesket værdigt.

Foto: Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov holder sin årlige pressekonference med en gennemgang af året 2016. (Kan ses med engelsk speak her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLl8t4XehXI) 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. januar, 2017 – Med verdens blik rettet mod ham, holdt den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping hovedtalen for Davos Verdensøkonomiske Forum den 17. januar, hvor han fremlagde det, hans Udenrigsministerium beskrev som »en gennemarbejdet plan for det menneskelige samfunds fremtidige fremskridt«.

Xi sagde, at den globale finansielle krise var forårsaget af, at »finanskapitalen udtog overdrevne profitter og af, at finansiel lovgivning ikke har håndteret dette«, og at der er voksende internationale krav om fundamentale reformer. Han præsenterede Kinas Bælt-og-Vej-initiativ som et åbent tilbud til alle nationer, fordi »udvikling er af folket, ved folket og for folket« og er baseret på voksende produktivitet baseret på udviklingen af videnskab og teknologi. Og han understregede, at menneskets historie »fortæller os, at man ikke skal frygte problemer, men at de må konfronteres … Hvis man er ræd for stormen og for at udforske en ny verden, vil man før eller siden drukne i havet«.

Den totale intellektuelle og moralske bankerot af det gamle, døende paradigme reflekteredes godt af en forvirret establishment-deltager i Davos, Moises Naim fra Carnegie Institut, der blot kunne sprutte: »Der er enighed om, at der foregår noget enormt, på globalt plan og på mange måder uden fortilfælde. Men vi ved ikke, hvad årsagerne er, eller hvordan man skal håndtere det.«

Men dét ved Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin, og dét ved ligeledes Lyndon LaRouche og de amerikanere, der er kloge nok til at lade sig lede af hans videnskabelige og strategiske tænkning. Inkluderer dette mon den næste præsident i USA, Donald Trump?

Som Putin sagde ved en pressekonference i Moskva, mens Xi endnu talte i Davos: »Jeg kender ikke hr. Trump … Jeg ved ikke, hvad vil gøre på den internationale arena, så jeg har intet belæg for hverken at angribe ham, kritisere ham eller forsvare ham.« Det, der står klart, fortsatte han, er, at der foregår »et ’Maidan’ i Washington for, at Trump ikke skal indtage embedet … [og] at binde den nyvalgte præsident på hænder og fødder, med hensyn til implementeringen af hans løfter forud for valgkampagnen til det amerikanske folk og det internationale samfund«. Med hensyn til dem, der lækkede det løgnagtige dossier, så »er de værre end prostituerede, de har ingen moralske grænser«, udtalte Putin med eftertryk.

Det, der står på spil, er epokegørende, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i en strategisk vurdering, der udgives i det kommende nummer af EIR (se hele artiklen på dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17403)

»Det uhørte hysteri hos de etablerede medier og de neokonservative på begge sider af Atlanten over Donald Trumps valgsejr giver stof til et førsteklasses lærestykke i den faktiske dynamik, der netop udfolder sig på den strategiske scene. Det demonstrer med al mulig tydelighed og for selv den mest naive tilhænger af den politiske korrekthed, at det her ikke drejer sig om det ene partis interesser over for det andet parti. Det drejer sig om et døende imperiums metoder over for frembruddet af et nyt paradigme, hvis præcise indhold endnu ikke er entydigt defineret, men som i hvert fald er et nej til globaliseringen …

Dette imperium er ikke det samme som nationerne USA eller Storbritannien; det er de oligarkiske kræfter, der får opfyldt deres krav om magten fra det neoliberale, transatlantiske finanssystem og det militære forsvar af den unipolære verdensorden, og som er fuldstændigt ligeglade med de undersåtters ve og vel, der tilfældigvis også bor i deres stater. Det er mod dette imperium, at der er en global revolution i gang, og som er kommet til udtryk i både Brexit, i Trumps valgsejr og i nejet til Renzis folkeafstemning i Italien …

Imens vokser det nye paradigme frem i form af en ny, økonomisk verdensorden, hvor BRIKS-staterne og Kinas politik med Den nye Silkevej tilbyder et win-win-samarbejde til alle verdens nationer, hvor alle kun kan vinde gennem gensidig fordel. Såfremt det lykkes for Trump at samarbejde med denne nye kombination, hvilket man først vil få at se, når han er indsat i embedet, kunne en ny æra for menneskeheden begynde, hvor suveræne nationer samarbejder om et skæbnefællesskab for menneskehedens fremtid, og hvor imperiets æra (endelig) bliver lagt i graven.«   

Imens vokser det nye paradigme frem i form af en ny, økonomisk verdensorden, hvor BRIKS-staterne og Kinas politik med Den nye Silkevej tilbyder et win-win-samarbejde til alle verdens nationer, hvor alle kun kan vinde gennem gensidig fordel. Såfremt det lykkes for Trump at samarbejde med denne nye kombination, hvilket man først vil få at se, når han er indsat i embedet, kunne en ny æra for menneskeheden begynde, hvor suveræne nationer samarbejder om et skæbnefællesskab for menneskehedens fremtid, og hvor imperiets æra bliver henlagt.

14. januar, 2017 – Det uhørte hysteri hos de etablerede medier og de neokonservative på begge sider af Atlanten over Donald Trumps valgsejr giver stof til et førsteklasses lærestykke i den faktiske dynamik, der netop udfolder sig på den strategiske scene. Det demonstrer med al mulig tydelighed og for selv den mest naive tilhænger af den politiske korrekthed, at det her ikke drejer sig om det ene partis interesser over for det andet parti. Det drejer sig om et døende imperiums metoder over for frembruddet af et nyt paradigme, hvis præcise indhold endnu ikke er entydigt defineret, men som i hvert fald er et nej til globaliseringen.

Præcis på selve aftenen før Trumps første pressekonference som nyvalgt præsident, bragte den amerikanske fjernsynsstation CNN og internetfirmaet BuzzFeed som en kæmpesensation historien om et dossier på 35 sider, hvor det ud over usigelige anekdoter om Trumps påståede seksuelle vaner også blev påstået, at man havde beviser for, at Trump faktisk var en russisk agent. Efter den af cybereksperter for længst gendrevne kampagne om, at Rusland skulle have hacket den demokratiske nationalkomites (DNC) e-mails, systematisk have tilsmudset Hillary Clintons anseelse og dermed have hjulpet Trump til sejren, skulle denne nye aktion lægge grunden til en snarlig rigsretssag, før Trump endnu havde indtaget Det Hvide Hus.

Forfatteren til dette dossier hedder Christopher Steele, en ruslandsekspert fra den britiske udenrigs-efterretningstjeneste MI6, der havde fabrikeret dossieret allerede i sommeren 2016. Det cirkulerede i flere måneder blandt amerikanske mediekredse og ansås for så utroværdigt, at der selv i valgkampens heftigste periode ikke var nogen, der ville offentliggøre det. Dossieret blev overgivet direkte til FBI-chefen Comey og derefter endnu engang af senator McCain til FBI, efter at McCain på en sikkerhedskonference i Canada fik en lovprisning at høre fra den tidligere britiske diplomat i Moskva, Sir Andrew Wood, af Steele og dennes troværdighed.

Efter at bølgerne over Ruslands påståede tyveri af det amerikanske valg gik højt, og Trump meddelte, at han stolede mere på Julian Assange fra Wikileaks end på de amerikanske efterretningstjenester, informerede de tre chefer for USA's efterretningstjenester – Clapper, Brennan og Comey – både USA's Senat, såvel som præsident Obama og den nyvalgte præsident Trump om deres version af hændelsen. Dossieret ville på grund af dets manglende troværdighed ikke have spillet nogen rolle, hvis ikke disse tre chefer havde tilføjet et resumé på to sider. Efter at det tvivlsomme dossier på denne måde havde fået en påtegning som et pålideligt efterretningsdokument, var dette startskuddet til, at CNN, BuzzFeed og derefter de øvrige medier offentliggjorde samtlige 35 sider. 

Dagen efter ringede Clapper til Trump for at gøre opmærksom på, at dossieret ikke stammede fra de amerikanske efterretningstjenester, og at han hverken kunne stå inde for dets troværdighed eller det modsatte. Og helt usædvanligt offentliggjorde han så en tilsvarende skriftlig erklæring. Efter at de tre efterretningschefer selv havde udløst aktionen, fulgte Clapper den altså op med endnu en aktion, hvilket i disse kredse betegnes som en »CIA-operation«, hvad der oversat kan gengives med at tilrettelægge en diplomatisk flugtrute.  

Så hvad drejer det sig altså om? Eric Denécé, direktør for det franske Center for Intelligence Research, offentliggjorde den følgende analyse under overskriften: »En chokerende mangel på beviser«, efter at han havde læst beretningen fra Ministeriet for Homeland Security og fra FBI om det angivelige russiske indgreb i den amerikanske valgkamp. »Washingtons establishment blev fuldstændig overrasket over Trumps valgsejr og indså, at der ville følge en større hovedrengøring, hvor mange af dets medlemmer ville miste deres politiske stillinger og dermed deres økonomiske privilegier, der var et resultat af deres internationale økonomiske alliancer.«

Denne vurdering stemmer givetvis, men den beskriver kun ét aspekt af sagen. Det er indlysende, at det transatlantiske, neoliberale establishment har yderst svært ved at acceptere den kendsgerning, at Trump blev valgt på demokratisk vis. For dem er »verden gået op i fugerne«, som Merkel siger; den er »stærkt chokeret«, som [den tyske forsvarsminister Ursula] von der Leyen udtrykte det. Den verden, der er gået op i fugerne, er den unipolære verden, som de neokonservative i Bush senior-administrationen i tiden efter Sovjetunionens opløsning besluttede, skulle være den enerådende. De proklamerede dengang »The Project for a New American Century« (PNAC), der skulle grundlægge et verdensrige på grundlag af det særlige, britisk-amerikanske forhold. De regeringer, der ikke ville underkaste sig denne unipolære verden, blev lidt efter lidt væltet af politikken for regimeskift, for eksempel gennem de udefra finansierede ’farvede revolutioner’, sådan som Victoria Nuland uforblommet indrømmede det i tilfældet med Ukraine. Alene her betalte USA’s Udenrigsministerium $5 mia. til NGO’er. Men det drejede sig også om direkte militær indgriben under påberåbelse af forsvar for demokrati og menneskerettigheder, som i tilfældet med Irak, Libyen, Syrien osv. Og naturligvis var Rusland og Kina den egentlige, sluttelige målskive for denne politik med regimeskift.

I dette arrangement var EU-bureaukratiet den hemmelige juniorpartner, der selv nød frugterne af dette globaliseringssystem, selv var opsat på den størst mulige udvidelse af sit imperium, sådan som Robert Cooper åbent indrømmer det, og kun lejlighedsvis konkurrerede om dominansen med City of London og Wall Street. En forudsætning for medlemskabet i denne unipolære verdens establishment-klub var naturligvis også, at man overtog den officielle fremstilling (»narrativ«), at det, som det drejede sig om i alle disse destabiliseringer af demokratisk valgte regeringer og disse krige, var »frihed«, »demokrati« og »menneskerettigheder«, alt imens det hos de andre altid drejede sig om »diktatorer« og »dæmoner«. Og naturligvis ville alle de, der havde disse unipolære briller på, i en analyse af »flygtningekrisens årsager« ikke slippe godt fra at nævne dette ved navn, for det ville have betydet, at man måtte have fordømt de ulovlige krige, der har kostet millioner af mennesker livet, og så var man blevet smidt ud af klubben.

Med Donald Trump har nu en person vundet valget, der, som Obama udtrykte det om Putin, »ikke var med på holdet«, og som er enig med (senator) Tulsi Gabbard og en række konservative militærpersoner i, at disse krige for regimeskift må holde op, og som, med den ultimative overtrædelse af tabuet, oven i købet atter vil normalisere forholdet til Rusland!

Den ansete amerikanske journalist Robert Parry sammenlignede de amerikanske efterretningstjenesters metoder mod Trump med J. Edgar Hoovers afpresningsmetoder. Christopher Steeles grove taktikker minder imidlertid også om den ligeledes af den britiske efterretningstjeneste inspirerede »Troopergate«-skandale, hvor det med en vis succes i begyndelsen af Bill Clintons præsidentskab blev forsøgt at fremstille ham som en hæmningsløs sexgalning, forarbejdet, så at sige, for den senere lancerede Lewinsky-affære, der havde til formål at ødelægge Clintons præsidentskab.

Det spektakulære i operationen mod Trump er imidlertid, at den britiske efterretningstjeneste og dens amerikanske modpart, der i årtier har arbejdet som »spøgelser« i det skjulte, nu er tvunget til at stille deres totale nøgenhed offentligt til skue. Den sidste dilettantiske påstand fra Steele, der i øvrigt også var en ledende aktør i afsløringen af korruptionsskandalen i FIFA og var den vigtigste MI6-agent i sagen om mordet på Litvinenko, demonstrerer de direkte interventioner i USA's interne anliggender på vegne af Det britiske Imperium, som blot er et synonym for begrebet »globalisering«.

Dette imperium er ikke det samme som nationerne USA eller Storbritannien; det er de oligarkiske kræfter, der får opfyldt deres krav om magten fra det neoliberale, transatlantiske finanssystem og det militære forsvar af den unipolære verdensorden, og som er fuldstændigt ligeglade med de undersåtters ve og vel, der tilfældigvis også bor i deres stater. Det er mod dette imperium, at der er en global revolution i gang, og som er kommet til udtryk i både Brexit, i Trumps valgsejr og i nejet til Renzis folkeafstemning i Italien.

Påstanden om, at Putin har stjålet valgsejren fra Hillary Clinton, eller at han også vil blande sig i de kommende valg i flere europæiske stater, er et desperat forsøg fra dette synkende imperiums side på at bevare fortolknings-overhøjheden.

Imens vokser det nye paradigme frem i form af en ny, økonomisk verdensorden, hvor BRIKS-staterne og Kinas politik med Den nye Silkevej tilbyder et win-win-samarbejde til alle verdens nationer, hvor alle kun kan vinde gennem gensidig fordel. Såfremt det lykkes for Trump at samarbejde med denne nye kombination, hvilket man først vil få at se, når han er indsat i embedet, kunne en ny æra for menneskeheden begynde, hvor suveræne nationer samarbejder om et skæbnefællesskab for menneskehedens fremtid, og hvor imperiets æra bliver henlagt.

16. jan., 2017 – Det transatlantiske establishment er blevet kastet ud i endnu en runde, hvor de må bide i gulvtæppet, af nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps første interview med europæiske medier, et fællesinterview, han gav til Londonavisen The Times og den tyske avis, Bild Zeitung, udgivet den 15. og 16. januar. Ledere lige fra Frankrig til Storbritannien og videre udtrykte oprør over, at Trump vovede at foreslå en ophævelse af sanktionerne mod Rusland til gengæld for en atomvåbenaftale, over, endnu engang at kalde NATO for forældet, og for at antyde, at, ikke alene var Storbritanniens udgang, Brexit, af Den europæiske Union en »fremragende ting«, men »hvis man spørger mig, vil flere andre lande også gå ud«.

»De har sanktioner mod Rusland – lad os se, om vi ikke kan indgå nogen gode aftaler med Rusland. For det første mener jeg, at atomvåben skal være langt færre og reduceres væsentligt, det er en del af det«, sagde Trump til sine interviewere.

Der vil også komme forandringer i NATO, annoncerede Trump: »Det er forældet, for det første, fordi det blev designet for mange, mange år siden«, for det andet, fordi europæiske »lande ikke betaler, hvad de skal«, og også, fordi NATO-alliancen »ikke håndterede terrorismen«.

Trumps kritik af Ruslands intervention i Syrien som værende en »meget dårlig ting«, der førte til en »forfærdelig humanitær situation«, oprørte ikke den transatlantiske elite, og det gjorde hans gentagne erklæring om, at det var »en stor fejltagelse« af Tyskland at have taget syriske flygtninge ind, heller ikke.

Men det samme kan bestemt ikke siges om Trumps påmindelse om, at det, der oprindeligt skabte denne krise, var USA’s intervention i Irak.

»Hele denne sag burde aldrig være sket. Irak burde ikke være blevet angrebet … Det er ligesom at kaste sten mod et hvepsebo. Det er alletiders værste roderi«, sagde Trump. Hans prioritet, som militær øverstbefalende? »ISIS«, svarede Trump.

Obamas ambassadør til Den europæiske Union, den »indflydelsesrige finansekspert«, Anthony Gardner, var allerede apoplektisk over, at det første spørgsmål, som EU-embedsmænd, Trumps overgangsteam havde talt med, blev spurgt, var, »Hvilket land efter UK er det næste til at forlade [eurozonen]?«, og således udbredte den idé, »at 2017 er året, hvor EU vil falde fra hinanden« (Time-magasinet, 13. jan., 2017).

Fra Trump selv kom den påstand, at »Brexit vil ende med at være en god ting«.

Det faktum, at interviewet til The Times blev udført af Michael Gove, er ved at drive City og London-kredse amok. Gove er den førende Brexit-tilhænger i det Konservative Parti. Efterson han blev fyret sidste år af premierminister Theresa May, ses det som endnu et nap i næsen, i lighed med, at Trump mødtes med Nigel Farage, stifter af anti-EU partiet, Independence Party (UKIP). Trump dryssede også her salt i såret og spurgte Gove mod slutningen, »Hvordan har vores Nigel det? … Jeg synes, han er en storslået fyr.«

Det, der blev rapporteret i The Times, men ikke i Bild, var hans referencer til Tyskland og dets kansler.

»Hvis man ser på Den europæiske Union, så er det Tyskland. Grundlæggende set, et instrument for Tyskland. Det er derfor, jeg syntes, det var intelligent af UK at udtræde«, sagde han til de to redaktører. »Jeg mener, andre også vil udtræde. Jeg mener ikke, det bliver så nemt at holde sammen på det, som mange mennesker mener.«

15. jan., 2017 – I dag rapporter londonavisen Sunday Times, at Donald Trump og Vladimir Putin har aftalt at mødes inden for et par uger i Reykjavik, Island, for at tage de første skridt til en forbedring af relationerne mellem de to lande. Både Sean Spicer, Trumps pressesekretær, og Kremls talsmand Dmitry Peskov, benægtede hurtigt denne rapport. Spicer tweetede: »100 % falsk.« Peskov sagde til RIA-nyhedsbureauet, at »der hidtil ikke har fundet forhandlinger sted om noget møde«.

Den russiske ambassade i London slog hovedet på sømmet og sagde til RIA, at historien i Sunday Times var »et forsøg fra briternes side på at underminere Donald Trumps præsidentskab. Det vil de tilsyneladende fortsætte med til sidste øjeblik«.

I sin dækning af historien i Sunday Times, bekræftede den britiske avis Guardian stort set, at briterne gør alt, hvad der står i deres magt, for at torpedere enhver tilnærmelse mellem USA og Rusland under Trump: »Det er ikke sandsynligt, at nyhederne [om et Trump-Putin møde] vil blive hilst velkommen af højtplacerede personer i den britiske regering, der frygter, at en intensivering af relationerne mellem USA og Rusland under Trump kan risikere at efterlade Storbritannien ude i kulden. Det er forstået, at Downing Street forventer, at Theresa May vil besøge Trump i Det Hvide Hus i anden halvdel af februar. Storbritannien har krævet sanktioner mod Moskva over Putins aggression i Ukraine og Syrien. Det er forstået, at britisk efterretningstjeneste har søgt forsikringer fra CIA om, at britiske agenter i Rusland vil blive beskyttet, når der sker udveksling af efterretninger, rapporterer Times.«

»En britisk efterretningskilde med udstrakt transatlantisk erfaring sagde, at amerikanske spioner havde givet Trump og hans rådgiveres forbindelser til Kreml etiketten problematiske. ’Indtil vi har fastslået, om vi kan have tillid til Trump og højtplacerede medlemmer af hans team, vil vi være tilbageholdende’, sagde kilden til Times. ’For at sige det ligeud, så kan vi ikke løbe den risiko at forråde kilder og metoder til russerne’.«

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 16. januar, 2017 – Nyvalgte præsident Trumps seneste og mest substantielle interview gør det ganske klart, hvad det nye paradigme for verden er, i den umiddelbare fremtid. Trump prioriterer en aftale om reduktion af atomvåben og sandsynlige reduktion af sanktioner mod Vladimir Putins Rusland. Han erklærer, at NATO er »forældet«, og at dets europæiske medlemmer hverken støtter dets militær eller bekæmper jihadistisk terrorisme. Han forudsagde, at Den europæiske Union sandsynligvis vil opløses, og at dette vil være en god ting.

