Tilegnelsen af LaRouches metode er påkrævet for at organisere kræfterne for sejr.

Den 7. november (EIRNS) – I en tale, der var forberedt den 26. maj 2000, af statsmand Lyndon LaRouche med titlen “Vedrørende emnet strategisk metode” (EIR, 2. juni 2000), beskrives en tankegang, hvis tilegnelse er afgørende, hvis vi skal komme sejrrigt ud af det nuværende politiske og økonomiske rod i USA, hvor sejr også er kritisk for [resten af] verden. Tankegangen bygger på metoden for videnskabelig hypotese kombineret med en analyse af den kulturelle og økonomiske dynamik, der faktisk bestemmer væsentlige ændringer.

LaRouche siger, at “den afgørende faktor … er den menneskelige vilje, der vælger eller fravælger passende former for frivillige, kritiske ændringer i politik, som former nationer og menneskehedens fremtid som helhed. Disse er de beslutninger, som har forholdsvis afgørende indflydelse på begivenhedernes forløb, især under kriseramte forhold, der ligner dem som er fremherskende verden over i dag. ”Han pegede på et sæt af sådanne beslutninger, som virkelig var onde, for at demonstrere hvad han mente med kritiske beslutninger, der har dyb indvirkning selv over generationer. Disse beslutninger stammer fra 1975-76 [og blev truffet] af New York Council on Foreign Relations og Den Trilaterale Kommission, og er kendt som ”1980’erne-projektet”, hvilket lagde grundlaget for ødelæggelsen af USA’s fysiske økonomi, omdannelsen til et forbrugerdrevet post-industrielt samfund, og i den endelige manifestation af denne politik, noget vi stadig oplever i dag, den tilstræbte triumf for globalisering og opgivelse af suveræne nationale regeringer til fordel for den type af bankdiktatur, der blev foreslået den 23. august, 2019 af Bank of Englands bankdirektør, Mark Carney, i Jackson Hole, Wyoming. Og denne plan for et bankdiktatur har taget et væsentligt skridt fremad med meddelelsen om, at milliardæren Michael Bloomberg går ind i demokraternes primærvalg i Alabama, uden endnu at ”have besluttet” om han stiller op som præsidentkandidat.

Præsident Donald Trump afbrød den langsigtede udvikling, som disse fyre dengang satte i værk, en udvikling hen imod fuldstændig opgivelse af vores grundlæggeres store eksperiment med den suveræne republik kendt som De forenede Stater. LaRouche siger: ”Metoden for det sædvanlige slæng af bankfolk og advokatfirmaer fra Wall Street var forkert, endda ond, men disse fyre havde i det mindste en vision om en række kulturelt motiverede ændringer i USA og verdenssamfundet, som de havde til hensigt at fremkalde de kommende årtier. ”Det lykkede de med, fordi borgerne var optaget af øjeblikkelige begivenheder, på en selvbegrænsende måde, og nægtede at strække deres sind og vision til hvilken fremtid de søgte at skabe de kommende 50 år. Denne smålighed tillod ondskaben at triumfere.

LaRouche spørger derefter, hvordan vi kan imødese og arbejde for at påvirke de kulturelle paradigmer, som igen vil afgøre den måde hvorpå befolkninger og andre beslutningstagere vil reagere på det globale finansielle og politisk-økonomiske chok, af den slags der nu hastigt nærmer sig? Og, siger han, der er virkelig kun et tidspunkt, hvor man dramatisk kan ændre ting, og det er når begivenhedernes chok får folk til at undersøge deres eget tankesæt, de underliggende aksiomer og postulater, på hvilke de baserer deres meninger.

Det er netop situationen i dag, hvor en udfordret og modtagelig befolkning søger efter løsninger på, hvad de ser der sker omkring dem. Som LaRouche uddybede, er den eneste rigtige måde at fjerne kræfterne bag kuppet mod denne præsident – ud fra en strategisk betragtning – at vælte hele skakbrættet, ved at slutte sig til Rusland, Kina og Indien for at skabe traktater, der er centreret om et nyt monetært system med faste valutakurser, der kun udsteder kredit til økonomisk udvikling og avancerede videnskabelige udforskninger, der fremmer hele menneskehedens produktive kapacitet.