Til trods for de hysteriske udbrud, som dette interview med Londonavisen Times og det tyske Bild Zeitung har frembragt fra den europæiske elite og Obamas ambassadører dér, så ser Donald Trump ganske enkelt den nye virkelighed – det nye paradigme – og indikerer, at han muligvis vil være med til at skabe den.

Putins Rusland er ansvarlig for muligheden af at afslutte 15 års uafbrudte krige i Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og for et nyt sikkerhedskoncept, som han deler med Xi Jinpings Kina, og som kan brække ryggen af international terrorisme. I morgen vil Xi holde hovedtalen på Davos Verdensøkonomiske Forum. Han er ansvarlig for at være drivkraft bag en meget stor andel af den økonomiske og produktive vækst i verden, og for at tilbyde »et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse« gennem den Nye Silkevejsinfrastruktur, gennem at lede forskning og udvikling af fusion, og gennem at lede udforskning af Månen.

Et USA, der er blevet af med Nobels Krigspris-præsident Obama, tilbydes at tilslutte sig dette nye paradigmes institutioner og handlinger.

Frygt for og had til denne udsigt er kilden bag den intense kampagne for anti-russisk, anti-Trump propaganda i USA, der dirigeres fra britisk efterretning, men rækker dybt ind i en »få Trump ned med nakken-specialenhed« i efterretningstjenester under Obama. Denne kampagne er forgæves og destruktiv, og amerikanske »progressive« bør ikke lade sig forlede til at tilslutte sig den.

Som EIR’s stiftende redaktør Lyndon LaRouche udtrykte det, »Som Trump i øjeblikket går frem, vil der komme en stor forandring internationalt. Det er ikke kun Trump. Det er de andre elementer i systemet, der kommer sammen for at bringe en kraft i spil, som vil dominere planeten.«

Vil den amerikanske befolkning, der har stemt for at afvise det gamle paradigme med »globalisering, afindustrialisering«, få den nye administration og Kongressen til at gøre det, der er nødvendigt for at tilslutte sig den nye drivkraft for vækst og videnskabeligt fremskridt?

En bevægelse fra en national, upartisk appel er i gang – og er på denne webside – som kræver, at Trump, der lovede »det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov« under sin valgkamp, foreslår dette for Kongressen i sin første tale til dem. At gøre en ende på Wall Street-kasinoets forgiftning af den amerikanske økonomi er et første skridt. Men så findes der ingen statslig kreditinstitution efter Hamilton-princippet, til at genskabe Amerikas forældede, økonomiske infrastruktur – selv, når Kinas statsmidler, som det her rapporteres, netop søger at få en sådan institution, som gør det muligt for dem at investere i en ny, amerikansk infrastruktur. Obama sagde til vælgerne, at han anså revolutionen med fusionskraft/plasmateknologi for totalt unødvendig, og privatiserede NASA’s store udforskningsprogrammer, med en forværrende virkning.

Tiden er nu inde til, at amerikanerne handler for deres fremtid, ikke deres frygt.       

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

1. del:

2. del:

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 15. januar, 2017 – I dag ankom den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping i Schweiz, til både et statsbesøg i denne nation, og for at holde hovedtalen i Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum den 17. jan. Der ligger en særlig ironi i Xis meget ventede tale for denne organisation: Davos er måske det emblematiske, internationale forum for den døende imperieorden, der hastigt er i færd med at blive erstattet af det Nye Paradigme, under Xis og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putins lederskab.

En artikel i Xinhua i dag gav forskud på nogle af de centrale temaer, som Xi forventes at adressere, mht. indholdet af denne nye orden »Et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse, et fælles hjem for menneskeheden. Siden Xi for første gang fremlagde dette koncept i slutningen af 2012, har det formet Kinas tilgang til global styrelse«, skrev Xinhua. Bælt-og-Vej-initiativet, konceptet med win-win-samarbejde og et »nyt sikkerhedskoncept« for at skabe universel sikkerhed, er alle en del af Xis politik. Xinhua citerede Tanq Qifang, en forsker ved Kinas Institut for Internationale Studier, der forklarer: »Konceptet med et fællesskab for en fælles bestemmelse transcenderer alle former for forskelligheder i menneskelige samfund og har de størst mulige fordele for alle som sit mål.«

Med alt at tabe er Det britiske Imperium intet mindre end apoplektiske over den amerikanske, nyvalgte præsident Donald Trumps udtalelser om, at han har til hensigt at normalisere relationerne med både Kina og Rusland, som han atter gjorde det klart i et interview med Wall Street Journal den 13. jan. Briterne afslører sig selv voldsomt, i deres forsøg på at invalidere Trump og torpedere enhver forsoning med Rusland i særdeleshed. Som Londonavisen Guardian indrømmede, så »frygter briterne, at en mere intens relation mellem USA og Rusland under Trump kan risikere at efterlade Storbritannien ude i kulden«.

I dag kommenterede Lyndon Larouche, at »som han [Trump] i øjeblikket går frem, vil der komme en stor international forandring. Det er ikke Trump alene. Det er de andre elementer i systemet, der kommer sammen for at bringe en kraft i spil, som vil dominere planeten. Ikke, fordi de bruger knytnæver, men fordi de bruger hjerner. Jeg har altid foretrukket hjerner frem for knytnæver«, bemærkede han.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche forklarede, at det, som briterne »forsøger imod Trump, er en ’farvet revolution’. Trump udsættes for tiden for en kampagne med løgne og »falske nyheder«, i lighed med det, briterne i årtier hemmeligt har orkestreret imod Lyndon LaRouche, som deres dødelige fjende. Der er ét enkelt slag, der kan leveres for at gøre en ende på denne farvede revolution, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche: Indiker, at det, man gjorde mod Lyndon LaRouche, var den største uretfærdighed, for hvilken USA har betalt en høj pris i årtier, og implementer omgående LaRouches Fire Love, begyndende med en tilbagevenden til FDR’s Glass-Steagall.

Hun fortsatte: Det er, fordi i hele verden, på højeste regeringsniveau, som vi har fået direkte og indirekte at vide, »Lyndon LaRouche anses for at være den eneste amerikaner, de kan stole på – simpelt hen fordi, han har bevist, at han er en verdensborger såvel som en amerikansk patriot. Han har altid befundet sig på dette niveau, som Xi Jinping nu taler om«, med et fællesskab af en fælles bestemmelse for hele menneskeheden, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche.

Foto: Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping med frue ankommer til Schweiz, til både statsbesøg og deltagelse i Davos Økonomiske Verdensforum.    

Stockholm EIR/Schiller Institute Seminar Wednesday, January 11, 2017
[The video is available on the Schiller YouTube channel at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdl0Hxg_Ubc

      Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm

        HUSSEIN ASKARY:  Thank you very much everybody for attending the seminar, "Donald Trump and the New International Paradigm." Your Excellencies, and ladies and gentlemen, we are very, very pleased that we have a special guest. It's all clear that the interest for this theme is very big, and this is a very special; there are many expectations on the new administration and new policy, but there are also many challenges around the world.  And we have the honor of having Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, the founder and chairwoman of the International Schiller Institute, who has not only followed at very close range, followed developments internationally, both strategic, economic and cultural, but she herself and her association were actually contributing to what we call this new paradigm in international politics.  But this new paradigm in international politics of course, we will hear from Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
        We will have Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche's presentation and then I will make a short presentation and then we'll have a break…. [applause]

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Good day, ladies and gentlemen.  We are in indeed in very, very fascinating times.  And I think there is much reason to be hopeful.  I know that for the last 16 years, most people in the United States and Europe thought there is no great future.  But I think that there is [annulation? 2.29] of
strategic realignments which have shaped up over the last three years, but especially in the last year, where one can actually see the potential for a completely new kind of relation among nations is on the horizon and that we may actually have the chance to bring a peaceful world.
        Now, obviously, in the system of globalization as we have known it, especially since the collapse of the Soviet Union, that system is completely unhinged and this is cause for a lot of freaked out reactions by those people who were the beneficiaries
of that system of globalization, but I will hopefully be able to develop that this is a temporary phenomenon, and it will be replaced by some more optimistic developments.

What we see right now is a completely new paradigm emerging, a system which is based on the development of all, a "win-win" potential to cooperate among nations and obviously the idea for what was the axiomatic basis of the globalization system since '91 to insist on a unipolar world, is failing, or has failed already.  And with that, a system which tried to maintain this unipolar world with the policy of regime change, of color revolution, or humanitarian intervention, or so-called humanitarian intervention to defend democracy and human rights, which obviously has led the world to a terrible condition, but this is now coming to an end.
        So obviously, the statement by Francis Fukuyama at the end of the Soviet Union that this was the "end of history" and that there would be now only democracy, was really pretty sure; because you have a complete backlash right now, which takes
different forms in different in different parts of the world against this system of globalization, and in the Asian countries it takes the form of more and more countries joining with the New Silk Road perspective offered by China, the offer to work
together in a "win-win" cooperation with the Belt and Road Initiative which is now already involving more than 100 nations and international organizations; and is already engaged in the largest infrastructure project in the history of mankind.
        This new paradigm economic system, already involves 4.4 billion people;  it is already in terms of spending, in terms of buying power in today's dollars, 12 times as big as the Marshall Plan was after the Second World War, and is open for every
country to join, including Sweden, including the United States, including every other country on the planet.  And I will talk about that in a little while.
        And in the trans-Atlantic sector you have a different kind of anti-globalization revolt, which is still ongoing, it's not yet settled how this will turn out.  It started in a visible form with the vote of the British population in June last year with the Brexit, which was the first real upset; everybody was totally unexpecting it, except a few insiders.  This anti-globalization revolt was obviously continued with the election of President Donald Trump in the United States; it was continued with the "no" to the Italian referendum organized by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, to change the Constitution.  And it’s coming to all of these developments, Brexit, Trump, no to the referendum in Italy, is that is caused by a fundamental feeling of injustice of ever
larger parts of the population which were victims of that system, which increasingly made the rich richer, made more billionaires richer, but destroying successively the middle range of society, and making the poor poorer.  It is my deepest conviction that
that revolt will continue until the causes of this injustice are removed, and it will continue, it will hold the measuring rod to President Trump, if he will fulfill his election promises; and if he would not do that I believe the same people would turn against Trump as they turned against Hillary.
        So that means that the future of the European Union and the euro is very doubtful.  We have elections coming in this year in France in April.  This election as of now is completely up in the air.  There is no firm prediction possible.  You have a very tumultuous situation in Italy, where a coup was just attempted by Beppe Grillo and Verhofstadt [in the European Parliament] which failed, trying to get the Five Star Party into the Liberal Group [ALDE] in the European Parliament, which was rejected by the Liberal Group so it didn't function. Then you will have elections in Holland, and in September in Germany which, you know, the star of Mrs. Merkel is also no longer as shiny as it may have been a while ago.
        So we are looking into dramatic changes.
       