LaRouche peger på adskillige bestemmende kulturelle chok, der førte til USA’s tilbagegang under Barack Obama, og som demokraterne nu beskriver som ”normale tilstande.” Blandt dem er brugen af nuklear terror til at skabe et krav om en verdensregering, som forestillet af Bertrand Russell og andre talsmænd for det britiske oligarki, og stillet til skue under betegnelserne “globalisering” og “lov og orden”. Der var fremkomsten af ‘rock/stoffer/sex-modkulturen’ i kølvandet på drabet på præsident John Kennedy; bestræbelserne på at standse den teknologiske udvikling gennem miljøbevægelsen og afviklingen af centrale initiativer for NASA; udryddelsen af klassisk uddannelse i skolerne; fremme af fri handel og traktater som NAFTA, der decimerede den amerikanske arbejdsstyrke og opgav enhver beskyttelse af amerikanske industrier.

Denne dekadence blev af LaRouche beskrevet som en “grundlæggende konflikt” i geometrien af aksiomer og postulater om menneskets natur. Hvad han betegnede som ‘det romantiske syn’, ser mænd og kvinder som grundlæggende onde, som dyr, med dyriske sanselige impulser, ude af stand til at ræsonnere ud over øjeblikkets sanseopfattelser. Denne opfattelse er grundlæggende for tolerancen over for imperier i histories løb, og er i stigende grad dominerende i USA i dag. Det modsatte, klassiske tankesæt, især i dets kristne manifestation, definerer mennesker som grundlæggende gode, som hævet over dyrene, som værende skabt i billedet af universets skaber og i stand til kreativ forandring og opdagelse af universets grundlæggende love. Det var tankesættet hos grundlæggerne [af republikken], der måtte fordrives og ødelægges af de fundamentale ændringer, der er nævnt ovenfor.

Præsident Trump har taget skridt til at vende alt dette, nogle skridt er stærke, andre mere tøvende, men han hæmmes af det kulturelle forfald, selv blandt hans mest glødende tilhængere. Hvad der mangler her er dybden af intelligens og analyse, som LaRouche drøftede [i talen], hvor han bemærkede, at det største problem er opgivelsen af de former for klassisk uddannelse og klassisk drama og musik, som bevidst er udformet til at nære og styrke det menneskelige sind, menneskelig kreativitet, og får os til at gå uden for vores umiddelbare omgivelser, og beherske hvordan vi ændrer dem. Store forsamlinger råber taktfast “U.S.A.!” igen og igen, men er blevet nægtet dette middel, hvilket viser, at vi ikke indgående uddanner de generaler, der faktisk er i stand til at vinde denne krig for USA, og i sidste ende verden. I mangel på LaRouches metode kan og vil disse menneskemængder blive manipuleret og dræbt af vor fjendes evne til at manipulere dem gennem populærkultur og den offentlige mening.

 




Kongressens falske rigsretssag blokerer for en reaktion på finanskrisen

Den 4.november (EIRNS) — Parlamentets formand Nancy Pelosis politiske aktionsudvalg er Demokraterne i Kongressens mest givtige kilde til kampagneindsamling. I tredje kvartal i år har de “demokratiske milliardærer” der kræver, at præsident Donald Trump tvinges ud af embedet, anført af George Soros med 16 millioner dollars, hældt i kampagnekassen. I begyndelsen af september har Pelosi, der i flere måneder havde stået imod forsøget på at anklage Trump uden “tværpolitisk støtte,” skiftet mening og bekendtgjort en skinproces, som de demokratiske ledere kalder en rigsretssag.