Now, let me start with the Trump election. Now, I have in my whole political life, which is now becoming quite long, several decades — I have never in my whole political life, seen such hysteria on the side of the neo-cons, on the side of the
mainstream politicians, on the side of the liberal media, as concerning Trump.  Now, admittedly, Trump does not fulfill the behavior code of Baron von Kligel, who was a German in the 18^th century who developed the code for good diplomatic behavior. But what was caused Trump, is that he simply promised end the political paradigm which was the basis of eight years of George W. Bush and eight years of Barack Obama, which was a direct continuation of the Bush-Cheney policy.
        And it was a good thing, because it was very clear that if Hillary Clinton would have won the election in the United States, that all the policies she was pursuing, including an no-fly zone over Syria, and an extremely bellicose policy towards Russia and China, would have meant that we would have been on the direct course to World War III.  If you have any doubts about that I'm perfectly happy to answer questions about that, in the question & answer period.
        So the fact that Hillary did not win the election was extremely important for the maintenance of world peace.  And I think that of all the promises that Trump made so far, the fact that he said, and by the appointment of these different cabinet members, if they all get through the nomination process in the Senate, that he will normalize the relationship between the United States and Russia, is, in my view the most important step.  Because if the relationship between the United States and Russia is decent, and is based on trust and cooperation, I think there is a basis to solve all other problems in the world.  And if that relationship would be in an adversary condition, world peace is in extreme danger.
        So from my standpoint, there is reason to believe that this will happen.  The Russian reaction has been very moderately, but optimistic that this may happen. If you look at the appointments, you have several cabinet members and other people in other high posts who are also for improving the relationship with Russia, such as Tillerson who is supposed to become Secretary of State; General Flynn, who is a conservative military man but also for normalization with Russia, and many others, so I think this is a good sign.
        Now, if you look at the reaction of the neo-con/neo-liberal faction on both sides of the Atlantic to this election of Trump, you can only describe it as completely hysterical.  The Washington Post today has an article "How To Remove Trump from
Office," calling him a liar, just every derogative you can possibly imagine, just an all-in-one unbelievable; the reaction in Germany was — von der Leyen, the Defense Minister, in the morning after the election said she was "deeply shocked," this was "terrible," this was a catastrophe, and it keeps going like that.  So they have not recovered.
        And then naturally, you have the reports by the different U.S. intelligence services, Clapper, Brennan, Comey from the FBI, they all put out the fact that that it was Russian hacking of the emails of the DNC and Podesta which would have stolen the election, because they would have shifted the view of the Americans to vote for Trump.
        Now, I think this is ridiculous.  Not only have many cyber experts, also in Europe but also in the United States, already said that all the signs are that it was not a hacking but an insider leak giving this information out, is more and more likely, and there's absolutely zero proof that it was Russian hacking.  Naturally, what is being covered up with this story is that was the "hacking" about?  It was "hacking" of emails that proved that Hillary Clinton manipulated the election against Bernie Sanders!   That is not being talked about any more; but if there was any thought, I would say, look there, and there are many people who recognize, for example, a very important French intelligence person with the name of Eric Denécé who is a top-level think tanker in France who said: Well, it is quite clear why they put out this story, because the neo-cons had to expect the great cleanup and many of them would lose their positions, and this is why they basically all agreed on this story and changed the narrative.
        The real narrative is that it was the injustice of the neoliberal system of globalization which simply violated the interests of the majority of the people, especially in the "rust belt."   Hillary Clinton in the election campaign was so arrogant that she didn't even go to Ohio or some of the other states which are formerly industrialized.  Where, you have to see that the United States, contrary to what mostly is reported in the Western media in Europe, the United States is in a state of economic collapse.  They have for the first time, a shrinking life-expectancy; there is one indicator which shows if a society is doing good or bad, and that is if the life-expectancy increases or shrinks.  In the United States it's shrinking for the first time for both men and women. In the period of 16 years of Bush-Cheney and Obama, which you can take as one package, the suicide rate has quadrupled in all age brackets; the reasons being alcoholism, drug addiction, hopelessness, depression
because of unemployment.  There are about 94 million Americans who are of working age who are not even counted in the statistics, because they have given up all hope of ever finding a job again.   If you have recently travelled in the United States, the United States is really in a terrible condition; the infrastructure is in a horrible condition, and people are just not happy.
        So the vote, therefore, the narrative, that was the reason why Hillary was voted out because she was being perceived as the direct continuation of these 16 years, and so the attempt to change that narrative by saying it was "Russian hacking" is pretty obvious.
        Now, however, we have now I think ten days or nine days left, until the new President comes in.  And this is not a period of relaxation, because again, in an unprecedented way, the old team of Obama is trying to create conditions for the incoming President Trump to force him to continue on the pathway of Obama. For example, just a couple of days ago, they started a deployment of a U.S. and NATO troops to be deployed at the Russian border in the Baltics, in Poland, and Romania, through the German city of Bremerhaven, where 6,000 troops landed  with heavy military equipment; for example, the U.S. Abrams tanks, Paladin artillery, Bradley fighting vehicles, 2,800 pieces of military hardware, 50 Black Hawk helicopters, involving 1,800 personnel; 400 troops to be attached to the 24 Apache helicopters.
        Now, obviously, the deployment of this is supposed to be a provocation against Russia and it's supposed to make it very difficult for Trump to start to improve relations.
        A second area where you can see this effort to pin Trump down is the question of the THAAD missiles in Korea, where basically now North Korea has claimed to be able to be able to launch their ICBM anywhere, any time; and according to Chinese experts, the United States is entirely to blame why North Korea is behaving this way.
        South Korea with the outgoing President Park Geun-hye, who may be impeached soon, actually in days or weeks, she agreed to have a special brigade of 1,000-2,000 task force which is supposed to eliminate the Pyongyang command under conditions of war, including Kim Jong-un; and obviously this is aggravating the situation because given the history of such things, one is not sure when is the moment of such action.
        Thirdly you can see it with the deployment of the U.S. aircraft carrier group USS Carl Vinson to the Asia, in the vicinity of China.  This aircraft carrier is of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered, and it will arrive exactly on 20th of January, the day Trump is will take office.  Global Times, the official Chinese newspaper, said that this deployment is set to disrupt potential talks between China and other countries in the region; naturally, also it's supposed to put a sour note on the U.S.-China relations.
        There are other efforts to change and determine the narrative in the post-Obama period.  Ash Carter, the U.S. Secretary of Defense, just gave a press conference where he said that it was only the United States which was fighting ISIS in Syria.  Now, that takes some nerve to say that, because everybody in the whole world knows that without President Putin's decision to militarily intervene in Syria starting in September 2015, and with the tremendous support of the Russian Aerospace Forces for the fighting of the Syrian troops, this military situation in Syria would have never developed.  And it was to the contrary, the very dubious behavior of the United States supporting various kinds of terrorist groups which prolonged this process and slowed it down.
        But also in the attempt to pin down the narrative, of course, John Kerry, who a week or so ago, gave a speech saying that it was the British Parliament which would have prevented the U.S. military intervention in Syria.  Now — I mean, all of these
people must think that the whole world has a very short memory, because I remember very vividly that it was Gen. Michael Flynn, in his capacity as head of the DIA, [Defense Intelligence Agency], who had put out a public statement that it was the
intention of the Obama administration to build up a caliphate in the region, in order to have regime-change against Assad, and he was then fired by [DNI] Clapper.  And it is of a certain irony that just on Friday, when Trump met with Clapper, Brennan and
Comey, in the Trump Tower where these three gentlemen wanted to impress Trump with their story about the Russian hacking; the other person who was with Trump was General Flynn, who is now in the driver's seat [to be National Security Advisor]. So anyway, you can expect the truth not be suppressed forever.  And as a matter of fact, it was in the moment shortly before the U.S. military intervention in 2013, the U.S. military action was prepared to occur Sunday evening; we had gotten that from
well-informed circles in Washington, and then in the very last minute the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey went to Obama and said, "You should not a start a war where you don't know how it ends.  And if you don't ask the
Congress you will be impeached, or you run the risk of being impeached."  And only because of that Obama went to ask the U.S., Congress, the U.S. Congress voted no, and the U.S. military intervention was prevented.
        So this was quite different.  And you know this attempt to fix the narrative will not be successful.
        Now, I cannot tell you what this Trump administration is going to be. I think I mentioned the one point, I'm pretty confident about: I think we will see probably only by February or even into March who will be actually in his cabinet, who will get approved by the Senate. But there are other interesting elements, for example: Trump had promised in the election campaign to invest $1 trillion into the renewal of the
infrastructure in the United States. That is very good, as I said, because the United States urgently needs repair.  It will, however, only function if at the same time, another promise by Trump, namely, what he promised in October in North Carolina,
that he would implement the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act, will also be carried out, because the trans-Atlantic financial system remains on the verge of bankruptcy.  You could have a repetition of the 2008 financial crash at any moment; and only if you have a Glass-Steagall law in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt,
what Roosevelt did in 1933 by separation of the banks, by getting rid of the criminal element of the banking system, and then replacing it by a credit policy in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, can you remedy this situation.  Otherwise, you cannot
finance $1 trillion in infrastructure.
        But one step in a positive direction is the fact that for example the former deputy foreign minister of China, and chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs committee of the National People's Congress, Mme. Fu Ying, made a speech in New York, about
six weeks ago, where she said that indeed the Trump infrastructure program can be a bridge to the New Silk Road program of China.  And that is quite the case:  Just yesterday, Trump met with Jack Ma who is the chief executive of Alibaba, a
Chinese e-commerce firm, and Jack Ma said that he can help Trump to create 1 million jobs in the United States by initiating a platform for U.S. small businessmen to sell to Chinese consumers over the next five years, and vice versa, how the Chinese can invest in the United States. Trump afterwards said this was a great meeting, we will do great things together; and Jack Ma said that Trump was a very smart man and they got along very well.
        So this is very good, because the Schiller Institute already in 2015 published a report for the United States to join the New Silk Road, which is a whole approach how you have to have a fast train system for the United States; as you know, China built as of the end of 2014, 20.000 km high-speed train systems.  China wants to have to 50,000 km by 2020, connecting every major city in China with a fast train system.  And the United States has none.
        So the United States urgently needs a fast train system connecting the East Coast, the West Coast and the Midwest.  Build some new science cities in the South, get rid of the drought in the Southwest, California and the other states.  So there are
many, many things which urgently need to be done.
        OK.  Now, let me make a few remarks about the Schiller Institute, given the fact that many of you may not know much about us. And I want to underline the fact that we are not commentators on this whole question, but that we are responsible for many of the ideas which are now coming into effect.
        The Schiller Institute was created by me in 1984, and it was, at that time we had the still the intermediate-range missile crisis, which brought the world to the verge of World War III; if you remember, the Pershing 2, the SS20, where there was a very
short warning time, in permanent alert; and the relationship between Europe and the United States was really in a terrible condition.
        So I created the Schiller Institute with the idea that you needed an institute, a think tank to put the relations among nations on a completely different basis.  One of the most important aspects of the work was to work towards the establishment of a just, new world economic order, in the tradition of the Non-Aligned Movement.  And there, my husband, already in 1975, had proposed to replace the IMF with an
International Development Bank, which would organize large credits for technology transfer from the industrialized countries to the developing sector, to overcome the underdevelopment.
        That proposal went into the Colombo Resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in 1976 in Sri Lanka.  So we had the idea that that policy had to come back on the agenda, that we had to create economic development in the southern hemisphere, so that every human being on this planet could have dignified potential their lives, develop all the potentialities embedded in them.
        But from the beginning, we said that such a new world economic order can only function if it's combined with a Classical Renaissance, that we have to reject the popular culture as it is associated with modern globalization, because it is
depraved and degenerate.  And that we had to go back to the revival, a Renaissance of the best traditions of every culture and have a dialogue among them.  For example, in Germany, obviously you would emphasize the German Classical culture of
Schiller, Beethoven, the whole Classical music; in China, you would emphasize Confucius; in India you would emphasize the Vedic writings, Tagore, and so forth.   So you would go and revive in every country simply what they have contributed to universal history and make that known.
        Now, the present policy, of a "win-win cooperation", is exactly an echo of what we had proposed since '84, and to replace geopolitics with an approach of the common aims of mankind.  In 1984, my husband, Mr. LaRouche, also uniquely predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union.  He said if the Soviet Union would stick to their then-existing policies of the Ogarkov Plan, that they would collapse in five years.  Now, there was nobody else who said the Soviet Union would collapse; it was completely unthinkable, but we observed the economic problems and on Oct. 12, 1988, my husband and I made a press conference in Berlin, in the Bristol Kempinski Hotel, where we said Germany will soon be unified — also nobody believed that at the time — and Germany should adopt the development of Poland as a model for the transformation of the Comecon with high technology.
        Now, in '89 therefore, when the Berlin Wall came down, we were the only ones who were not surprised.  As a matter of fact, we immediately published a report, how the unified Germany should develop Poland, and we called this program, the "Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna," which is an area the size of Japan; it had the highest concentration of industry and the idea was to develop development corridors from that Productive Triangle to Poland, Warsaw, to Kiev, to the Balkans, and transform the Comecon that way.  It was before the D.D.R. collapsed; and here if that had been picked up, maybe the Soviet Union and the Comecon would not have collapsed.
        Anyway:  Because you had Bush, Thatcher and Mitterrand, they did not like this at all, so in '91, when the Soviet Union collapsed, we immediate proposed to prolong this program of the Productive Triangle into the Eurasian Land-Bridge: The idea that
you would connect the population and industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia, through development corridors.  The Iron Curtain was no longer there, so it was the natural thing to have infrastructure corridors to develop the landlocked areas of
Eurasia.
        Now we proposed at the time to all the countries of Eurasia, and the only country which responded positively was China.  So in 1996, they organized a very big conference in Beijing, called "The Development of the Regions along the Eurasian Land-Bridge," and I was one of the speakers there.  And China at that point
declared the development of the Eurasian Land-Bridge to be the long-term perspective of China until the year 2010.
        As you know, then came '97 the Asia crisis; '98 the Russian GKO crisis, so this whole development became interrupted.  But it basically did not stop us from making conferences about this proposal on five continents, all the U.S. cities, all the
European cities; even in Latin America, São Paolo, Rio, New Delhi, even some African countries, Australia.  We kept organizing for this idea that the natural next phase of the evolution of mankind would be the infrastructure connections of the entire planet.
        Obviously, what happened in '99 also was the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in the United States, which gave way to the unregulated speculation, leading to the present bubble.
        Now, in September 2013, when Xi Jinping in Kazakhstan announced the New Silk Road, we simply took all the different studies we had made in these 24 years, and published them, and we called it: "The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge." This is a comprehensive proposal which has the yellow line there in the middle between China and Central Asia; this was the initial One Belt, One Road proposal by China, and we added simply — they had the Maritime Silk Road — but we had a whole infrastructure program for Africa, for the South of Europe, the Balkans, many corridors, including a Bering Strait Tunnel connecting the Eurasian infrastructure with the American system, with highways and high-speed trains all the way to Chile and Argentina.  And eventually, when all of this is built, you can go
by maglev train from the southern tip of South America to the Cape of Good Hope in Africa.
        We published this proposal; and the actual book you can find at the book table, including an early report about this, from 1997.  The first report we published in German, in '91.  This is not just about connection of infrastructure, but it has all the
scientific conceptions of Mr. LaRouche's notion of physical economy.
        Mr. LaRouche is probably the only economist in the West who deserves that name, because all the other neo-liberal economists have been so wrong in their predictions that they should probably take another job.  Mr. LaRouche has given up his own scientific method and in this report you find there such extremely important
conceptions as the connection between energy flux density in the production process and the relative potential population density, which can be maintained with that energy flux density; and there are other such important conceptions.
        So this report was immediately published in China; the Chinese translated it into Chinese.  We presented it in China in 2015.  It was recommended by all the people who presented to all Chinese scholars, as the standard text on the Silk Road; and it
has been sent to all major faculties and universities in China.
        It was also published in Arabic, as you will hear about from Hussein Askary.  And it is now coming out shortly in Korean, in German, and we have requests in other languages to come out also.
        So, while we were publishing these reports, the New Silk Road promoted by China which has a few different names – first they called it One Belt, One Road; now they call it the Belt and Road Initiative; I always call it the "New Marshall Plan Silk
Road," so that people get an idea.  In any case, this policy of China has taken on a breathtaking dynamic. (Next slide)
        In the meantime, many of these proposals are in different phases of realization.  It has the Maritime Silk Road which is the outer line. In the meantime, China is building six economic corridors — as I said, it involves 70 nations, and over 30 international large organization, 4.4 billion people, and trillions in investments.  And as I said, already now it's 12 times bigger than the Marshall Plan was.
        (Next slide).   This is the original One Belt, One Road, connecting China and Central and West Asia through an economic corridor.  In June 2015, China and the five Central Asian governments agreed to build that and additional routes are being
planned to go into Afghanistan.  One is already going into Iran; when President Xi was in Iran last year, he promised,  — or they both promised that they would extend this New Silk Road beyond Iran into Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey.
        (Next)  This is the new Eurasian Land-Bridge which connects China with Western Europe and it has shortened already the transport time for cargo, to two to three weeks from China — different cities, Chengdu, Chongqing, Yiwu, Duisburg, Lyon, Rotterdam, Hamburg, from five weeks via ocean.  Already by mid-2016, there were over 2,000 rail shipments from China to Europe, and it is picking up speed.  All the cities in Europe that are termini, such as Madrid, Lyon, Duisburg, they're all
happy; they realize that they have tremendous benefits from it.
        (Next.  No, the next one, the China-Mongolia) This is China-Mongolia-Russia corridor.  In June 2016, the three presidents signed a trilateral economic partnership, at the 11^th Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting; and this corridor alone involves 32 projects.
        (Next)  This is the China-Pakistan economic corridor, which is creating 700,000 new jobs in Pakistan.  It will produce 10,400 MW power capacity and the investment of 46 billion by the Chinese in this corridor equals all the foreign investment since 1970 in Pakistan.
        (Next) This is the China-Myanmar-Bangladesh corridor.  This creating for the first time an express highway between India and China, and it goes through Bangladesh and Myanmar.  This corridor will be 1.65 million km long; it will encompass 440 million people.
        (Next). The China-Indochina Peninsula corridor.  This will be a highway/rail and high-speed transport system connecting the ten largest cities of the region.
        (Next)  Africa — Djibouti-Ethiopia. [showing picture of refugees instead] Leave this picture please; this is very important.  Because as we know Europe has been in large part destabilized by the refugee crisis, and there is a very big incentive, one would think, for Europeans to help develop Africa.
But so far, it is not coming from Europe, it's coming from China, India and Japan.
        So, the Djibouti-Ethiopia railway just opened yesterday, so this is extremely good news.  It opened yesterday, from Djibouti to Addis Abeba, 750 km and it was built by China; it employed about 20,000 Ethiopians and 5,000 Djiboutian, and it will be connected to the standard gauge railway in Kenya, which again, created 30,000 jobs. And this will obviously, among other things, transform the port of Mombasa and it will take cargo and passengers to the Ugandan border in one-tenth of the time it
takes by road.   A professor from the University of ‘Nairobi School of Diplomacy’, Prof. Gerishon Ikiara, said, and I agreed, that this whole program will "radically transform African participation in global trade in the next two decades and will
catalyze the industrial transformation of Africa."
        Now, there is another extremely important project (next), which is the Transaqua project.  Here you see the cover story of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Lake Chad Basin Commission and the Chinese engineering firm PowerChina.  Now PowerChina is the company which built the Three Gorges Dam and several other large projects so they really know what they're doing; and they agreed with this contract to do a feasibility study about the Transaqua project.
        This is the largest infrastructure project ever entertained in Africa.  It was developed in the late '70s by an Italian firm Bonifica, and there, in particular, Dr. Marcello Vichi.  Mr. LaRouche has promoted this project since he got news of it,
because it was a perfect way of solving many problems at the same time.  As you know, Lake Chad is shrinking; it is presently only about less than 10% of its original size, and it affects the life of the entire people, 40 million people, in the Chad Basin.  And naturally, it is already having drought effects and so forth.
        The concept is simply to transfer the water from the Congo River, using the unused discharge of the Congo River water going into the ocean.  Now, the Congo River is the second largest river in the world and it discharges 41,000 cubic meters/second into the ocean — unused.  And the idea is to take only 3-4% of that
water and bring it into Lake Chad. There was a big campaign trying to convince the people in the different states along the Congo River, that it's stealing their water, and so forth, but that was really an effort by the Greenies and it has no substance to it whatsoever.
        First of all, the idea is not to take the water from the Congo River, but from the west bank tributaries at an altitude that allows to bring water per gravity until the C.A.R./Chad watershed, which is an elevation of 500 meters, and then pour it
into the Chari River which is a tributary of Lake Chad.  So this way you would create a 2,400 km long waterway which would bring eventually 100 billion cubic meters of water per year into Lake Chad and also create navigable infrastructure.
        Obviously, the Republic of Congo would be also a big beneficiary because it would give them access to a navigable waterway, electricity production, regulation of rivers and so forth.
        PowerChina is now financing a feasibility study for a first phase of the project which would involve building a series of dams in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Republic of Congo, and the Central African Republic.  It would also potentially
generate 15-25 billion kilowatt-hours of hydroelectricity through the mass movement of water by gravity; it would potentially create a series of irrigated areas for crops, livestock, of an area of 50-70,000 sq km in the Sahel zone in Chad, in the northeast of Nigeria, in the north of Cameroon, and in Niger.  It would also make possible an expanded economic zone basically creating a new economic platform for agriculture, industry, transportation, electricity for 12 Africa nations.
        So PowerChina has put up $1.8 million for the first phase of the feasibility study and if the construction starts, this is a big project so it's not expected to be finished overnight, but it will take generations:  But it will create livelihoods for 40 million people in the basin.  And this is just one project, but there are many others.  For example, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi is just on a five-nation tour through Africa [Jan. 7-12] and was already in Madagascar, in Tanzania, is going to Zambia,
Nigeria, Republic of Congo, and he's inviting all Africa nations to join the Belt and Road Initiative.
        (Next)  This is the expanded program of railways, nuclear power, just transforming the entire African continent. (Next)  These are development plans for Latin America.  The blue lines you see there, these are the longstanding, proposed
high-speed railway routes in Latin America, which the Schiller Institute has proposed.  In 1982, when Mr. LaRouche was working with President José López Portillo of Mexico on these projects, he called it "Operation Juárez," to refer back to the best traditions of Mexican-American cooperation.  And these are all projects which are obvious.  If you look at the map of Africa or Latin America, you don't see that kind of infrastructure! If you see some railway, you see it as a small line from a mine to the port to exploit the raw materials, but you don't have infrastructure.  And we had this idea, which Alexander von Humboldt, by the way, proposed in 19th century, so it's not that revolutionary; it's sort of obvious.
        The red lines are the various Chinese proposals since the BRICS summit in Brazil in July 2014.  The solid red line is the northern route of the Brail-Peru transcontinental rail line. This was already agreed upon between the governments of Brazil and China a year ago; but then they had the coup in Brazil, Dilma Rousseff was impeached, so this came to a halt; also the new government in Peru is very reluctant.  But there's a big movement:  I just addressed a conference of economists in the Amazon region two months ago, and there's a whole movement, also associated with Fujimori party, who absolutely won the fight for that rail line because it is the step to the future.
        There are three additional lines, one line would be including Bolivia into this rail line, and three additional lines through Argentina and Chile; China also wants to build three tunnels between Chile and Argentina to connect the Pacific and the Atlantic.
        (Next) This is the Nicaragua Canal which is in the early stages of completion, also built by China.  This will increase the speed of global shipping between Belem and Shanghai and cut the current route across the Atlantic and around Africa by 10% of the time.
        So I can only mention the most important projects. There are many, many others.  For example, China and Ecuador are building a science city in Ecuador where President Correa at the recent state visit of President Xi Jinping said that the collaboration between Ecuador and China will mean that Ecuador soon will be on
the same level as all industrialized countries.  They have the idea to overcome poverty forever.  The science city is going to have the most advanced fields of science.
        Bolivia – Bolivia, which used to be a coca producing country, is now cooperating on space projects with China, with Russia, with India.  So there is a completely new mood!  I talked with many Africans — there was a big conference in Hamburg just a
couple of months ago, where the Africans said, there is a completely new mood in Africa, there is a new paradigm:  China, Japan, India are all investing, and the Europeans, if they don't shape up, they will become marginal and irrelevant. So there is a completely new optimism caused by this dynamic.
        Now, just on a diplomatic level, this process of integration is going absolutely rapidly, especially since September last year, when you had on Sept. 2-3, the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok where the integration of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative was on the table. The Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe participated in that conference, and Japan is now massively investing in the Far East of Russia, in terms of energy cooperation.  Putin was just in Japan, as a state visit; Abe will go on a state visit to Russia this year.  They're talking about settling the conflict concerning the Northern islands, the Kuril Islands.  They're talk about a peace treaty between Russia and Japan, and obviously there is a complete
strategic realignment going on.  President Duterte changed the role of the Philippines from being the aircraft carrier for the United States in the South China Sea, to now, collaborate with China on economic cooperation, and also with Russia.  The same by
the way, goes for Turkey, which is now shifting and working with Russia, Iran and Syria, to bring peace to the region.
        So there is a complete strategic realignment going on, which the Western media and Western politicians have just not got it yet.  But this is very, very interesting.
        So, then this continued from Vladivostok, immediately afterwards on Sept. 4-5, the G20 Summit in Hangzhou, where China took real leadership in saying the future recovery of the world economy must be based on innovation and he made very clear that this innovation must be shared with the developing countries, not to hold up or hinder their development.
        So, it's a completely new paradigm, and I'll say something about that in a second.
        Then you continue to the ASEAN meeting in Laos, the BRICS meeting in Goa, India in October, the APEC meeting in Lima in November, and it is involving all of these organizations and spreading very fast.
        Why is Europe not joining this?  Look, Europe is in bad shape.  The EU is collapsing, the people in Italy hate by now the ECB, they hate Merkel, they have Schäuble, they hold Merkel responsible for the suffering of the population in Italy which is now reaching dimensions like Greece; Greece was destroyed — one-third of the Greek economy was destroyed by the austerity policy of the Troika. And you know, there's nothing left of the idea of unity in Europe.  There are borders being built, Schengen is dead; look at the Eastern European countries, they're simply
not — the Eastern European and Central European countries are reorienting towards China!  The 16+1 this is the Central and East European Countries, they have extensive infrastructure cooperation with China. China is building up the port in Piraeus port in Greece; they're building a fast railway between Budapest and Belgrade, and many other projects.
        But the problem with Europe is that at least the European EU bureaucracy and some governments, like the German one, they are still on the old paradigm, the geopolitical paradigm of globalization, of neoliberal policies, and they don't understand that what China has proposed and what is now the basis of a very close and determined strategic partnership between Russia and China they have put on the agenda a different model: To overcome geopolitics by a "win-win" strategy.
Now, most people at least in Europe and in the United States have a very hard time to think that.  They cannot imagine that governments are for the common good, because we have not experienced that for such a long time.  The common idea of all the think tanks, or most think tanks, is "China must have ulterior motives"; "China is just trying to replace the Anglo-American imperialism, with a Chinese imperialism." But that is not true!  I mean, I'm not naïve:  I have studied this extensively.  I was in China for the first time in 1971, in the middle of the Cultural Revolution.  I have seen China, how it was then, I travelled to Beijing, Tientsin, Qingdao, Shanghai, and to
the countryside, and so I know what enormous transformation China has made in this period.
        I went back to China in '96, after 25 years; already then it was breathtaking.  But if you look, the Chinese economic model which has transformed 700 million people from extreme poverty to a decent living standard; and China is now committed to develop the interior region as part of their building of the New Silk Road, to eliminate poverty from China totally by the year 2020, and there are only 4 % left in poverty right now.
        Now, China is offering their Chinese economic model to all participating countries in this New Silk Road conception and it is in the interest of Sweden. It would be in the interest of Germany because Germany is still, despite the Green insanity which has deformed many brains, is still a productive country.
The German ‘Mittelstand’ is still producing, I think, the third largest number of patents in the world.  It is their natural interest to find cooperation not only in a bilateral cooperation, but in investments in third countries.  It would be in the best interest of Germany — if Germany is freaked out about the refugees, which really has meant a complete destabilization of the country, why is Germany not cooperating, with Russia, with China, India, Iran, in the reconstruction of the Middle East?  I think, now that the Syrian government has started to rebuild Aleppo, at least building the hospitals, the schools, the Schiller Institute had proposed already in 2012 a comprehensive proposal for the development of the entire Middle East, from
Afghanistan to the Mediterranean, from the Caucasus to the Gulf States, and it would be in the absolute self-interest because — sure you have to destroy ISIS and the terrorists with military means. But then you have to create conditions where young people in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, have a reason to become doctors, scientists, teachers, so that they have a future, that that way you drive out terrorism forever!
        And if all the big neighbors would cooperate:  Russia, China, India, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Italy, France, Germany, Sweden, you could change this region in no time!  And you will hear about that soon from Hussein.
        The same for Africa. The only minister in Germany who is reasonable is the Development Minister Gerd Müller, because he travels all the time to Africa and he says there will be the need for many millions of jobs for the young people of Africa in the next years; if we don't have them to create these jobs, many, many millions of people will flee from hunger and war and epidemics.
        So would it not be in the self-interest that all the European nations join hands with the Chinese Silk Road initiative, and help to reconstruct and build up the economies of southwest Asia and Africa?  I think that that mission would also
really help to overcome the disunity of Europe, because you will not solve that problem by looking at your navel; but you will solve that problem by a joint mission for the greater good of mankind.
        So, I think that this is all possible.  It can happen this year, it can start this year, because China has committed itself to have two big summits this year — one summit will involve all the heads of state of the Belt and Road Initiative, and it can be the year of consolidation of the new paradigm.
        Now there are a couple of elements which are also important for this new paradigm, because we are not just talking about infrastructure, and overcoming poverty.  The next phase of the evolution of man is not just to bring infrastructure to all continents on this planet, but to continue that infrastructure into close space around us. This is the first time formulated in this way by the great German-American space scientist and rocket scientist Krafft Ehricke, who was the designer of the Saturn V of the Apollo project.  He had this beautiful vision that if you look at the evolution over a longer period of time, life developed from the oceans with the help of photosynthesis; then you had the development of ever higher species, species with a higher metabolism, higher energy-flux density in their metabolism.
        Eventually man arrived.  Man first settled at the oceans and the rivers; then with the help of infrastructure, man developed the interior regions of the continents; and we are now with the World Land-Bridge picture — go back to the first image — this
will be, when it is built, the completion of that phase of the evolution of mankind, by simply bringing infrastructure into all landlocked areas of the world, and you will have — with the help of new methods to create water, with modern technologies,
create new, fresh water.  For example, if you have peaceful nuclear energy you can desalinate huge amounts of ocean water; through the ionization of moisture in the atmosphere you can create new waters to solve the problem of desertification.  Right
now all the deserts are increasing; with these new technologies you can reverse that, make the deserts green, and just make this planet livable for all human beings!
        But this is not the end:  Mankind is not an Earth-bound species.  Mankind is the only species which is capable of creative discovery, and the collaboration of all nations for space exploration and space research is the next phase of our evolution. Now China has a very ambitious space program.  They already landed the Yutu rover in 2014.  Next year, they will go to the far side of the Moon, and eventually bring back helium-3 from the far side of the Moon, which will be an important fuel for
fusion power economy on Earth.  Right now, we are very close to making breakthroughs on fusion power. The Chinese EAST program [Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak] has reached, I think, 50 million degrees for plasma for several seconds.  And just a couple of days ago, the stellarator in Greifswald, Germany, reached 100 million degrees for — I've forgotten how many seconds.  But it means that in a few years, we can have fusion power!  And that will create energy security, raw materials security, on Earth.
        So we're looking at a completely new phase of civilization, and the far side of the Moon is very important because will not have the disturbances of cosmic radiation, as you have on the Earth-facing side of the Moon; the Sun and the Earth — this far side is shielded from a lot of this radiation so it will be possible to put up much better telescopes, you will be able to look into Solar System, into the Galaxy, into other galaxies much, much farther than so far.
        And I don't know if any one of you have seen these pictures from the Hubble telescope:  If you have not done that, please, go home or next weekend, take the time to look at these pictures from the Hubble telescope.  I saw them, and I was completely excited, because now we know that there are — at least – 2 trillion galaxies!  Now, I have a good imagination, but I cannot imagine that.  It's just too big.  And when you see these pictures which have already been taken, you have galaxies which look like the Milky Way; then you have totally different nebulas;
you have all formations.  And not one galaxy is like the other. Just imagine how big the Universe is?
        And we know very, very little!  But man is the only species which can know!  No donkey will ever know about the great galaxies or — no dog will ever be able to breed rabbits to have better breakfast.  They all like better breakfast, but they don't know how to do it.  Man is capable of overcoming every limitation, and the mind of man is a physical force in the Universe.  We're not outside of the Universe, but what our mind invents or discovers, is part of the Universe.  And that is a
very exciting thing.
        And there is lots to be found out about what is the origin and essence of life.  What governs the laws of the Universe? What is the role of the mind in the Universe?  I mean, these are all extremely exciting questions, and they all prove that man is not an Earth-bound species.  So there is no need to be a Greenie, because we can bring man's knowledge applied to expand our role in the Universe.  Even the ESA is now talking about a "Village on the Moon."
        Krafft Ehricke at the time had said, that building an industrial center on the Moon as a stepping stone for further travel of space will be important. And you now see the shaping up of new economic platforms. The first platform, Mr. LaRouche has
developed this notion of an economic platform to signify a period of economic development which is governed by certain laws, like for example, the development of the steam engine created a new platform; the development of railway created a new platform; fission is creating a new platform. And that platform is always governed by the most advanced technologies of that time. And you can already see that this infrastructure development of close-by space, the first platform is simply that man is able to reach the orbit! That's not self-evident. If you would have told man in the Middle Ages that you will get on a spaceship and go into orbit, he would have said you're crazy!
        Now we can already see we have manned space travel and we can now connect to where the Apollo project stopped after the assassination of Kennedy, 40 years ago; but now China, India, Russia, they all continue that process. India has also been
extremely ambitious space project.
        And so, the first economic platform will be simply to leave the planet Earth and to go into orbit; the second economic platform of space research will be to have an industrial base on the Moon and to eventually start to produce raw materials from
space. Because you will, as this continues, not always transport materials from the Earth for your space travel, but once you have fusion as a propulsion fuel where the speed will become much larger, you will be able to take materials from asteroids, from other planets, for your production and your requirements in space. And then longer space travel between planets as the third platform, which is already visible.
        Now, I could — this is very exciting, and once you start to think about it, it shows that mankind is really capable of magnificent achievements, and that we should really overcome geopolitics. Geopolitics is like a little, nasty two-year-old
boy who is not yet educated and who knows nothing better than to kick his brother in the knee. Now that's about the level of geopolitics.
        What Xi Jinping always talks about is that we have to form a "community of destiny for the common future of mankind," and that is exactly what the Schiller institute set out in '84, when we said we have to fight for the common aims of mankind. And these common aims of mankind must come first, and no nation should be allowed to have a national interest or the interest of a group of nations, if it violates this higher common aims of mankind. And the areas of working together, a crash program for fusion, space cooperation, and breakthroughs in fundamental science.
        All of this however must be combined with a Classical Renaissance, a dialogue of cultures on the highest level, and we have already very successfully at Schiller Institute conferences, practiced that, where we had European Classical music, Bach,
Beethoven, Verdi, Schubert, Schumann; Chinese Classical music, Indian poetry. You have this coming Saturday in New York, a beautiful event on style of civilizations, of cultures, where we will have a Chinese professor talking about literati painting.
You know, in Chinese painting, you have poetry, calligraphy and painting, in one. And for Westerners, it's a complete revelation, because this does not exist in European painting. People get completely excited because they discover that there
are beautiful things to discover in other cultures! And once you study and know these other cultures, xenophobia and racism disappears! Because you realize that it's beautiful that there are many cultures, because there are universal principles to be
discovered in music, one musician will immediately understand another musician because it's a universal language. Scientists speak a universal language; they understand each other.
        And so the future of civilization will be a dialogue between Plato, Schiller, Confucius, Tagore, and many other great poets, scientists of the past. So, if you give every child access to these things, which is also in reach, I can see that we will have
a new era, a new civilization of mankind. And I would invite all of you to not just look at it, but be part of it.  [applause]

12. jan., 2017 – Sublimt er det eneste, passende ord til at beskrive Helga Zepp-LaRouches intense og smukke præsentation og den atmosfære, hun skabte hos tilhørerne, med 60 deltagere (lokalet var helt fyldt) på Schiller Instituttets/EIR’s seminar, der blev afholdt i Stockholm den 11. januar, med titlen, »Donald Trump og det Nye Internationale Paradigme«. Helga Zepp-LaRouches optræden var ikke annonceret på forhånd, og hun skabte en stor succes for hele anledningen med arrangementet. Hendes tale bevægede tilhørerne til at adressere den grundlæggende, epistemologiske – erkendelsesteoretiske – dybere mening med Den Nye Silkevej, og meningen med menneskehedens udvikling i universet. Denne dybere mening rørte endda de tilstedeværende diplomater. En ambassadør fra et betydningsfuldt, asiatisk land indledte under diskussionsperioden en diskussion om netop nødvendigheden af at adressere disse bredere kulturelle og menneskelige implikationer.

Alt i alt var sytten diplomater til stede, heriblandt syv ambassadører! (Dette har intet fortilfælde i LaRouche-bevægelsens historie i Sverige.) Fire europæiske lande var repræsenteret, ni lande fra Asien og fire lande fra Afrika. En kinesisk reporter kom til sit andet seminar, talte med Helga og tog billeder. Blandt de øvrige deltagere var kontakter fra forskellige svenske sammenslutninger, der arbejder for venskab med Rusland, Ukraine, Syrien, Yemen, Somalia, området omkring Det baltiske Hav (Østersøen) og en anden gruppe, der arbejder for at forlade EU, så vel som også tre kontakter fra erhvervslivet og mangeårige aktivister i den svenske LaRouche-bevægelse.

Formanden for Schiller Instituttet i Sverige, Hussein Askary, præsiderede seminaret og bød deltagerne velkommen. Dernæst holdt Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedtalen, der havde en håbefuld vision for verden. Hun gav en vurdering af de aftrædende neokonservatives og etablerede mediers igangværende kamp for at afvise berettigelsen af valget af Donald Trump. Hun påpegede den brede reaktion på den af de neoliberale anstiftede katastrofe, som værende det reelle grundlag for valget af Trump, så vel som også andre lignende reaktioner i hele verden, og sagde, at det er dér, man skal lede efter grunden til, at Trump blev valgt, og ikke i nogen computerhacking. Eftersom tilhørerne for det meste bestod af nye folk, fremlagde hun Schiller Instituttets historie, der samtidig er historien om politikken med Den Nye Silkevej. Hun beskrev processen med, at økonomien udvikler sig fra en platform til en anden og påpegede den kinesiske politik for at satse på den næste, økonomiske platform gennem en Månebaseret industriel udvikling, for menneskehedens videre udvikling som en art, der ikke er bundet til planeten Jord. Kinesernes motivering for deres globale politik kom frem under diskussionsperioden, i sammenhæng med Afrika. Helga understregede her, på basis af sin baggrund med mangeårige studier af Kinas historie og konfuciansk tankegang, at hendes konklusion er, at Kina virkelig forfølger en »win-win«-politik baseret på det konfucianske begreb om at tilstræbe visdom og harmoni. Hun understregede nødvendigheden af en klassisk renæssance for, at det Nye Paradigme kan blive en succes, og at dette ikke er et punkt, vi kan overlade til Donald Trump.

Efter Zepp-LaRouches hovedtale gav Hussein Askary en kort gennemgang af perspektivet for Sydvestasien og Afrika. Dernæst holdt man en pause, hvor man nød kaffe og wienerbrød, der var doneret af en kontakt. Mange af deltagerne brugte lejligheden til at få taget deres foto sammen med Helga, og til at samtale med hende. To ambassadører, én fra Sydøstasien og én fra Sydvestasien, opsøgte Helga for at give udtryk for deres dybeste påskønnelse af hendes præsentation og skønheden i hendes tankegang.

Denne begivenhed var et sandt gennembrud for vores organisering i Sverige, med en kvalitet og intensitet, der vil bevæge vores politiske arbejde i dette land ind i nye dimensioner. 

Uddrag af Helga Zepp LaRouches tale ved Schiller Institut/EIR-seminar i Stockholm, 11. januar, 2017

Lad mig begynde med valget af Trump. Jeg har aldrig, i hele mit politiske liv, der er temmelig langt, flere årtier – jeg har aldrig i hele mit politiske liv set et sådant hysteri på vegne af de neokonservative, på vegne af etablissementets politikere, på vegne af de liberale medier, som med hensyn til Trump. Det skal indrømmes, at Trump ikke opfylder Baron von Knigges regler for god opførsel – han var en tysker, der i det 18. århundrede udviklede reglerne for god, diplomatisk opførsel. Men årsagen til [fremkomsten af] Trump er, at han simpelt hen lovede en afslutning af det politiske paradigme, der lå til grund for otte år med George W. Bush og otte år med Barack Obama, og som var en direkte fortsættelse af Bush-Cheney-politikken.

Og det var en god ting, for det var helt tydeligt, hvis Hillary Clinton havde vundet valget i USA, at alle de politikker, hun forfulgte, inklusive en flyveforbudszone over Syrien og en ekstremt krigerisk politik over for Rusland og Kina, ville have betydet, at vi ville have været på en direkte kurs til Tredje Verdenskrig. Hvis I har nogen tvivl om dette spørgsmål, vil jeg med glæde besvare jeres spørgsmål under spørgsmål & svar perioden.

Så den kendsgerning, at Hillary ikke vandt valget, var ekstremt vigtigt for bevarelse af verdensfreden. Jeg mener, at, af alle de løfter, Trump hidtil har afgivet, så er den kendsgerning, at han sagde – og gennem udnævnelsen af disse forskellige medlemmer af kabinettet, hvis de alle sammen kommer igennem nomineringsprocessen i Senatet – at han vil normalisere relationerne mellem USA og Rusland, efter min mening det vigtigste skridt. For, hvis relationen mellem USA og Rusland er ordentlig og baseret på tillid og samarbejde, så mener jeg, der er et grundlag for at løse alle andre problemer i verden. Hvis denne relation er som modstandere, så er verdensfreden i ekstrem fare.

Så efter min mening er der grund til at tro på, at dette vil ske. Den russiske reaktion har været meget moderat, men optimistisk omkring, at dette kan ske. Ser man på udnævnelserne, så er der flere kabinet-medlemmer og andre personer på andre høje poster, der også går ind for at forbedre relationen med Rusland, såsom Tillerson, der angiveligt skal være udenrigsminister; general Flynn, der er en konservativ militærmand, men også går ind for normalisering med Rusland, og mange andre, så jeg mener, det er et godt tegn.

Hvis man ser på reaktionen fra den neokonservatives/neoliberales side på begge sider af Atlanten, på dette valg af Trump, så kan det kun beskrives som fuldstændig hysterisk. Washington Post har en artikel i dag, »Hvordan man fjerner Trump fra embedet«, og kalder ham en løgner, og enhver nedsættende ting, man kan forestille sig, fuldstændig utroligt; reaktionen i Tyskland var – [forsvarsminister Ursula] von der Leyen sagde morgenen efter valget, at hun var »dybt chokeret«, dette var »forfærdeligt«, dette var en katastrofe, og sådan bliver det ved. Så de er endnu ikke kommet sig.

Og så er der naturligvis rapporterne fra de forskellige amerikanske efterretningstjenester, Clapper, Brennan, Comey fra FBI, og de offentliggjorde alle sammen den kendsgerning, at det var russisk hacking af e-mails fra DNC og Podesta, der skulle have stjålet valget, fordi de angiveligt skulle have ændret amerikanernes mening til at stemme på Trump.

Jeg mener, at dette er latterligt. Ikke alene har mange cyber-eksperter i Europa, og også i USA, allerede sagt, at alle tegnene tyder på, at der ikke var nogen hacking, men at et insider-læk, der røbede denne information, er mere sandsynligt, og der findes absolut ingen beviser på, at det skulle være russisk hacking. Det, der selvfølgelig bliver mørklagt med denne historie, er, hvad handlede »hackingen« om? Det var »hacking« af e-mails, der beviste, at Hillary Clinton manipulerede valget imod Bernie Sanders! Det taler man ikke længere om; men hvis der var nogen tænkning, ville jeg sige, hør her – og der er mange mennesker, der indser, f.eks. en meget betydningsfuld fransk efterretningsmand, Eric Danécé, der er en tænketank-person på højeste niveau i Frankrig, og som sagde: Det er helt klart, hvorfor de udgav denne historie, for de neokonservative måtte forvente den store udrensning, og mange af dem ville miste deres position, og det er grunden til, at de alle blev enige om denne historie og ændrede narrativen.

Den virkelige narrativ er, at det var det neoliberale globaliseringssystems uretfærdighed, der simpelt hen krænkede flertallet af befolkningens interesser, især i »rustbæltet«. I valgkampen var Hillary Clinton så arrogant, at hun ikke engang tog til Ohio eller nogle af de andre stater, der tidligere var industrialiserede. Man må indse, at dér – at USA, i modsætning til, hvad man for det meste rapporterer i de vestlige medier i Europa, befinder sig i en tilstand af økonomisk kollaps. De har for første gang [nogensinde] en faldende forventet levealder; der er én indikator, der viser, om det går et samfund godt eller skidt, og det er, at den forventede levealder stiger eller falder. I USA falder den for både mænd og kvinder. I den 16 år lange periode med Bush-Cheney og Obama, som man kan tage som en samlet pakke, er selvmordsraten firdoblet i alle aldersgrupper; årsagerne er alkoholisme, narkoafhængighed, håbløshed, depression pga. arbejdsløshed. Der er omkring 94 mio. amerikanere i den arbejdsdygtige alder, der ikke engang er talt med i statistikken, fordi de har opgivet ethvert håb om nogensinde igen at finde et job. Hvis man for nylig har rejst i USA, så er USA virkelig i en forfærdelig forfatning; infrastrukturen er i en forfærdelig tilstand, og folk er simpelt hen ikke glade.

Så valget, og narrativen var derfor årsagen til, at Hillary blev stemt ude, fordi hun blev opfattet som den direkte fortsættelse af disse 16 år, og forsøget på at ændre denne narrativ ved at sige, at det var »russisk hacking«, er temmelig åbenlys.

Men nu er der 10 eller 9 dage tilbage, til den nye præsident indsættes. Og det er ikke en periode for afslapning, for igen, Obamas gamle team forsøger på en måde, der ikke har fortilfælde, at skabe omstændigheder for den tiltrædende præsident Trump for at tvinge ham til at fortsætte Obamas kurs. For kun et par dage siden begyndte de f.eks. en deployering af amerikanske tropper og NATO-tropper, der skal deployeres ved den russiske grænse i De baltiske Lande, i Polen og Rumænien, via den tyske by Bremerhaven, hvor 6.000 tropper landede med tungt militærudstyr; f.eks. amerikanske Abrams tanks, Paladin artilleri, Bradley kampvogne, 2.800 stk. militært isenkram, 50 Black Hawk helikoptere, som involverer 1.800 stk. personel; 400 tropper, der skal tilknyttes de 24 Apache-helikoptere.