Pelosi kan ikke tale imod det nu. I stedet kritiserede hun i et interview den 1. november til Bloomberg kraftigt de demokratiske kandidater til præsidentembedet for lignende humbug – ved at fremlægge vanvittige “programmer”, som helt sikkert vil tabe i 2020. Sygeforsikring for alle og en ny grøn aftale afvises af vælgerne i Midtvesten, sagde hun til Bloomberg. “Som venstreorienteret liberalist fra San Francisco kan jeg sige til disse mennesker: Hvad tænker I på? … I kan spørge venstrefløjen – de er utilfredse med, at jeg ikke er socialist”. Nyhedstjenesten rapporterede, at “Pelosi udtrykte også bekymring over vælgernes reaktioner på den Grønne nye Aftale … der kræver omfattende, hurtige reduktioner af CO2-emissioner. ”Der er meget stærk modstand mod den Grønne nye Aftale, fordi det er om 10 år – ikke mere fossilt brændstof. Virkelig?” sagde hun.”
Formandens kritik af de demokratiske kandidater lød nærmest som præsident Trumps stærke kritik af hende. Ingen af delene kan nægtes. Det er ikke kun de demokratiske kandidater.

Hele Kongressen, i kløerne på det demokratiske partis lederskab, spilder nationens kostbare tid – stillet over for både en kommende krise, der er værre end sammenbruddet i 2008, og en forværret epidemi med narkotikamisbrug – med en forfalsket rigsretssag. Alle dens processer med lukkede døre og selektive lækager til meddelagtige medier har til formål at bringe præsident Trumps meningsmålinger ned; anklage ham for “lave meningsmålinger og mindre embedsmisbrug”, og føre præsidentkampagne med en rigsretssag. Fox News er med i spillet og har forsætligt fordrejet nyhedsindslag om sin egen nationale afstemning, der faktisk viste, at støtten til rigsretssagen var lavere end en måned tidligere.

Og mens de gør det, foretager den amerikanske centralbank, Federal Reserve, dagligt voksende akutte indsprøjtninger af likviditet til banksystemet, som pludselig har brug for dem hver dag for første gang siden 2008. De holdes hemmelige for den amerikanske offentlighed af de fleste af medierne. Den enorme 16 billioner $ store boble af amerikansk virksomhedsgæld, der vokser med mere end 1 billion $ pr. år, udløser nu røde advarselslamper fra eksperter over hele verden. Nedenunder er der en økonomi i recession med tilbagegang for industri- og fremstillingsvirksomhed siden slutningen af 2018.

Vi har brug for en nødforanstaltning til at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven for at isolere Wall Streets spekulative kasino fra de kommercielle banker, så de kan gendanne produktive udlån. Dette er kun den første af Lyndon LaRouches “Fire love for at redde USA.”

Men Glass-Steagall er i store træk opgivet af “progressive” demokrater i denne Kongres; og af de ti kongresmedlemmer, der har stillet op som præsidentkandidat, er der kun en – rep. Tulsi Gabbard – som støtter det, og ingen har ført kampagne for det.

Med dette forræderi, hvor de hårdt forsøger at bringe præsident Trumps meningsmålinger ned med en rigsretssag, sænker de deres egne. En, forretningsmand Andrew Yang, fortalte i går til CNN: “Hele landet bliver revet med af denne rigsretssagsproces. Og … vi vil ikke have skabt en reel sag for det amerikanske folk.”

Det er meget værre end dette. De handler for at sabotere præsidentens samarbejde med Mexico mod narkotika- og våbenhandelskartellerne; hans Måne-Mars-mission for NASA; hans – og deres egen! – evne til at handle efter Lyndon LaRouches love for økonomisk genopretning under et finanskrak. Nogle demokrater må bryde geledderne, og Kongressen må udføre det presserende arbejde for landet.

 




Folk er i globalt oprør over det faldefærdige neoliberale system
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 3. november 2019

Helga indledte sin ugentlige webcast med at insistere på, at folk faktisk bør se præsident Trumps rally i Tupelo, Mississippi, da man her vil se en helt anden dynamik, end hvad der formidles i medierne og af hans modstandere. Et betydeligt udsnit af de amerikanske vælgere reagerer entusiastisk på hans præsentationer, idet han fortsætter med at betone afslutningen på krigene, der blev indledt af Bush og Obama, alt imens han bekæmper sammensværgelsen, der føres imod ham. Hun kaldte demokraternes pres for en rigsretssag for et “højrisikabelt spil… som kan give bagslag.”

Det vi gennemlever er et utroligt historisk øjeblik, et endeligt opgør mellem millioner over hele verden der er vrede, og som i USA bliver mobiliseret af Trump imod det britiske imperium, der har taget Det Demokratiske Parti [som gidsel]. Hun mindede seerne om, at hendes mand – da Trump blev valgt – sagde, at dette ikke var en amerikansk, men global begivenhed, hvilket vi ser nu med masseprotesterne, der pågår verden rundt. Hun gennemgik udviklingen omkring rigsretssagen, herunder bedraget med Schiffs “whistleblower”. Hun pegede på fremskridtene i Syrien, der er baseret på et samarbejde mellem Trump og Putin, samt handelssamtalerne med Kina, for at vise hvad det er som Trump gør, der forårsager hysteriet bag rigsretssagen.

Da hun gennemgik det igangværende finansielle/økonomiske sammenbrud samt de åndssvage løsninger der er foreslået af Lagarde, Carney m.fl., og som kun vil gøre ondt værre, pegede hun på de enestående løsninger, der er blevet udviklet af hendes mand Lyndon LaRouche. For Jer, vore seere, er tiden ikke til passivitet, konkluderede hun, men til nu at blive involveret og støtte vores organisation.

 




Vil rigsretssagen sætte en stopper for Artemis, eller sætter vi en stopper for kuppet?

Den 30. september (EIRNS) – Finansieringen for finansåret 2020, der skal påbegynde optrapningen af Månen-Mars-missionen – projekt ‘Artemis’ – hen imod menneskets tilbagevenden til Månen i 2024 – forbliver fortsat usikker, da det pågældende regnskabsår begynder på tirsdag. En hurtig overvindelse af demokraternes pseudo-rigsretssag mod præsident Donald Trump og det Britiske Imperiums kup, som ligger bag den, kan afgøre hvorvidt Månen-Mars-missionen kan sættes i gang.

Det Hvide Hus og NASA-administrator Jim Bridenstine gør det klart, at hvis amerikanere skal være tilbage på Månen inden denne tidsfrist, skal ‘rumkoloniserings’-delen af NASA-budgettet på 5-mia. dollars øges til 6,6 mia. dollars i finansåret 2020, alene som en “udbetaling” på den langt større finansieringsrunde, der bliver nødvendigt i de fire følgende regnskabsår.

EIRs forståelse er, at Repræsentanternes Hus alene dækkede NASA ind med en forlængelse frem til starten af Kongressens ‘Thanksgiving’-feriedag den 20. november, hvilket ikke tilføjede noget til budgettet for den menneskelige udforskning af rummet. Senatet er tilsyneladende blevet udsat i to uger fra fredag den 27. september uden at have stemt om en NASA-bevilling; men Senatets bevillingsudvalg hævede den 26. september hævet [budgettet for] rumforskning til 6,2 milliarder dollars fra 5 milliarder dollars i finansåret 2019, og det afventer en afstemning i hele Senatet. Omkring 745 millioner dollars af denne stigning var til det hidtil egentlig nye element i Projekt Artemis, det nye bemandede Måne-landingsfartøj; dette er flere hundrede millioner mindre end det, der som minimum er behov for, og ser ud til at udgøre den største del af efterslæbet. Ud over den fulde Senats-afstemning udestår behandlingen i konferenceudvalget med de vidt forskellige holdninger af hhv. Senatet og Repræsentanternes Hus.

Administrator Bridenstine og andre NASA-embedsmænd, der er direkte involveret i udviklingen af landingsfartøjet, har sagt, at dette efterslæb skal indhentes inden udgangen af kalenderåret for at holde opstarten af Projekt Artemis på tidsplanen. Med hensyn til at skaffe flere midler fra kommercielle virksomheder eller udenlandske partnere for at kompensere for utilstrækkelig amerikansk finansiering, udsendte NASA-chefen en skarp besked på Twitter søndag vedrørende SpaceX-selskabets afsløring af udviklingsprogrammet for dets ‘Mars Starship’.