Denne deployering skal selvfølgelig være en provokation mod Rusland, og det er meningen, at det skal gøre det meget vanskeligt for Trump at begynde at forbedre relationerne.

Et andet område, hvor man kan se dette forsøg på at tvinge Trump, er med spørgsmålet om THAAD-missilerne i Korea, hvor Nordkorea nu har hævdet, at de kan lancere deres ICBM’er overalt, til enhver tid; og iflg. kinesiske eksperter er USA alene ansvarlig for, at Nordkorea opfører sig på denne måde.

Sydkorea med den fratrædende præsident Park Geun-hye, der muligvis snart bliver afsat ved en rigsretssag, måske inden for få dage eller uger; hun gik med til at få en specialbrigade med en 1.000-2.000 mand stor specialenhed, der i tilfælde af krig angiveligt skal eliminere Pyongyang-kommandoen, inkl. Kim Jong-un; og dette forværrer situationen, for i betragtning af sådanne tings historie, kan man ikke vide, hvornår øjeblikket til sådanne handlinger kommer.

For det tredje ses det af deployeringen af det amerikanske hangarskib USS Carl Vinson til Asien, i nærheden af Kina. Dette hangarskib er et atomdrevet skib af Nimitz-klassen, og det vil ankomme præcis den 20. januar, den dag, Trump overtager embedet. Global Times, den officielle kinesiske avis, sagde, at denne deployering har til hensigt at ødelægge potentielle forhandlinger med Kina og andre lande i området; det skal selvfølgelig også slå en sur tone an i de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer.

Der er andre bestræbelser på at ændre og bestemme narrativen i perioden efter Obama. Ash Carter, USA’s forsvarsminister, har netop holdt en pressekonference, hvor han sagde, at det kun var USA, der bekæmpede ISIS i Syrien. Der skal en solid portion frækhed til at sige dette, for alle i hele verden ved, at, uden præsident Putins beslutning om at intervenere militært i Syrien, med start i september 2015, og med enorm støtte fra russiske luftstyrker til de syriske troppers kamp, ville denne militære situation i Syrien aldrig have udviklet sig. Og det var tværtimod USA’s meget tvivlsomme opførsel, hvor de støttede diverse terroristgrupper, der forlængede denne proces og forsinkede den.

Men også som et forsøg på at tvinge narrativen var selvfølgelig John Kerry, der for en uge eller så siden holdt en tale, hvor han sagde, at det var det Britiske Parlament, der skulle have forhindret den amerikanske militærintervention i Syrien. Alle disse mennesker må tro, at hele verden har en meget kort hukommelse, for jeg husker ganske tydeligt, at det var general Michael Flynn, der i sin egenskab af leder af DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] offentligt udtalte, at det var Obama-administrationens plan at opbygge et kalifat i området med det formål at få et regimeskifte imod Assad, og han blev dernæst fyret af [DNI] Clapper. Og der ligger en vis ironi i det faktum, at her sidste fredag mødtes Trump med Clapper, Brennan og Comey i Trump Tower, hvor disse tre herrer ville imponere Trump med deres historie om den russiske hacking; den anden person, der var sammen med Trump, var general Flynn, der nu sidder i førersædet [til at blive national sikkerhedsrådgiver]. Så man kan forvente, at sandheden ikke bliver undertrykt i al evighed. Det var faktisk kort før den amerikanske militære intervention i 2013, den amerikanske militære aktion var planlagt til at skulle finde sted om søndagen; det havde vi fra velunderrettede kilder i Washington, og i sidste øjeblik tog formanden for generalstabscheferne, general Martin Dempsey, hen til Obama og sagde, »De bør ikke starte en krig, når De ikke ved, hvordan den vil ende. Og hvis De ikke spørger Kongressen, bliver De stillet for, eller risikerer at blive stillet for en rigsret.« Kun pga. dette spurgte Obama den amerikanske Kongres, og Kongressen stemte nej, og den amerikanske intervention blev forhindret.

Så det forholdt sig altså helt anderledes. Og dette forsøg på at fikse narrativen vil ikke lykkes.

Jeg kan ikke sige, hvordan denne Trump-administration vil blive. Jeg nævnte vist det ene punkt, jeg er sikker på: Jeg tror, vi sandsynligvis først i februar eller endda hen i marts får at se, hvem, der faktisk vil være i hans regering, hvem, der vil blive godkendt af Senatet. Men der er andre interessante elementer: Trump havde f.eks. i sin valgkampagne lovet at investere $1 billion i fornyelse af infrastrukturen i USA. Det er virkelig godt, som jeg sagde, for USA har et presserende behov for at blive udbedret. Det vil imidlertid kun virke, hvis et andet af Trumps løfter, som han lovede i oktober i North Carolina, om, at han ville indføre det 21. århundredes Glass/Steagall-lov, bliver ført ud i livet, for det transatlantiske finanssystem er stadig på randen af bankerot. Vi kunne få en gentagelse af det finansielle sammenbrud i 2007-08, hvad øjeblik, det skal være; og kun, hvis vi får en Glass/Steagall-lov i Franklin D. Roosevelts tradition, det, som Roosevelt gjorde i 1933 ved at opdele bankerne, ved at fjerne det kriminelle element i banksystemet, og dernæst erstatte det med en [statslig] kreditpolitik i Alexander Hamiltons tradition, kan man råde bod på denne situation. I modsat fald kan man ikke finansiere $1 billion til infrastruktur.         

Helgas tale kan ses her: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdl0Hxg_Ubc   

Engelsk udskrift af hele talen kan læses her:

14. jan., 2017 – NATO-vicegeneralsekretær Rose Gottemoeller, en tidligere højtplaceret embedsmand i præsident Obamas Udenrigsministerium, var i Litauen til en sikkerhedskonference den 12.-13. jan. Mens hun var der, gav hun et interview til Baltic Times, hvor hun faktisk hævdede, at NATO’s troppedeployeringer til de Baltiske Stater og Polen havde forhindret en russisk invasion af disse lande. »Der var ingen planer om, at amerikansk militær skulle komme tilbage til Europa, før Ruslands truende opførsel over for de Baltiske Stater, over for NATO-alliancen generelt, og før den oprustning, der har fundet sted, som jeg refererede til for et øjeblik siden, såvel som også deres annektering af Krim«, sagde hun, med reference til ankomsten af en amerikansk, pansret brigade til Polen i denne uge. »Det, NATO-alliancen gør, understreger vi altid, er i proportion og afmålt og defensivt, og det er virkelig sådan, NATO går frem på en meget, også bevidst måde, hvor vi ikke haster ind i noget.«

Som sædvanligt for NATO’s vedkommende, så begyndte historien omkring marts måned, 2014, da Rusland angiveligt skulle være rykket ind i Krim (fakta er, at de aldrig havde forladt Krim, da de opretholdt flådebasen i Sevastopol), og de (NATO) udelukker således NATO’s ekspansion af historien, kontroversen over missilforsvaret, den voldelige afsættelse, støttet af Vesten, at den demokratisk valgte regering i Ukraine og mange andre tegn på NATO’s aggression over for Rusland over en periode på mere end 20 år. Ved at udelukke denne del af historien, kan NATO komme med det argument, at det »responderer« til russisk »aggression«, når kendsgerningen er, at de russiske forholdsregler faktisk er responser til den trussel, det ser komme fra NATO.

Foto: NATO-vicegeneralsekretær Rose Gottemoeller, i Litauen. 

13. jan., 2017 – I kølvandet på et møde i går i den Sjette Russisk-kinesiske konsultation om sikkerheden i Sydøstasien, advarede Rusland og Kina om, at de har til hensigt at tage »modforholdsregler« som respons til den foreslåede deployering af Terminal High Altitude Defense System (THAAD) i Sydkorea.

Disse modforholdsregler er designet til at beskytte Kinas og Ruslands interesser og den strategiske balance i området, som de anser for truet af THAAD-deployeringen. Begge nationer har, gennem deres Udenrigsministerier, opfordret USA og Sydkorea til at adressere disse sikkerhedsspørgsmål og standse den planlagte deployering. Ifølge TASS advarede Ruslands Udenrigsministerium om, at, ved at forfølge THAAD-deployeringen, vil Washington og Seoul »forhøje spændingerne og styrke våbenkapløbet i området, såvel som også udvide militære øvelser« og »skade den regionale stabilitet og sikkerhed«. I betragtning af det »høje konfliktpotentiale« og den »komplekse og følsomme« situation på Halvøen, understregede Ministeriet, er det afgørende at søge »fælles bestræbelser, der har til formål at finde en meningsfuld strategi, der ville vise vejen ud af det nuværende dødvande og være med til at afgøre spørgsmålet om atomvåben og andre problemer, som Korea-halvøen konfronteres med.«

Xinhua understregede, at de to nationer insisterede på målet med at »fjerne atomvåben fra Korea-halvøen for at sikre fred og stabilitet«.  

13. jan., 2017 – Pensionerede tyske oberstløjtnant Jochen Scholz sagde til Sputnik, at der er flere aspekter til USA’s deployering af tropper til Polen, som alle udgør en del af et spil, der skal retfærdiggøre USA/NATO’s militære opbygning og sabotagen af amerikansk-russiske relationer under den tiltrædende Trump-administration.

»For det første forsøger Obama-administrationen og forsvarsminister Ashton Carter at lægge en snublesten i vejen for den tiltrædende præsident. For det andet skal den tyske og europæiske offentlighed have at vide, hvor farlig, Rusland er, og hvordan Rusland er en trussel mod nabolande såsom de Baltiske Stater. Det tredje punkt er, at sådanne handlinger bruges til at overtale offentligheden til at spendere flere penge på militæret«, fortsatte Scholz.

»Og, afhængig af, hvordan Rusland responderer til denne deployering, vil der måske komme et fjerde argument, der siger, ’der kan I selv se; vi forsvarer blot Baltikum, men russerne har omgående reageret og bygger offensive styrker her’«, sagde Scholz. »De ved udmærket godt, at Rusland ikke har nogen planer om det [at invadere de Baltiske Lande]. Det er en del af spillet. Man opdigter en trussel, der ikke eksisterer, med det formål at retfærdiggøre større militær tilstedeværelse og større forsvarsudgifter.«   

Foto: Pensionerede tyske oberstløjtnant Jochen Scholz til Sputnik, 12. jan.

13. jan., 2017 – Henved 2700 amerikanske tropper (ud af forventede 3500) ankom i denne uge til Polen for at overtage de Abrams tanks og andet udstyr, der blev losset i Bremerhaven, Tyskland, for en uge siden og dernæst sendt via jernbane til Polen. Der er allerede små grupper af amerikanske specialenhedsstyrker i hver af de Baltiske Stater, og man er ved at lægge grunden til en formation af en amerikanskledet NATO-bataljon i Polen.

Det ses alt sammen i Moskva som en provokation, ikke alene mod selve Rusland, men også mod fremtidige amerikansk-russiske relationer.

»Vi anskuer disse handlinger som endnu et eksempel på provokerende militær aktivitet tæt på Ruslands grænser inden for rammerne af en berygtet linje, der går ud på at inddæmme Rusland«, sagde talskvinde for det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, Maria Zakharova i går under sin pressebriefing. Hun sagde, at formålet med disse bestræbelser er forsøget fra den afgående Barack Obama-administrations side på at »komplicere så meget som muligt situationen i de bilaterale relationer og gøre de nye, amerikanske myndigheder til gidsel for dens systematiske og temmelig fjendtligtsindede politik over for Rusland«. Rusland må tage denne amerikanske militæropbygning tæt på sine grænser i betragtning i sin egen militære planlægning, bemærkede hun. »Vi håber, at den nye amerikanske regering ikke vil handle i overensstemmelse med denne linje, som er et åbenlyst dødvande, og som fremprovokerer konfrontation mellem vore lande«, sagde hun.

Talsmand for Kreml, Dmitri Peskov, sagde ligefremt til reportere i går, at ankomsten af tropperne i Polen udgør en trussel mod Rusland.

»Ethvert land kan anse en opbygning af udenlandsk militær tilstedeværelse tæt på sine grænser som noget negativt, og vil gøre det. Det er præcis sådan, vi ser det«, sagde han. »Vi fortolker dette som en trussel mod os og som handlinger, der udgør en fare for vore interesser og for vores sikkerhed.« Peskov påpegede, at »et tredjeland er i færd med at opruste sin militære tilstedeværelse tæt på vore grænser i Europa«. »Dette land er ikke engang selv europæisk«, sagde han og tilføjede, at størrelsen af det militære kontingent var ligegyldigt. »Om det er et tusinde eller ti tusinde, det er det samme«, understregede han.

Foto: Talskvinde for det Russiske Udenrigsministerium Maria Zakharova under en af sine ugentlige briefinger til pressen.    

11. jan., 2017 – Et forstærket kompagni amerikanske marinesoldater lander i Norge i denne uge, i hælene på ankomsten af tanks og andet udstyr til den 3. brigade, 4. infanteridivision, til Bremerhaven, Tyskland, i sidste uge. Marinesoldaterne vil blive i en seks måneders rotation, hvilket gør det muligt for dem at deltage i en langt mere intensiv træning, især i et arktisk miljø, end det ellers ville være muligt. Senere på vinteren vil de deltage i en fælles amerikansk-britisk-norsk øvelse ved navn Joint Viking. De vil også få mulighed for at komme til De baltiske Lande.

Marinesoldaterne vil være baseret på Flyvestation Værnes lige uden for Trondheim i det centrale Norge, hvor de har adgang til at benytte et forud deployeret lager af tanks, lastbiler og andre køretøjer, der er i depot i grotter med aircondition.

Depotet stammer tilbage fra 1982, men dette bliver første gang, udenlandske tropper er blevet udstationeret på norsk jord, siden nazisternes besættelse under Anden Verdenskrig.

Foto: USA har deployeret enorme mængder militært udstyr til Norge, hvor det er i depot i grotter med aircondition. Foto fra februar, 2016.

Vores udsendelse i aften falder i tre dele. De tre dele er naturligvis indbyrdes forbundne, men første del er et klip fra et interview, som vores ven og kollega Jason Ross lavede med Ray McGovern, en CIA-veteran, der har været analytiker i 30 år, og som nu er medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.

Udsendelsens anden del er et klip fra en præsentation af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der var et gennembrud i Stockholm, Sverige, i går (11. jan.), for et publikum, der bl.a. bestod af et bredt udsnit af det internationale diplomatiske samfund.

Og det tredje indslag i aften forfølger vores igangværende understregning af en intensivering af forståelsen af Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske opdagelser; og det vil omfatte en gennemgang ved Rachel Brown af en artikel, som hr. LaRouche offentliggjorde for nogen tid siden, med titlen, »In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton« (http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf) , som hun komplementerer med en gennemgang af noget af materialet fra hr. LaRouches opgradering og fordybelse af ideen om, ikke infrastruktur (i sig selv), men om økonomiske platforme. Disse tre dele vil udgøre vores udsendelse for i aften.

For at indlede vores første del, kan vi referere til et indslag på LaRouchePAC’s webside i dag. Titlen er, »The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain, Not Russia« (indholdet er dækket i Tom Gillesbergs indledning til Nyhedsorientering januar, læs: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17270)¸og det handler direkte om de efterretninger, som vi vil få klarhed over i aften. At de, som virkelig intervenerer i amerikansk politik, ikke er de russiske efterretningstjenester, men snarere direkte er britisk efterretningstjeneste. Det 35 sider lange – hvad man vel må kalde et falsk dossier – om Trumps angivelige forbindelser med Rusland, og som blev citeret af CNN tidligere på ugen i en nyhedshistorie; og som dernæst blev offentliggjort eller lækket af Buzzfeed. Det afsløres nu, at dette blev forfattet af en fremtrædende, angiveligt pensioneret MI-6-efterretningsmand ved navn Christopher Steele; han blev først hyret af operatører fra det Republikanske Parti, der var modstandere af Trump i primærvalgene, og som dernæst blev hyret af Hillary Clintons kampagne for at udføre politisk kontra-research om Donald Trump. Det skulle bruges, ikke som en efterretningsfil, men til at tilsværte Trump under valget. Så dette er slet ikke en efterretningsrapport, som den blev præsenteret for at være af visse amerikanske medier, der lækkede den; men den var snarere blot en politisk misinformationsfil, der, som vi ser, kommer direkte fra britiske efterretningsoperatører. Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump brugte igen her til morgen twitter til at udfordre dette. Han sagde: »Det viser sig nu, at de falske anklager imod mig blev sammensat af mine politiske modstandere og en mislykket spion, der er bange for at blive sagsøgt. Totalt fabrikerede fakta fra foragtelige politiske operatører, både Demokrater og Republikanere. Falske nyheder. Rusland siger, at der intet findes; det er sandsynligvis udgivet af ’efterretningstjenester’, vel vidende, at der intet bevis findes, og aldrig vil findes.«

Det, der står klart, er, at efterretningssamfundet har erklæret krig mod USA’s nyvalgte præsident, der vil blive indsat om under en uge fra i dag. Dette er en situation uden fortilfælde; og briternes rolle er klar, som det ses af denne mand, Christopher Steele. Som jeg sagde, så, på trods af den narrativ, at det skulle være russerne, der kører en eller anden enorm indflydelses-kampagne for at forsøge at intervenere i og influere de amerikanske valg, så begynder det at se ud som om, at den virkelig misdæder her, var briterne.

Med denne indledning vil jeg nu gerne vise et klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern. Som sagt har han 30 år som CIA-veterananalytiker bag sig; han var i sin tid ekspert i Rusland eller Sovjetunionen, da han var dér. Han var ansvarlig for at udarbejde nationale efterretningsestimater, og en daglig brief til præsidenten. Efter sin tid i CIA blev han medstifter af en organisation ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der nu har omkring 50 medlemmer, pensionerede efterretningseksperter, der for nylig udstedte en erklæring, der satte seriøse spørgsmålstegn ved den narrativ, der blev offentliggjort om russisk indflydelse og russisk hacking. Hele interviewet vil være tilgængeligt fra søndag (15. jan.), på LaRouchePAC websiden og LaRouchePAC YouTube kanalen; og vi har udlagt andre uddrag af dette interview hen over de seneste par dage. Det uddrag, vi bringer her, er begyndelsen af interviewet, der blev udført af Jason Ross, med hr. Ray McGovern.  

Jason Ross: Det er den 10. januar, 2017; jeg er Jason Ross fra LaRouchePAC. Vi er meget glade for i dag at have Ray McGovern med os i studiet, en veteran, der har været i CIA i årtier, og som i 2003 var medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Mange tak for at være med os i dag, Ray.

Ray McGovern: I er meget velkomne. Jeg er glad for at være her.

Ross: Lad os springe direkte til ét af de store spørgsmål, vi hører så meget om i medierne i øjeblikket – spørgsmålet om den angivelige russiske hacking af de amerikanske valg. Jeres gruppe, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, udstedte en pressemeddelelse den 12. december, der sagde, at alle beviser pegede på en læk snarere end et hack. Siden da er to rapporter kommet frem; en fra DHS (Department of Homeland Security) og en, der hovedsagligt er forfattet af ODNI, Director of National Intelligence, og som siger, at her er beviset. Vi ved, Rusland gjorde det. Det var tvivlsomt, hvor brugbar denne rapport var. Og for et par dage siden var du så medforfatter af en kronik i Baltimore Sun sammen med William Binney, hvor du gentog dit standpunkt; at alle beviser peger på, at dette er en læk snarere end et hack, og under alle omstændigheder er der ikke blevet fremlagt nogen beviser for, at det skulle være et hack. Hvorfor har du dette standpunkt?