Bridenstine sagde: “Jeg ser frem til SpaceXs bekendtgørelse i morgen [mandag den 30. september]. I mellemtiden er ‘Commercial Crew’-programmet år bagefter tidsplanen. NASA forventer at se det samme niveau af entusiasme fokuseret på de amerikanske skatteyderes investeringer . Det er tid til at levere [varen].” Tweeten var ikke en irettesættelse af SpaceX, men en stærk besked til Kongressen, og en indikation af, hvor eksistentiel finansieringen er for opstarten af Projekt Artemis.

I de nu tre år med kupforsøget mod præsident Trump under ledelse af britisk efterretningstjeneste, er den seneste fase med pseudo-rigsretssagen (en forespørgsel om en rigsretssag bestilt af Speakeren (Nancy Pelosi, red.) uden den påkrævede afstemning i Repræsentanternes Hus) en satsning på, at den samlede indflydelse af de nationale mediers koordinerede “informationskrigsførelse” kan bringe offentligheden til at tolerere et panik-løb fra Repræsentanternes Hus mod en faktisk rigsretssag. Hvis de vigtigste Demokrater i Repræsentanternes Hus mener at satsningen vil fungere, vil de modsætte sig “at give præsidenten noget”, inklusiv Månen-Mars-eventyret.

Men dette kup mod Trump er af samme format, og udspringer fra de selvsamme kræfter i CIA og FBI, og af de samme årsager (den britiske efterretningstjenestes interesser), som den dengang uhørte forfølgelse og anklage mod økonom og statsmand Lyndon LaRouche i 1980’erne, hvor LaRouche havde opnået international respekt og indflydelse, og [opbygget] en stærk amerikansk græsrods-bevægelse.
LaRouche-bevægelsen af i dag står således i en enestående position til at ødelægge dette meget sårbare rigsrets-kupforsøg, sideløbende med indsatsen for renselse af Larouches navn. Hvis kuppet afværges, vil vi kunne se, at Kongressen bliver presset hårdt fra flere sider for at finansiere præsident Trumps Månen- Mars vision, som blev mødt med amerikanernes begejstring og optimisme.




Effekten af en rapport og LaRouche’s metode mod 130 globale banker

Den 23. september (EIRNS) – Ved en ekstraordinær indsats, herunder den hastige indsamling af midler til udgivelse, udgives EIR-rapporten “CO2 reduktion er en massemordspolitik — Skabt af London og Wall Street”, tids nok til at gøre det muligt for Lyndon LaRouche’s bevægelse at besejre de globale bankers kurs mod diktatur. Læs, udskriv og cirkulér denne rapport.

I New York i søndags, lige før FNs ”klimatopmøde”, kom verdens mægtigste bankfolk ud for at bekendtgøre City of London og Wall Street -finansieringsselskabers ejerskabet af bevægelsen “vedvarende grøn energi”, der angiveligt er en reaktion på en “klimatisk nødsituation”. Disse 130 banker erklærede, at “principperne for ansvarlig bankvirksomhed” nu var principperne i Paris klimaaftale – drastisk reduktion og planlagt eliminering af fossil brændstofproduktion og industri over hele verden, håndhævet af den finansielle sektors tilbagetrækning af investeringer. Disse globale banker, ledet af Bank of Englands guvernør Mark Carneys Green Finance Initiative, har planlagt dette siden Parisaftalen i 2015.

Hvad skyldes så alle børnenes klimakorstoge? De psykedeliske Extinction Rebellions, fredagens lukninger af skoler, Greenpeace-sabotører, Greta Thunbergs hadprædikener mod forældre og sågar babyer? De vil forsøge at gennemtvinge den fysiske lukning af industri og støtte den massive beskatning af befolkninger, for at fremtvinge en tilbagevenden til “grønne” energiteknologier. Det, disse banker håber kan være deres nye aftale, er det nye grønne økonomiske molboarbejde, der kan skaffe endnu en runde med kæmpe skatteyderbetalte profitter.

Wall Street, London og Frankfurts banker står over for endnu en enorm gældsbyrde, der denne gang er centreret i selskabsgæld, men endnu værre end i 2008. De tror, at anti-industri, anti-befolkning og “øko”-fascisme er deres udvej.

Lyndon LaRouche gennemskuede disse operationer, som ingen andre har eller kan, startende for 50 år siden, da han gik til modangreb på Romklubbens falske “Grænser for Vækst” og ødelagde det med sin bog fra 1983, “Der er ingen grænser for vækst”. Selvfølgelig, de få nationalistiske ledere som præsident Donald Trump og premierminister Narendra Modi, der mødte hinanden i denne weekend, er modstandere af disse antiindustrielle bankers diktatur. Det samme gælder for Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin og Kinas præsident Xi Jinping. Men LaRouche viede sit liv til at afsløre britisk “økologisme” som racehygiejnisk og bekæmpe det med programmer for langsigtet videnskabelig og teknologisk fremskridt, ført an af rumforskning og fusionskraftudvikling.

Den nye 64-siders EIR-rapport er et våben, der repræsenterer LaRouche’s metode. ”Brug det til det yderste”, som Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, sagde i dag, og besejr disse banker. Bryd dem op ved at genindføre Glass-Steagall bankopdelingen for at beskytte industrien og de nationale befolkninger mod økonomisk sammenbrud.

LaRouche forudsagde, at lederne af disse fire magter, enestående, kunne besejre det Britiske Imperium, hvis de samarbejder i rummet, i plasmateknologier, for højteknologisk udvikling af alle nationer. Hvis de skal gøre det, skal LaRouche posthumt renses for FBIs falske retsforfølgning ved at “befri” hans økonomiske politik og hans ideer.

Det disse ledere har brug for, er at rense LaRouche i 2020 og være på Månen i 2024!

Link til rapporten (på engelsk):

https://larouchepub.com/special_report/2019/2019-eir-special-report-co2-redux-is-murder.pdf




NYHEDSORIENTERING AUGUST 2019: Samarbejde om en Måne-Mars-mission eller krig?
plus dokumentation

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Indhold:
Et nyt kapitel for menneskeheden:
Principper for en holdbar fremtid, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

Grønland: Geopolitisk kamplads eller omdrejningspunkt for økonomisk og videnskabeligt samarbejde, af Tom Gillesberg
Vi forpligter os til Måne-Mars-missionen:
Schiller Institut underskriftsindsamling
Homo sapiens extraterrestris: Mennesket er et rumvæsen
Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale på 50-årsdagen for månelandingen ved konferencen: Apollo + 50:
En dialog mellem kulturer om, hvordan man udvikler befolkningen og den produktive arbejdsstyrke i løbet af Jordens næste 50 år.
Menneskehedens udenjordiske forpligtelse: citater fra Krafft Ehricke, Lyndon LaRouche, Tom Gillesberg, John F. Kennedy, Harrison Schmitt
Frontalt angreb på vores levestandard:
Multimilliardærer finansierer ’Klimabeskyttere’! af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

————————————

Links til yderligere dokumentation refereret til i nyhedsbrevet:

Hæfte: We commit to the Moon-Mars mission: the true spark for changing the culture, LaRouchePAC 2019:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Lyndon LaRouche:

  1. Video: The Woman on Mars, 1988

Part 1:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Part 2:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Krafft Ehricke:

  1. Forskellige artikler på Schiller Instituttets hjemmeside
  2. In celebration of Krafft Ehricke’s 100th birthday, 2017

John F. Kennedy:

  1. Video: JFK’s full speech about space at Rice University.

Harrison Schmidt:

  1. Mining the Moon, 2005
  2. Will the United States join the Helium-3 fusion revolution?, 2014



Apollo + 50: Optimisme over den “uprøvede mission” der kan ændre verden

Den 22. juli (EIRNS) – Efter at have deltaget i og udbredt den verdensomspændende bølge af “festligheder” for månelandingens 50-årsdag, opsendte Indien i dag et rumfartøj og et køretøj, der sigter mod Månens aldrig udforskede Sydpol. Dette kom en dag efter, at Rusland sendte tre internationale astronauter til Den Internationale Rumstation, og mens Kinas Chang’e-4 kørte rundt på Månens fjerne side. Amerikanske og europæiske rumfartsagenturer har fastlagt kredsløbet, som en ny international rumstation skal have omkring Månen som forberedelse til landsætningen af astronauter på dens overflade i 2024. Titusinder af amerikanere, hvoraf de fleste ikke levede dengang, sad tæt i Washingtons National Mall for at se rejsen fra 1969 genskabt og skildringen af den kommende rumrejse.