McGovern: Først må jeg sige noget om Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Vi oprettede vores organisation, da vi så, at vore kolleger – de kolleger, vi havde arbejdet sammen med – havde ladet sig forlede til at skabe, til at fabrikere efterretninger med det overlagte formål at franarre vore valgte repræsentanter deres forfatningsmæssige, særlige rettigheder til at erklære eller på anden vis bemyndige krig. Det var før Irak; og det kan ikke blive værre.

Bush, Cheney og de andre sagde alle sammen, »Åh, det var en frygtelig fejltagelse.« Det var ikke nogen fejltagelse; det var slet og ret bedrag. Da vi så dette finde sted, dannede vi en lille gruppe – vi var fem til at begynde med – og vi begyndte at gå offentligt. Vi udgav tre memoranda før krigen, hvor vi advarede præsidenten. Vores første memorandum blev udgivet samme dag, som Colin Powell (udenrigsminister 2001 – 2005) holdt sin tale – den 5. februar, 2003 – og vi gav ham et C- for indhold. Og vi advarede præsidenten (George W. Bush), »Efterretningerne bliver manipuleret, og de bør virkelig udvide kredsen af Deres rådgivere«, sagde vi mod slutningen, »til at omfatte andre end dem, der tydeligvis er opsat på at få en krig, for hvilken vi ikke kan se, der skulle være nogen tvingende grund, og de utilsigtede konsekvenserne af hvilken sandsynligvis vil blive katastrofale.« Den kendsgerning, at vi havde ret, fryder os ikke; der var et par andre personer, der sagde det samme, men der var ingen, der kom igennem til de etablerede medier.

Hvis vi spoler lidt frem, så ser vi, at de daværende NSA-folk ikke alene var rystede over, hvor mange penge, der blev smidt ind i programmer, som de vidste, aldrig ville virke; men de var også oprørte over et billigere program, som de selv havde udarbejdet – som blot kostede $330 mio. at indføre. Det andet program, som general Hayden støttede, kostede $3 mia. med et ’b’; så der var ingen sammenligning. Bortset fra, at det ene ikke fungerede; det gjorde dette her. Grunde til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at dette havde masser af beviser for, hvad der ville ske under 11. september; det lå i det. De gik tilbage og så efter; de lukkede dette hovedprogram ned, og da Tom Drake, som stadig var ansat der, gik ind og så efter, så fandt han masser af beviser, der ville have – hvis det var blevet omdelt – forhindret 11. september. Så man var dobbelt oprørt, og Bill Binney havde været teknisk direktør i NSA før han trådte af kort tid efter 11. september. Han tilsluttede sig så os, som så mange andre vidunderlige folk har gjort; og da dette kom på nettet online, dette her med den russiske hacking, så var det mest naturlige for mig at sige, »Hej, Bill. Vi har brug for et memo fra dig; vi har brug for, at du laver et udkast. For du designede de fleste af disse systemer, og du ved, hvad Ed Snowden har afsløret. Disse billeder? De ser virkelig interessante ud for os, men vi har brug for nogen, der kan gennemgå dem for os.« Så sagde han, »Helt i orden«. Så gav han os et udkast, og det, vi typisk gør, er, at vi cirkulerer det blandt de fem, seks eller syv personer, der har særlig interesse i det, eller særlig erfaring; og mellem os fandt vi ud af det rigtige. Vi var én af de første, der kom ud af starthullerne og sagde, »Jo, dette er en spand (lort)! Hvorfor? Af tekniske grunde.« Der var masser af andre grunde, men nogle folk – til deres ære, mener jeg – de er teknisk orienteret, og de vil vide, »Er dette muligt? Kunne russerne have gjort dette?« Svaret er, »Ja, men NSA ville have vidst besked med det.«

Det er chokerende, Jason, det er chokerende. Men NSA sporer alle e-mails på denne planet. Hvis disse går til udlandet, så har de samarbejdende tjenester og regeringer. Ikke blot seks, men de har 13 af dem. Hvis de går igennem USA, så får de dem; hvis de kommer udefra, får de dem alle. Og de kan spore dem; de har disse her små sporingsmekanismer forskellige steder i netværket. Så de ved, hvor hver eneste e-mail kommer fra, og hvor den ender.

Føj hertil den jernovervågning de har af den ecuadorianske ambassade i London, hvor Julian Assange er; og jeg er sikker på, at de overvåger hans kolleger også, uanset, hvor de er. Lad os nu sige, de russiske hack, og de fik det frem til Julian, og til en af hans medarbejdere. »OK, russere er virkelig dårlige mennesker«, siger folk; »Vis os meddelelserne.« »Åh, det kan vi ikke; vi har ikke meddelelserne. Men vi kigger på det.« De fik så præsidenten til, før han tog på ferie på Hawaii, at pålægge sanktioner, baseret på disse flygtige beviser, som de ikke kan vise os. Disse memoer – min første reaktion var at le ad dem, men det er meget sørgeligt at se, hvad efterretningssamfundet er blevet til; meget, meget sørgeligt. For dette er et vigtigt spørgsmål.

Hvad gjorde præsidenten så? Han slog ned på sanktioner; han smed 35 diplomater ud. Alt sammen ud fra hvis udsagn? John Brennans. Hvordan fik så New York Times al denne information? John Brennan. Det ved vi, fordi Wall Street Journal blev lidt sur over det, og de siger, »Ja, det er John Brennan, der taler med de andre fyre; han taler ikke med Wall Street Journal.« Hvad har vi så? Vi har en præsident, der tager en chance på lemfældigt grundlag og forårsager en endnu større fare, mere aggressiv kritik, flere spændinger i vore relationer med Rusland. På baggrund af hvad? Lad mig sige det sådan; jeg vil måske sige det sådan: Jeg sad og så på nogle YouTube-klip; og jeg faldt over et af Christiane Amanpour, der sendte fra London. Hun er i færd med at interviewe Lukyanov, en af de russiske guruer. Hun siger, »Hr. Lukyanov [imiterer Amanpours stemme] De siger, at der absolut ingen beviser er, ingen, siger De. Jamen, når der ikke findes beviser, hvorfor har USA’s præsident så smidt sanktioner på Rusland?«

Ross: Den er god.

McGovern: Jeg husker, at jeg fik stillet det samme spørgsmål omkring masseødelæggelsesvåben. [Imiterer igen Amanpours stemme] »Hr. McGovern, hvis De siger, at der ikke findes beviser for masseødelæggelsesvåben, hvorfor startede Bush og Cheney så en krig mod Irak?« Tja, svaret er det samme, det samme! Det er virkelig et dårligt flashback, for det, de må gøre, er at komme frem med beviserne. Det er min stærke opfattelse, at det vil de ikke gøre; ikke pga. kilder og metoder, men fordi, der ikke findes nogen.

(Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet):                       

The Crucial Point Is that Our Common Interest As Mankind Is Man's Progress

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast January 13, 2017

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening; it's January 13, 2017.  My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our regular
Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the
studio today by Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Science Team;
and via video by two members of our LaRouche PAC Policy Committee
— Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California; and
Rachel Brown, joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
        We have a three-part show for you today.  The three segments
will obviously be interrelated, but they will feature first a
clip from a feature interview that our friend and colleague Jason
Ross did with Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA professional analyst
for 30 years, and now the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  We have a second segment which
features a clip from a breakthrough presentation that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche made in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday to an
audience comprised of a large cross section of the international
diplomatic community.  And then a third segment tonight which
pursues our ongoing emphasis on deepening the understanding of
Lyndon LaRouche's economic discoveries; and that will include a
review by Rachel Brown of a paper that Mr. LaRouche published a
while ago, called "In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander
Hamilton", complemented by a review of some of the material from
the last few years of Mr. LaRouche's upgrading and deepening of
the idea of not infrastructure, but economic platforms.  So, that
will be our three part show from this evening.
        To begin our first part, I think that we can refer to an
item that's posted on the LaRouche PAC website today.  The title
of that is, "The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain,
Not Russia"; and this goes directly to the intelligence that
we're getting clarity on today.  That the ones who are in fact
interfering in US politics, are not the Russian intelligence
services, but rather, directly, British intelligence.  The
35-page — I guess you could call it dodgy dossier — on Trump's
supposed connections with Russia that was cited by CNN earlier
this week in a news story; and then published or leaked by
Buzzfeed.  This is now being exposed as being authored by a
prominent supposedly-retired MI-6 officer, a man named
Christopher Steele; who was hired first by Republican Party
operatives who were opposing Donald Trump in the primaries, and
then was rehired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to do political
opposition research on Donald Trump.  To be used not as an
intelligence brief, but to politically smear Trump in the
election.  So again, this is not an intelligence report at all,
as it was represented by certain US media outlets that leaked it;
but rather merely a political disinformation brief, coming
directly from, as we see, British intelligence operatives.
President-elect Donald Trump took to twitter again this morning
to call this out.  He said, "It now turns out that the phony
allegations against me were put together by my political
opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued.  Totally made-up
facts by sleaze-bag political operatives, both Democrats and
Republicans.  Fake news.  Russia says nothing exists; probably
released by 'intelligence', even knowing there is no proof and
never will be."
        What is clear is that the intelligence community has
declared war on the President-elect of the United States, who is
due to be inaugurated in less than one week from the present
moment.  This is an unprecedented situation; and the role of the
British in this is clear, as can be seen by the role of this
character Christopher Steele.  As I said, despite the narrative
that the Russians were running some huge influence campaign to
try to interfere and influence the American election, it's
beginning to look like the real culprit here was the British.
        With that said as a matter of introduction, I'd like to play
a clip of this interview that we did with Ray McGovern.  As I
said, he's a 30-year veteran analyst with the CIA; he was a
Russia or Soviet Union specialist at the time he was there.  He's
responsible for preparing national intelligence estimates and the
Presidential daily brief.  Now, since his time at the CIA, he has
become the co-founder of an organization called the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which now has about 50
members, retired intelligence specialists who recently put out a
statement seriously calling into question the narrative being put
out about Russian influence and Russian hacking.  The full
interview will be available beginning on Sunday on the LaRouche
PAC website and the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and we have
released other excerpts of this interview over the past few days.
This excerpt you're about to see is the very beginning of the
interview, which was conducted by Jason Ross, with Mr. Ray
McGovern.

        JASON ROSS:  Hi!  Thanks for joining us.  It's January 10,
2017; I'm Jason Ross here at LaRouche PAC.  We are very happy to
have in the studio today Ray McGovern, multi-decade veteran of
the CIA and the co-founder in 2003 of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.  Thanks very much for coming today,
Ray.

        RAY McGOVERN:  You're most welcome; I'm glad to be with you.

        ROSS:  So, let's jump right into one of the big issues that
we're hearing about so much in the media today — the issue of
purported Russian hacking of the US elections.  Now your group,
the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity released a
press statement on December 12th, saying that all evidence
pointed towards a leak rather than a hack.  Since then, two
reports have come out; one from the DHS and one primarily
authored by the ODNI, the Director of National Intelligence,
saying here's the proof.  We know Russia did it.  The report was
of questionable usefulness. Then just a few days ago, you
co-authored an op-ed in the {Baltimore Sun} with William Binney,
where you restated your position; that all evidence points toward
this being leak rather than a hack, and in any case, evidence of
a hack is not been presented.  Why do you take that position?

        McGOVERN:  Well, I need to tell you something about Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity first.  We established
ourselves when we saw that our colleagues — the colleagues with
whom we had worked — had let themselves be suborned into
creating, into fabricating intelligence for the express purpose
of deceiving our elected representatives out of their
Constitutional prerogatives to declare or otherwise authorize
war.  That was before Iraq; and that's as bad as it gets.
        Bush, Cheney, and the others all said, "Oh, it was a
terrible mistake."  It was not a mistake; it was out and out
fraud.  When we saw that happening, we formed a little group —
there were five of us in the beginning — and we started
publishing.  We published three memoranda before the war, warning
the President.  Our first one was on the day of Colin Powell's
speech — the 5th of February, 2003 — and we gave him a C- for
content.  And we warned the President, "The intelligence is being
manipulated and you really should widen the circle of your
advisors," we said at the end, "beyond those who are clearly bent
on a war for which we see no compelling reason, and from which,
we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic."  We take no delight in the fact that we happened
to be right on that; there were a couple of other people saying
that, but nobody got into the mainstream media.
        So, if you fast forward now, you see that the NSA people who
were in place at the time, not only were appalled at how much
money was being thrown at programs that they knew would never
work; but were outraged when they found out that a cheaper
program that they devised themselves — which only cost $330
million to emplace.  The other one that General Hayden went for,
cost $3 billion with a "b"; so no comparison.  Except that one
didn't work; this one did.  The reason I mention that, is this
had plenty of evidence what was going to happen in 9/11; it was
in there.  They went back and they looked; they closed that main
program down, and when Tom Drake, who was still employed there,
went in and looked, he found plenty of evidence that would have
— had it been shared — prevented 9/11.  So, double outrage
here, and Bill Binney had been the technical director at NSA
before he left shortly after 9/11.  So, he joined us, like so
many other wonderful people have; and when this went viral, this
business about Russian hacking, it was the most natural thing for
me to do to say, "Hey, Bill.  We need a memo from you; we need
you to do a draft.  Because you know, you designed most of these
systems, and you know what Ed Snowden has revealed.  Those
slides?  They look really interesting to us, but we need somebody
to take us through them."  So, he said, "Sure."  So, he gave us a
draft, and what we typically do is, we circulate it around the
five or six or seven people who have special interests in that,
or special experience; and we got it right together.  We were one
of the first ones off the block saying "Yeah, this is a crock!
Why?  For technical reasons."  There were plenty of other
reasons, but some people — and I think it's to their credit —
they're technically oriented, and they want to know, "Is this
possible?  Could the Russians have done this?"  Well, the answer
is "Yes, but NSA would know about it."
        Now, it boggles the mind, Jason, it boggles the mind.  But
NSA traces {all emails on this planet}.  If they go abroad, they
have cooperating agencies and cooperating governments.  Not only
six, they have about 13 of them.  If they go through the United
States, they get them; if they come from outside, they get them
all.  And they can trace them; they have these little trace
mechanisms at various points in the network.  So, they know where
each and every email originates and where it ends up.
        Now, add to that the ironclad coverage they have of the
Ecuadoran embassy in London, where Julian Assange is; and I'm
sure that they monitor his colleagues as well wherever they
happen to be.  So, let's say the Russians hack, and they got it
to Julian, they got it to one of his associates.  "Well, OK,
Russians are really bad people," people say; "Show us the
messages."  "Oh, we can't; we don't have the messages.  But we'll
look at it."  Now, they got the President, before he went on
vacation to Hawaii, to impose sanctions based on this elusive
evidence that they can't show us.  These memos — my first
reaction was to laugh at them, but this a very sad thing to see
what the intelligence community has become; very, very sad.
Because this is an important issue.
        So, what did the President do?  He slapped on sanctions;
threw out 35 diplomats.  All on whose say-so?  John Brennan's.
Now, how did the {New York Times} get all this information?  John
Brennan.  We know that because the {Wall Street Journal} was a
little ticked off about it, and they said, "Yeah, it's Brennan
that's talking to these other guys; he's not talking to the {Wall
Street Journal}."  So, what do we have here?  We have the
President going out on a limb, causing even more danger, more
flak, more tensions in our relationship with Russia.  On the
basis of what?  Well, let me just say this; maybe I'll put it
this way:  I was looking at some YouTube clips; and I happened
upon one of Christiane Amanpour, broadcasting from London.  She's
interviewing Lukyanov, one of the Russian gurus.  She says, "Mr.
Lukyanov, [imitating Amanpour’s voice] you say there's {zero}
evidence, you say {zero}.  Well, if there's zero evidence, why is
it that the President of the United States has slapped sanctions
on Russia?"
        ROSS:  That's good.

        McGOVERN:  I remember being asked that question about
weapons of mass destruction.  [Again imitating Amanpour’s voice]
"Mr. McGovern, if you say there's no evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, why did Bush and Cheney start a war on Iraq?"  Well,
same answer; same answer!  It's a really bad flashback, because
what they need to do, is come up with the evidence.  My strong
view is that they're not going to do that; not because of sources
and methods, but because there isn't any.

        OGDEN:  Well, as I said, that's part of a much longer
interview, and part of it has already been posted on YouTube
under the title "Sources and Methods Versus National Interests";
and you can expect the full interview to be posted and available
coming Sunday, the day after tomorrow.
        But I would like to just use that to invite the other
members of the broadcast here today to just open up a bit of a
discussion on this subject.
        MICHAEL STEGER: In all of this discussion, apparently some
people are not pulling back over so-called "Trump's ties to
Russia." What this whole situation now makes clear, is that the
entire attack on the Trump campaign and the President-elect's
policy towards Russia, has been the target explicitly of British
Intelligence the entire time. The report that was released, this
35-page dodgy dossier, starts in June once Trump consolidates the
nomination, essentially, for the Republican Party, and doesn't
stop until mid-December of this just past year. And so, it's
clear that British Intelligence were the ones pushing this the
entire time. It's clear that Christopher Steele was close friends
with now-head of MI-6, Alex Younger. The British media are
panicking. A former Secretary General of the NATO, a British
Lord, came out and said this is a total panic. We could be
sleepwalking into a complete catastrophe.
        It's clear the British had an explicit intent to manipulate
the U.S. elections, to fabricate false intelligence on a major
candidate, to drum up a conspiracy — so-called "hacking" by the
Russians to disrupt U.S. foreign policy and U.S. interests —
against the welfare of the American people. To those who know
history, and know Mr. LaRouche's role in the last 40-50 years of
American politics, this role of British Intelligence, includes
people who represented British outlooks, like Henry Kissinger, a
public advocate of British foreign policy against the American
outlook; the British hand, not just in an attempt to destroy and
manipulate the Presidential election and alter U.S. foreign
policy changes, but the direct role of the British in support of
the terrorists in Syria, via Saudi Arabia, and other nations; the
direct role of the British, such as David Cameron, who just
high-tailed it out of Downing Street and the British Parliament,
because he was directly exposed in a fraudulent-led campaign
against Libya; the false intelligence of Tony Blair on the Iraq
war, which Ray McGovern was just referring to.
        Besides that, you've got then the international drug trade,
which we documented beginning in the 1970s, with {Dope, Inc.},
and the international drug trade run by Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth.  Who, by the way, could be on her death-bed; and that
wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
        You've got an international drug trade, and international
war program, international terrorism, and, of course, the
Wall-Street/London nexus of international finance, which has run
this absolute cult of financial policy for decades, for
centuries, in essence. This is the same institution which was
responsible for the assassination of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham
Lincoln, William McKinley, the attempted assassination of FDR,
the backing of Hitler.  By the way, I think the Russian Embassy
in London made it clear that it was the Brits, such as the
Cliveden set, who were responsible for backing Hitler. That
they're coming out now and targeting the potential policy changes
in the United States, one towards Russia, potentially towards
China — to end the threat of nuclear world war.
        They're also attempting to disrupt what could be a very
important — as I think we'll see from Helga Zepp LaRouche's clip
— relationship between the U.S., China, and Russia, on an
economic policy; and, as we know it to be very important that
we'll get to later as well, a fundamental change in U.S.
financial policy. This British nexus is targeting the Trump
campaign and targeting this entire change in U.S. policy. This is
British imperial tactics. This is what they do; they are at the
source of it. If there's going to be a Congressional
investigation of any foreign nations' or foreign agents'
involvement to manipulate U.S. democracy, I think first and
foremost, it has to be the United Kingdom.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY: The fact that on page 15 of these 35 pages,
it attacks LaRouche by name, saying that there were Trump
factions travelling to meet with Putin factions, as part of this
alliance in the summer of 2016. They cite LaRouche directly in
this report has having representatives that went to Russia as
part of this discussion; which did not happen. As this was
authored by the British, this is just the British Empire freaked
out about LaRouche's policies taking over, and the potential of a
United States/Russia/China alliance, especially the Russia/U.S.
cooperation.
        I think it is notable that if you have the United States,
Russia, and China working together, there's no problem on the
planet that can't be solved. That's an unstoppable alliance. I
think the British are desperate, and that's what we're seeing.

        OGDEN: That's exactly what Helga LaRouche presented at this
conference that happened in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday.
This was an extraordinary conference, and I'm going to play a
clip of her opening speech to you right now. This was a
standing-room-only capacity audience that included 17 diplomats,
a cross-section of the entire planet, including seven
ambassadors. She delivers her analysis of what we've really seen
behind this showdown, as we've been discussing, of the British
and American intelligence establishment vs. the incoming
President-elect. She highlights, towards the end of these
excerpted remarks — and again, this is only an excerpt, in bits
and pieces — the whole speech contains a lot more substance in
terms of what you just said, Rachel.
        The motivation behind ending this confrontational policy
towards Russia and towards China, is that if Russia, China, and
the United States were to join, in a grand alliance, around what
is now a concrete policy initiative coming out of China — the
One Belt, One Road, or New Silk Road project — to bring
development to the interior of not only Eurasia, but also Africa
and the North and South America landmass, and were to reorganize
our relations around what's now being called the "win-win"
paradigm among nations — then everything is possible. She
explores a lot of these questions in the {full} speech, which
will be available in video form in just a few hours.
        In what you're about to hear, she touches on what must be
done, both strategically and economically, to shape the policy of
this incoming new Presidency. I apologize for the quality of the
audio. It was not the best audio recording, but again, in just a
few hours, we will have the full video that will be available.
This is just a taste:

        HELGA ZEPP LAROUCHE (Audio excerpt): … Let me start with
the Trump election. Now, I have in my whole political life, which
is now becoming quite long, several decades  —  I have never in
my whole political life, seen such hysteria on the side of the
neo-cons, on the side of the mainstream politicians, on the side
of the liberal media, as concerning Trump…. But what was caused
Trump, is that he simply promised end the political paradigm
which was the basis of eight years of George W. Bush and eight
years of Barack Obama, which was a direct continuation of the
Bush-Cheney policy.
        And it was a good thing, because it was very clear that if
Hillary Clinton would have won the election in the United States,
that all the policies she was pursuing, including an no-fly zone
over Syria, and an extremely bellicose policy towards Russia and
China, would have meant that we would have been on the direct
course to World War III.
        The fact that Hillary did not win the election was
{extremely} important for the maintenance of world peace. And I
think that of all the promises that Trump made so far, the fact
that he said … that he will normalize the relationship between
the United States and Russia, is, in my view {the most important
step}. Because if the relationship between the United States and
Russia is decent, and is based on trust and cooperation, I think
there is a basis to solve all other problems in the world. And if
that relationship would be in an adversary condition, world peace
is in extreme danger.
        So from my standpoint, there is reason to believe that this
will happen. The Russian reaction has been very moderate, but
optimistic that this may happen. If you look at the appointments,
you have several cabinet members and other people in other high
posts who are also for improving the relationship with Russia,
such as Tillerson who is supposed to become Secretary of State;
General Flynn, who is a conservative military man but also for
normalization with Russia, and many others, so I think this is a
good sign.
        Now, if you look at the reaction of the neo-con/neo-liberal
faction on both sides of the Atlantic to this election of Trump,
you can only describe it as {completely} hysterical. The
{Washington Post} today has an article "How to Remove Trump from
Office," calling him a liar, just every derogative you can
possibly imagine, just on and on unbelievable….
        And then naturally, you have the reports by the different
U.S. intelligence services, Clapper, Brennan, Comey from the FBI.
They all put out the fact that that it was Russian hacking of the
emails of the DNC and Podesta which would have stolen the
election, because they would have shifted the view of the
Americans to vote for Trump.
        Now, I think this is ridiculous. Not only have many cyber
experts, in Europe but also in the United States, already said
that all the signs are that it was not a hacking but an insider
leak giving this information out, which is more and more likely,
and there's absolutely {zero} proof that it was Russian hacking.
Naturally, what is being covered up with this story is what was
the "hacking" about? It was "hacking" of emails that proved that
Hillary Clinton manipulated the election against Bernie Sanders!
That is not being talked about any more….
        The real narrative is that it was the injustice of the
neoliberal system of globalization which has violated the
interests of the majority of the people, especially in the "rust
belt." Hillary Clinton in the election campaign was so arrogant
that she didn't even go to Ohio or some of the other states which
were formerly industrialized. You have to see that the United
States, contrary to what mostly is reported in the Western media
in Europe, is in a state of economic collapse….
        [T]here is one indicator which shows if a society is doing
good or bad, and that is if the life-expectancy increases or
shrinks. In the United States it's shrinking for the first time
for both men and women. In the period of 16 years of Bush-Cheney
and Obama, which you can take as one package, the suicide rate
has quadrupled in all age brackets; the reasons being alcoholism,
drug addiction, hopelessness, depression because of unemployment.
There are about 94 million Americans who are of working age who
are not even counted in the statistics, because they have given
up all hope of ever finding a job again. If you have recently
travelled in the United States, the United States is really in a
terrible condition; the infrastructure is in a horrible
condition, and people are just not happy.
        So the vote, therefore, the narrative, was that the reason
why Hillary was voted out because she was being perceived as the
direct continuation of these 16 years, and so the attempt to
change that narrative by saying it was "Russian hacking" is
pretty obvious….
        I cannot tell you what this Trump administration is going to
be. I think I mentioned the one point, I'm pretty confident
about…. But there are other interesting elements, for example:
Trump had promised in the election campaign to invest $1 trillion
into the renewal of the infrastructure in the United States. That
is very good, as I said, because the United States urgently needs
repair. It will, however, only function if at the same time,
another promise by Trump, namely, what he promised in October in
North Carolina, that he would implement the 21st Century
Glass-Steagall Act, will also be carried out, because the
trans-Atlantic financial system remains on the verge of
bankruptcy. You could have a repetition of the 2008 financial
crash at any moment; and {only} if you have a Glass-Steagall law
in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, what Roosevelt did in
1933 by separation of the banks, by getting rid of the criminal
element of the banking system, and then replacing it by a credit
policy in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, can you remedy
this situation. Otherwise, you cannot finance $1 trillion in
infrastructure….

        OGDEN:  Now, Helga continues from there to give a very
inspiring overview of the development projects from the last
three years that have been sparked by the initiative from China
on the One Belt, One Road or the New Silk Road initiative.  But
she also gives an incredible history of the founding of the
Schiller Institute and the role and she and Lyndon LaRouche have
played over the last 30-40 years in the fight for a new, just,
international economic and strategic order.  A fight which is now
coming to a certain point of culmination at least
internationally; but the urgency of winning this fight here in
the United States is something that she continued to emphasize,
and it's exactly what she ended with there in that excerpt.
        Right now, we must have the most urgent mobilization; there
are no excuses for delay from {any} elected representative for an
immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall.  We have now launched
and are in the midst of a national mobilization; we've talked
about this on previous broadcasts.  But as you can see on the
screen right now, we're circulating a petition which is
collecting signatures; it needs to more rapidly accrue
signatures.  But it's accessible at lpac.co/trumpsotu; and again,
this is a petition which originated from some citizen-activists
in Ohio, who are associated with the "Our Revolution" movement,
people who had been associated with the Bernie Sanders campaign
during the primaries.  But who have now taken it upon themselves
to rally behind the initiative that LaRouche PAC has led; that we
must have Glass-Steagall, and we must hold Trump to his word,
when he called for a 21st Century Glass-Steagall at that speech
in Charlotte, North Carolina.  As I said, this has bipartisan
support, and there are no excuses for delay.  The only way this
is going to happen, is if citizens across the United States
decide to participate in this LaRouche PAC campaign and sign your
name onto this petition: lpac.co/trumpsotu — State of the Union.
        Now, we did have a day of action in Washington this week.
The Congress is now officially back in session; they've been
sworn in and business is underway.  There was participation from
many states up and down the East Coast in person.
Representatives coming in from Virginia, from Maryland, from
Pennsylvania, from Connecticut, from New Jersey, from New York.
But there was also a lot of other participation from across the
country in terms of pressure being put on representatives to meet
with members of the LaRouche PAC.  There was a unique
representative from the Manhattan Project, Mr. John Sigerson,
who's the director of the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York
City; who's been participating in some of the recent choral
activities there, including the memorial at the Bayonne, New
Jersey 9/11 Teardrop Memorial, where members of the Schiller
Institute Chorus were joined by the PDNY Honor Guard and the
Honor Guard from Bayonne, New Jersey to honor the tragic loss of
the Alexandrov Choral Ensemble from Russia.  This is just one
example of the kind of power that the music program from the
Manhattan Project, from New York City, has been able to play to
shape the political dialogue in the United States and also across
countries.  In this case, the potential for a far-improved
relationship between the United States and Russia.  So again,
this was a day of action in Washington, DC, but the mobilization
has to continue.  We are in a countdown; it's now a 7-day
countdown until the inauguration.  Then shortly after that, we
will have the State of the Union; and again, this petition is to
insist that Trump put a premium on highlighting the necessity for
a return to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act during that State
of the Union.  This has to be one of the number one agenda items
of the first 100 days.
        But, let's discuss a little bit more broadly what Helga
LaRouche brought up at the end of that discussion; that
Glass-Steagall is only the first step, and there's a much more
far-reaching and profound approach to a revolution in the
economic policy of the United States that's necessary and which
has been framed by Mr. LaRouche.

        STEGER:  Well Matt, I think it's important to start with how
Mr. LaRouche initially responded immediately after the Trump
election.  His response was that this was global; and I think
that really does capture this.  The political process that is
shaping the United States in contradiction to this British
intelligence operation to destroy the United States, is really a
global phenomenon; and I'll get to that in a second.  But what
Mrs. LaRouche then touched on in her speech is something that
most Americans are experiencing, but because of that British
intelligence operation, because of this mass-lie campaign that
the American people have been living under; the official lie, in
essence, Orwellian policy that even the Russian Foreign Ministry
now refers to, that Americans have been living in since 9/11.
This has kept them from identifying what is now physically
identified; that the actual quality of life is collapsing at such
rates that life expectancy is now beginning to collapse.
        We have officially, you might say, entered into a Dark Age;
a mini-Dark Age has begun in the United States.  Now, this can be
reversed.  But the level of drug addiction has more than tripled
under Obama's Presidency; the level of opiate addiction, the
abuse of drugs like marijuana has skyrocketed under an
Obama-supported legalization campaign.  Which is of course,
backed by the same drug cartels which are providing the financial
backing to the banking institutions.  This was Obama's program.
You've seen a massive level of homicides and crime and murder
rates escalating in severely impoverished areas, including
Obama's so-called "own neighborhood" of the South Side of
Chicago.  This level of breakdown has never been seen in the
history of the United States; and it is only characteristic of
societies which are beginning to utterly break down.  Long-term
survival is not even a question; what's at immediate risk for an
increasing majority of Americans is short-term survival.  That's
what you see when you have decreasing life expectancy rates,
increasing numbers of people are dying faster and faster; largely
from things like alcohol addiction, drug addiction, diseases
related to despair, suicide and so on.
        That's where Glass-Steagall comes in; and this is what
really has to be captured.  And why it's not simply
Glass-Steagall, but the full Four Laws.  I think Megan and Rachel
can say more, because we're currently working on a project to
make this clear.  But the role of fusion and the space program
really captivate the fourth law in what direction our country has
to take to reawaken a sense of optimism, a sense of development
within the American culture.  To break out, not just of disrepair
— breaking down of bridges, bad roads — we all know the bad
roads and highways, especially on the East Coast.  But that's not
what we have to emerge from.  Building better roads isn't
escaping from the clutches of a Dark Age; something greater has
to capture the real spirit of human identity and creativity.
        Now, this is why it's so important to identify this global
phenomenon; because the steps of the Four Laws:  Glass-Steagall
immediately; shut down this Wall Street banking cartel and
basically a drug operation.  The second is the public credit of a
national banking system, which Paul Gallagher elaborated last
night; we could say more on.  To consolidate, aggregate the US
debt that exists, as well as other financial resources towards
the most important projects of development for the country; the
most advanced levels of infrastructure, or the broader physical
platform of industry and production.  And of course most
importantly, the fusion and space program.
        This phenomenon globally is just somewhat breathtaking; and
Mrs. LaRouche touches on it directly.  The Transaqua project in
Africa is something that we've been promoting for decades; this
is something which begins to take the sub-Saharan area of Africa
from the great lakes near the eastern part of Africa towards West
Africa and Nigeria, up into the southern border of the Sahara
Desert.  It begins to look at how we use major infrastructure
projects of water transportation, the refilling of Lake Chad, and
the development of this central African area.  There's also a
major rail line, which is not initiated — it's been inaugurated;
it's now running from Ethiopia to the coastline of Djibouti.
This rail line is one of the key continental rail passages that
the Schiller Institute and {EIR} have been fighting for, for
decades; to begin to integrate the full potential of Africa's
people and its resources and its industrial capacities into an
integrated economic breakthrough.  A real shift in the
productivity and lifestyle and scientific potential of Africa.
Those things are now unfolding; these are coming from largely
Chinese investments, Chinese engineering companies are directly
onboard.
        The same is true from another project, and I think it's
worth just highlighting, because we have gotten reports recently
that it's practically shovel-ready.  This is Kra Canal.  All this
contention over the South China Sea that everyone's heard about;
and the Americans remain, I'm sure, still somewhat confused.
What's the big deal about a couple of islands in the South China
Sea?  As the President of the Philippines said, we're not going
to eliminate humanity over a couple of fishing spots in the South
China Sea.  The real question is the Kra Canal; this is something
explicitly that the British Empire has prevented by diktat, to
shut down.  Matt, you and others have been involved in video
production specifically on this project and the role of the
British to shut this down over centuries to eliminate this
project.  The Chinese have said that they are ready to begin the
development of the Kra Canal.  The Thai government, with a new
king, seems favorable; the military, the prime minister seem
favorable.  The question of Japan's collaboration is something
that goes back to the 1980s; with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche directly
involved in this project.  The people we worked with then, in
Thailand, are again promoting and advocating for its initial
construction today.
        So, these projects are transformative.  We've gone through
more on that; I'm not going to give the layout of these projects.
But there are major development orientations taking place that
are gripping mankind.  There was an offer today, apparently, in
the {Hindu Times} in India from a Chinese journalist, which said
"Will Donald Trump Participate in the Silk Road Conference in
China?"  I think that really is the potential which we've got
today.
        So, the Glass-Steagall fight, this question of the United
States deciding that we're going to build our nation again, we're
going to shut down this Wall Street racket and take on this kind
of potential; that's really what has to be ignited.  And there's
no reason Donald Trump should not take that up at the
inauguration and the State of the Union.

        BRINKLEY:  Right!  And on this question of the murder policy
of Obama, there's an attempt now to cover it up and make him the
cute President and Joe Biden getting an award.  No, this is
flat-out murder, and if this mass movement across the world is
properly educated, it won't be stopped.
        So, there was discussion recently around infrastructure, as
Helga brought up, from Trump.  It's still not to the level of
LaRouche's conception of infrastructure.  For example, here's
what Speaker Paul Ryan said about infrastructure:  "In the spring
budget, we believe we will be able to address the infrastructure
issue."  The chairman of the Republican study committee, Mark
Walker, says "I don't know that we've settled on $1 trillion.  If
it's $1 trillion in infrastructure, that is something we'd have
to say, 'There's a portion of this that we're not comfortable
with and come back to the table.'|"  And then Sam Graves, the
head of the Transportation Subcommittee, says "We just simply
can't afford it," adding that "It can't all be done through
public-private partnerships as the President-elect is talking
about."
        They're still looking at this as an issue.  LaRouche
developed this concept.  Helga LaRouche made the point that 2017
should be the year of the rejuvenation or flourishing of
LaRouche's ideas.  He wrote a paper in 2010 called, "What Your
Accountant Never Understood; the Secret Economy".  He goes
through a universal history of the greater concept of
infrastructure.  He starts with the question of transoceanic
travel; navigation across the oceans.  He says, "For example,
look back to the approximately hundred-centuries of the Earth's
last great glaciation.  While some part of the human population
had remained mired in the habits of life of some fixed,
relatively narrow regions free of glaciation, great transoceanic
maritime cultures were also developed.  The requirement of a
stellar mapping for navigation for the existence of maritime
cultures, gave us the stellar notion of the efficient existence
of a functional form of an ontologically-actual universe; as
echoed by such great residual artifacts as the Great Pyramid of
Giza, and by the physical science of spherics.  Now, into this
so-called Platonic long cycle, into the Pythagorean predecessors
of Plato."
        So, you have the concept of how to travel on an ocean.  How
do you navigate?  By the stars.  How do you map the stars?  On a
flat plane?  No, you find you have to use a spherical map; so the
beginning of this spherical foundation of a physical science of
the Universe was discovered.  This was applied to navigate the
oceans.  He says from there it goes on to the idea of inland
travel, not just oceanic, but inland via internal waterways.  He
says this you saw developed with Charlemagne first.  He says,
"Charlemagne's reforms served as a precedent for the development
and role of the great internal system of rivers and canals, which
provided the crucial steps toward modern European economy, and
the application of the same reform within our United States.
Those inland waterways prepared the leap toward the revolutionary
US trans-continental railway systems.  First, inside the United
States; and in turn, the trans-continental rail systems of
Eurasia."  So, this was John Quincy Adams uniting the country
with waterways and with the rail systems.  He was the first to
fully unite the United States as a single territory.  This was
followed by Bismarck in Germany and Mendeleyev in Russia.  That
was the next advancement.
        Then he says, "Now, the prospect of the combined effect of
magnetic levitation mass transport systems and rail, which will
connect the principal continents of the world, would render most
ocean transport of freight technologically obsolete; because the
modern successor of ordinary internal rail transport will have
rendered much of ocean freight technologically, and therefore
economically, obsolete."  We are starting to see the beginnings
of this with things like the North-South transport corridor from
India to Iran to Russia; which cuts off the maritime route by
making it 40% shorter.  There are also new rail lines developing
between China and Europe.  The first train of which, for example,
just went from Beijing to London, starting January 1, 2017; the
first time ever in history.  There are 39 various routes now
between China and Europe; inland rail following the route of the
old Silk Road, but with modern rail.  As LaRouche says, if you
have high-speed magnetic levitation rail, that would be even a
further advancement.
        Next, he says, "Changes such as those, illustrate a general
principle which will be expressed in certain nearby Solar System
locations.  Now, we're going to go to the next step, such as our
Moon and Mars, when they will have come to be considered later,
as within the bounds of our presently still-young, new century's
plausible instances of work and habitation.  Typical problems to
be overcome for the purpose of human transport and dwelling in
nearby solar space, and later beyond, must look to such future
developments already foreseeable for later in the present
century.  We should then recognize that the development of basic
economic infrastructure had always been a needed creation of what
is required as a habitable development of a synthetic, rather
than a presumably natural, environment for the enhancement or
even the possibility of human life and practice at some time in
the existence of our human species."
        So, he's bring up, one, this long-term conception; he says
later, three generations — 75 years — should be our orientation
for space.  We have the questions of habitation and transport as
fundamental challenges; and this is the idea of the next phase.
But in general, also this last question of synthetic versus
natural; that these various new modes of habitation and travel
were based off of new discoveries that created a whole new
platform of existence, of habitation, of travel, where mankind
could reach through these advances.  And those were all creations
of the human mind in the likeness of the Creator.  Infrastructure
is not just making a bridge or something to get from here to
there; it's the question of a new advancement, of a new principle
that is applied throughout your entire society.  So, it's not an
add-on to your economic policy as Paul Ryan was saying.  "We'll
get to that; we'll figure out how to fit it in the budget."  It's
the beginning of your notion of economy.

        MEGAN BEETS:  Yeah Rachel, I think what you just put forward
here from Mr. LaRouche's overview and what you were just saying,
it's a way of thinking that most Americans have forgotten about.
People have lost touch with the kind of big thinking about long
sweeps of human history, and I think that that way of thinking —
the idea that we can consider 50-100-year cycles of human
progress in general — flies in the face of the biggest British
Empire lie which has dominated for some time.  The idea that
human growth is bad; human progress is bad; population growth
destroys the Earth and it's bad.  We have to hold back
technological progress; we have to go backwards.  Instead of
towards nuclear power, we have to go backwards towards solar
power, wind power; and reduce our impact and our presence on the
Earth.  That lie is exactly what's being threatened with both the
rise of the New Paradigm being led from Eurasia and the
potentiality of Mr. LaRouche's ideas; which are really the most
advanced version of the American System ideas of Hamilton,
Franklin Roosevelt, and Lincoln, of putting the creative power
and really the responsibility of the creative human mind to
change nature.  To alter nature to better support human life;
alter the biosphere to higher levels of productivity, as we do by
improving agriculture, for example.
        I just think that what you're bringing up here really is the
crucial point; that our common interest as mankind is man's
progress.  That right now dictates that we can't accept anything
lower than a long-term dedication to the highest forms of
technological advance and growth; which is nuclear fusion power
and its companion, a space program.  The colonization of the Moon
and eventual colonization of Mars.  That would really be a
beautiful renaissance expression of the American people working
with the rest of the world towards the uplifting of humanity
toward our real, true potential.

        OGDEN:  Well, as I said,  we are going to continue the
discussion of the substance — this was, I think, crucial Rachel;
because it's exactly what you're saying.  This insight into the
real meaning of something which has become banalized —
infrastructure; that's the key to all of economic science.  If
humanity is going to make the shift into the next phase of our
global existence as a species, it's only going to be possible if
we have a flourishing of this kind of philosophical understanding
of the science behind real, true economics.  It's a critical
ingredient of the ability of humanity to move forward.  So, I
think we're going to continue this; and there are a lot of
interrelated works that Mr. LaRouche authored over the last
several years which explore this concept of the real meaning of
infrastructure, the idea of the economic platform, and the role
that Hamiltonian credit should play in facilitating all of that.
        So, that said, that's the crucial insight and understanding
that you need to fight with us right now for the necessary policy
revolution here in the United States.  This all revolves around
the initiation of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws.  Michael
went through them, but it's Glass-Steagall, number one.  We need
to return to Hamiltonian national banking, number two.  We need
an initiation as Franklin Roosevelt did it, of Federal credit
using that Hamiltonian national banking system to raise the
productive powers of labor of the workforce as a whole.  And this
all has to be driven by a dedication to the breakthroughs in
science; most especially right fusion and space exploration.
        So, there are two things that you need to do before this
program ends tonight.  Number one, you need to immediately sign
the petition that's being circulated by LaRouche PAC.  Again, the
address is: lpac.co/trumpsotu — all one word — trumpsotu for
State of the Union.  If you've already signed this, then it's a
great opportunity for you to spread it to your entire network and
help us reach the goal.  We've set the goal of 10,000 signatures
on this petition.  We are increasing the number of signatures,
but it has to increase at a much more rapid rate.  It's a perfect
opportunity to help us increase the outreach of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee.  Then, number two; immediately
subscribe, if you haven't already, to the LaRouche PAC daily
email list.  For two reasons: 1. in the 7-day countdown between
now and the inauguration, you need to have the daily marching
orders and the daily updates.  This is a very fast moving
situation, as you can see from the intelligence situation that we
presented at the beginning of this show.  Then after that, in the
critical first days of the new Presidency, as things change very
rapidly, you need to have the insight that only LaRouche PAC can
uniquely provide you.  And then, another reason is, as we develop
more crucial and unique, exclusive content like what you got a
taste of here today, especially this interview with Ray McGovern,
the veteran CIA intelligence analyst and the co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, you will receive a
notice in your email inbox and this is material that you can't
afford to miss.  You really need to know as soon as we publish it
and as soon as we make it available.  So again, you can look for
the full interview that Jason Ross did with Ray McGovern to be
posted on the LaRouche PAC website and our YouTube channel on
Sunday, the day after tomorrow.  And you can also look forward to
the full speech that Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered at this very
important, breakthrough diplomatic seminar in Stockholm, Sweden.
        So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight.  I think this
was a successful broadcast, and I'd like to thank Megan, Rachel,
and Michael for joining me in the discussion.  Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com and good night.
 

12. jan., 2017 – Tidligere medlem af den tyske Forbundsdag, Willy Wimmer, har afsløret en koalition af Demokrater og Republikanere, der nægter at acceptere Donald Trumps valgsejr. Til RT sagde Wimmer: »Når man ser på situationen i Washington, så mener jeg, at de, der tabte valget, ikke er villige til at acceptere den nye præsident, hvis navn er Trump.« Wimmer, der er alvorlig bekymret, siger, at, »det, der foregår i Washington, lyder som starten på en borgerkrig«. [Sådan lyder det virkelig, når man læser Washington Post.]

Donald Trumps planer om at opbygge gode relationer med andre lande er et hårdt slag mod krigsetablissementets høges verdensanskuelse blandt Demokrater og Republikanere, såsom senator John McCain.

»Der findes et netværk af modstand imod den præsident, der vil indtræde i embedet den 20. januar, og jeg mener, at, når man ser på virkeligheden i Europa, ønsker folk i alle europæiske lande at eksistere med gode relationer til den Russiske Føderation«, sagde Wimmer. Kampagnen, der har til hensigt at bagvaske Trump, ligner den metode, som de etablerede medier brugte til at dæmonisere Rusland, tilføjede han.

»Der findes ingen fjendtlige følelser [mellem Rusland og Europa], fjendtligheden er organiseret på en meget kunstig måde, og det er samme metode for organisering af fjendtligheder, som vi nu ser imod Trump … Dette gør det ganske klart, at der findes et netværk af Demokratisk og Republikansk krigsetablissement i Washington, og de er ikke villige til at acceptere stemmeurnerne … Jeg mener, at alle i Europa ønsker at se en Trump i embedet, som forfølger den politik, han forklarede under kampagnen, og satse på gode relationer med andre, inklusive den Russiske Føderation«, sagde Wimmer.

Foto: Tidligere medlem af den tyske Forbundsdag for CDU, Willy Wimmer, til RT: … »det, der foregår i Washington, lyder som starten på en borgerkrig«.             

Hvad vi skal gøre – nu!

I USA, i lighed med Danmark og andre lande, er der nogle helt afgørende ting, der må gennemføres, som Lyndon LaRouche har fremført som fire nødvendige love, der må implementeres omgående.

1) Der skal indføres en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, men under den overskrift er der mange andre ting, der må ske. Man må gå igennem bankernes og finansverdenens aktiviteter i lighed med det, man gjorde i USA, da Roosevelt blev indsat som præsident, så man får renset op og får adskilt tingene i legitime finansielle aktiviteter, der er vigtige for realøkonomien, og så spekulation, som skal helt ud af de normale banker. Man vil så få nogle mindre almindelige banker, som man kan hjælpe, hvis de får problemer, mens alle de andre spekulative aktiviteter ikke får lov til at belaste staten og skatteyderne, når de får problemer pga. fejlslagne spekulationer. Derefter skal der

2) skabes kredit til investeringer. Staten må gå ind og regulere det ovenfra og i den udstrækning, det er nødvendigt, med statslige kreditter sikre, at der bliver foretaget de nødvendige investeringer i samfundet og dets produktive aktiviteter. Det skal bl.a. udmønte sig i

3) store infrastrukturprojekter, der kan opgradere hele økonomien. Man kan bare skele til de enorme investeringer, Kina har foretaget siden 2008, hvor Kina har brugt over 1000 mia. dollars om året på infrastruktur og i dag har verdens største og bedste netværk af højhastighedstog. Programmet for Den Nye Silkevej er da også centreret om opbygning af grundlæggende infrastruktur, ikke blot i Kina, men i stadig større dele af verden. Når det gælder Danmark, har vi et forældet jernbanenet, der skal fornyes i form af et nationalt magnettognet eller højhastighedstognet i forbindelse med bygningen af en Kattegatbro. Vi skal så hurtigt som muligt have bygget den faste forbindelse over Femern Bælt og en Helsingør/Helsingborg-forbindelse. Der er masser af motorveje og andre projekter, der bare venter på at blive bygget. Der er så meget, der skal bygges, at vi kommer til at planlægge, hvordan vi kan få nok kvalificeret arbejdskraft og byggekapacitet for at kunne få alle de mange projekter realiseret. Alle disse projekter er nødvendige som en del af at løfte den danske økonomi op på et højere produktivitetsniveau, og samtidig skal vi have langt mere gang i forskning og udvikling.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. januar, 2017 – Ingen mennesker i USA kan undgå at mærke den anstrengte atmosfære af forventning, der gennemtrænger disse første dage af året 2017. På den ene eller anden måde er Bush/Obama-tyranniets seneste seksten, blodige års vante sandheder ved at være forbi; vi står alle ansigt til ansigt med det ukendte. Omkring denne udvikling, og sættende betingelserne for den, er en fuldstændig ny, revolutionær situation på hele det internationale plan, som det store flertal af amerikanere ikke har den fjerneste idé om.

Samtidig er nogle af vore lavereplacerede lakajer for Det britiske Imperium, i takt med, at dagen for indsættelse af den nye præsident nærmer sig (20. januar), hvide i ansigtet af frygt. Vil de miste nogle af deres privilegier? Hvad vil der ske med dem? De synes at være ved at gå fra forstanden med deres skrigeri om stadig mere vilde fupnumre imod den nyvalgte præsident. I stedet for denne galskab skulle de hellere se til, at de »fortryder, angrer og gør godt igen«, som patrioten Andrew J. Bacevich skrev 9. jan. i en artikel.

I mellemtiden håber det, af de store nyhedsmedier ignorerede, og derfor ukendte af dem, der læser disse, store flertal af amerikanere, der har måttet bide i græsset i seksten år og længere, at de omsider kommer på en bedre kost.

Men vi står alle, uden undtagelse, og stirrer ind i ansigtet på det ukendte og uforudsete – det uventede. Og de, der først lander på deres fødder igen, parat til at handle, så det skaber resultat, vil starte ud med en stor fordel. Vi må være disse første. Det bliver ganske bestemt ikke de ynkelige lakajer i pressen, eller bureaukraterne uden samvittighed, og som i øjeblikket (men ikke ret meget længere) står i spidsen for »efterretningstjenesterne«.

Og derfor er der ingen, der ved, hvad de skal gøre. Hvordan kan vi undgå et overhængende kollaps af finanssystemet? Hvordan kan vi få en reel, økonomisk genrejsning? Hvordan passer vi ind i det globale system? Hvor er menneskeheden på vej hen? Kun de af os, der har kæmpet for at gøre Lyndon LaRouches opdagelser til vore egne, kender blot de første skridt til besvarelse af disse presserende spørgsmål.

Det er af disse grunde, at alle lige pludselig lytter til os. De kræver at forstå LaRouches Fire Love – for hvem ellers har svaret? Uden afgørende input fra Lyndon LaRouche, vil vi ikke blive i stand til at komme ud af dette rod. Og læren af gårsdagens LaRouchePAC-mission til Capitol Hill går endnu videre end til en ny modtagelighed for genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og især for LaRouches Fire Love, efter Hamiltons principper. Den går videre end det, til at omfatte det enorme indtryk, som dér blev skabt, af Schiller Instituttets musikdirektør John Sigerson, med sin briefing om højtideligheden den 7. jan. ved Tåremindesmærket i Bayonne, New Jersey, hvor Schiller Instituttets New York Borgerkor deltog. Dette repræsenterede sjælen i Manhattan-projektet, et af Lyndon LaRouches seneste store bidrag til at redde USA, og menneskeslægten.

Og I har endnu ikke set det halve af det!

»At værdsætte og stimulere det menneskelige intellekts aktivitet ved at mangedoble områderne for foretagsomhed, gennem hvilke en nations rigdom kan fremmes.«

– Alexander Hamilton (11. jan., 1757 – 12. juli, 1804).

»Sammenhængen mellem intellektets opdagelser og forøgelsen af arbejdskraftens produktive evne, er kernen i Det amerikanske, økonomiske System. Det, jeg har præsteret, er at vise, at det er muligt at forudsige rent matematisk raterne af den forøgede, fysisk-økonomiske vækst, som vil blive resultatet af en faktisk anvendelse af en specifik form for intellektuel produktion af ny teknologi. På denne baggrund har jeg været i stand til at levere et nyt, stærkere, videnskabeligt bevis for de grunde til, at Hamiltons Amerikanske System fremmer depressionsfri, økonomisk vækst, og grunden til, at Adam Smiths doktrin altid vil føre en nation ud i nye katastrofer.«

– Lyndon LaRouche, »In Defense of Alexander Hamilton«, 1987.

Læs hele Lyndon LaRouches artikel her:

http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf

Den britiske efterretningstjenestes rolle i at køre den svigagtige kampagne for at male Donald Trump som en farlig agent til Rusland og Vladimir Putin, der angiveligt er i gang med at undergrave amerikansk frihed og demokrati, er gået det bekendte »ét skridt for vidt«. Husker I hærens chefrådgiver Joseph Welch i McCarthys høringer om USA’s hær i 1954 (senator Joseph McCarthy indledte undersøgelser af angivelig kommunistisk aktivitet i hæren), mod slutningen af Truman/McCarthys antikommunistiske heksejagter? Da McCarthy angreb en ung jurist i Welch’s advokatfirma for at være kommunist, fordi han havde været i Advokaternes Laug, svarede Welch: Nu er De gået for vidt. Har De trods alt ingen anstændighed i livet? Har De ingen anstændighed tilbage?« Denne ordveksling gjorde det grundlæggende set af med denne del af den beskidte, britiske operation for at sønderrive arven efter Franklin Roosevelt i Amerika – selv om andre britiske operationer fortsatte i andre former frem til i dag.

I går konfronterede Donald Trump vor tids »Joseph McCarthy’er« i det amerikanske pressekorps, og i det amerikanske efterretningssamfund, samtidig med, at det afsløredes, at denne beskidte operation lige fra begyndelsen er blevet styret af den britiske efterretningstjeneste. Et 35 sider langt dokument, som websiden BuzzFeed har offentliggjort, og som CNN dernæst har fremmet, aftenen før Trumps pressekonference, og 10 dage før hans indsættelse, er fuldt af hysteriske påstande, der med lethed kan bevises at være fabrikerede løgne. Ikke alene siger disse påstande, at Trump arbejdede hånd i hånd med Putin for at hacke Demokraternes Nationalkomite og John Podestas (Hillary Clintons kampagneleder) e-mails, og dernæst spredte de hackede e-mails via Wikileaks, men de påstår også, at Trump blev afpresset af Putin med videoer af Trump, der boltrer sig med prostituerede i Rusland, og endda urinerer på en hotelseng, som Barack Obama havde sovet i.

I sin pressekonference naglede Trump den forræderiske kendsgerning i denne operation. Hvis denne platte rapport var blevet offentliggjort af efterretningstjenesterne, sagde han, »ville det være en enorm plet på deres generalieblad, hvis de rent faktisk gjorde det … Jeg synes, det var en skændsel … en skændsel, at efterretningstjenesterne tillod sådanne informationer, der viste sig at være så forkerte og falske, at komme frem. Jeg synes, det er en skændsel, og jeg siger, at det er noget, nazi-Tyskland ville have gjort, og også gjorde. Jeg synes, det er en skændsel, at information, der var forkert og falsk og aldrig fandt sted, blev offentliggjort.« Da CNN krævede retten til at respondere til Trumps fordømmelse af deres deltagelse i fupnummeret, afskar Trump dem med: »Ikke jer. Jeres organisation er forfærdelig.«

Men Trump identificerede imidlertid ikke ophavsmændene til løgnene – de britiske efterretningstjenester. Materialet er så tydeligt falsk, at New York Times, der har været i centrum for kampagnen for at miskreditere Trump som et russisk aktiv, erkendte, at »Topefterretningsfolks beslutning om at give præsidenten, den nyvalgte præsident og den såkaldte Ottebande – Republikanske og Demokratiske ledere i Kongressen og efterretningsudvalgene – materiale, som de vidste ikke var bekræftet og var ærekrænkende, var ekstremt usædvanlig. Den tidligere britiske efterretningsofficer, der indsamlede materialet om hr. Trump, anses for at være en kompetent og pålidelig operatør med udstrakte erfaringer i Rusland, sagde amerikanske regeringsfolk. Men han videreformidlede det, han hørte fra russiske informanter og andre, og det, de fortalte ham, er endnu ikke blevet undersøgt af den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste.«

Faktisk rapporterede New York Times den 6. jan., at den officielle rapport, der i sidste uge blev offentliggjort af amerikanske efterretningstjenester, og som anklagede Putin for at undergrave det amerikanske valg, også kom fra britisk efterretningstjeneste, der »advarede om, at Moskva havde hacket sig ind i Demokraternes Nationalkomites computerservere, og havde givet deres amerikanske modparter besked«.

Men dette er præcis, hvad Lyndon LaRouche i mange, mange år har rapporteret, med hensyn til amerikansk efterretningstjenestes underdanighed over for Det britiske Imperium; især under Bush og Obama. Det var til syvende og sidst briterne, der trak USA ind i krig med Irak, baseret på Tony Blairs »udmajede« efterretningsrapporter om Saddam Husseins ikkeeksisterende masseødelæggelsesvåben; ind i en krig mod Libyen, baseret på britisk efterretningstjenestes løgne om Gaddafi og de al-Qaeda-tilknyttede, libyske »frihedskæmpere«; og de igangværende krige mod Syrien og Yemen, baseret på løgne fra de samme, britisk-saudiske netværk, der støtter terrorister i hele Sydvestasien, med det formål at gennemtvinge »regimeskift« mod sekulære regeringer.

I går sagde Trump, at, »hvis Putin synes om Trump, ved I så hvad? Det kaldes en fordel, ikke en ulempe«, og beskrev den presserende nødvendighed i at samaarbejde om at nedkæmpe terrorisme. Det samme er tilfældet med venskab med Kina og Xi Jinpings Nye Silkevejsinitiativer i hele verden, og som Trump ligeledes må tilslutte sig, som kernen i USA’s udenrigspolitik.

I går var et team på flere end 20 medlemmer af LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite på Capitol Hill, hvor de mobiliserede Kongressen til omgående at vedtage Glass-Steagall og i særdeleshed krævede, at både Demokrater og Republikanere holdt Trump fast på sit løfte under kampagnen om at implementere Glass-Steagall og omdirigere statskredit til at genopbygge den industrielle og landbrugsmæssige infrastruktur, samt genoprette nationens forfølgelse af en opnåelse af fusionskraft, udforskning af rummet og de fremskudte grænseområder for menneskelig viden. Intet mindre end dette kan sætte verden tilbage på en kurs, der er i overensstemmelse med menneskelig værdighed.

Foto: Et luftfoto af Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), Regeringens Kommunikationshovedkvarter, i Cheltenham, Gloustershire. GCHQ er en af tre efterretningstjenester i Storbritannien, med fokus på kommunikations-efterretninger, tilsvarende det amerikanske NSA. [GCHQ/Open Government License]