Jubilæet for 20. juli 1969 måtte komme. Men til vores store held er det kommet nu, hvor tiden med politisk forsømmelse af det menneskelige behov for rumfart er afsluttet, på grund af dynamikken i de nye kinesiske og indiske programmer samt præsident Donald Trumps inspirerende bekræftelse af Amerikas mission om at være ledende i rummet. Andre ledere, herunder den spanske videnskabsminister Pedro Duque, reagerer ligeså. Det er det store øjeblik, som Lyndon LaRouche tilstræbte i årtier, efter at lederne havde forladt rummet, som i hans smukke “The Woman on Mars”-film fra 1988. Som Schiller Instituttets præsident Helga Zepp-LaRouche fortalte sine europæiske kolleger i dag, er forudsætningen for at løse ethvert problem et optimistisk syn på menneskeheden, og hvad er mere optimistisk end visionen om, at mennesker forlader Jorden for at udforske – og en dag at leve i – verdener hinsides.

Lynprogrammer, der nu er iværksat for at beherske fusionsenergi, plasmateknologier, rumrejser over store afstande og undersøgelser af universet – disse kan starte en ny revolution inden for menneskelig produktivitet, teknologi og industri, og udryddelse af fattigdom. Den revolutionerende “videnskabelige drivkraft” blev på glimrende vis fremmanet i præsident John F. Kennedys tale den 12. september 1962 på Rice Universitetet, hvor han bekendtgjorde Apollo-Måne-landingsmissionen, der igen blev hørt af den enorme folkemængde på Washington Mall den 20. juli:
”Men hvis jeg skulle fortælle Jer, mine medborgere, at vi vil sende en kæmpestor raket til Månen, 240.000 kilometer væk fra kontrolstationen i Houston, der er mere end 300 meter høj, denne fodboldbanes længde, lavet af nye metallegeringer, hvoraf nogle endnu ikke er opfundet; i stand til at modstå varme og belastninger mange gange større end nogensinde før oplevet, udstyret med en præcision der er bedre end det fineste ur, som bærer alt det udstyr, der er nødvendigt til fremdrivning, styring, kontrol, kommunikation, mad og overlevelse, på en uforsøgt mission, til et ukendt himmellegeme, og derefter returnere sikkert til Jorden ved at vende tilbage til atmosfæren med hastigheder på over 40.000 km i timen, hvilket forårsager varme som omkring halvdelen af solens temperatur – næsten lige så varmt som det er her i dag – at gøre alt dette, og gøre det rigtigt, og gøre det først, før dette årti er omme – så må vi være dristige.”

Lad ingen hævde, at “redde planeten fra menneskelig aktivitet” er en dristig mission – at insistere på at vende tilbage til teknologier, der allerede i årtier har været kendt som dyre tilbageslag til menneskets fortid. Sådanne “missioner” er drevet af den pessimisme, endda fortvivlelse, som de skaber. De ægte “videnskabsorienterede missioner” er dem, der vender tilbage og udvikler Månen og tager til Mars og videre ud, ved hjælp af den fusionskraft, der oplyser Solen og stjernerne.

 




Den unipolære verden er ved at gå i opløsning;
bring verden sammen gennem menneskehedens mission i rummet.

Den 17. juli (EIRNS) – På næsten alle fronter er paradigmet for en unipolær verden, der bygger på begrebet om et imperium, ved at gå i opløsning, mens et nyt paradigme af suveræne nationer, der samarbejder om udviklingen af hele menneskehedens produktive kræfter, som spreder sig fra Asien gennem ideen om den Nye Silkevej. Selv lederne af det døende finansielle imperium ser skriften på væggen: Den franske finansminister, Bruno Le Maire, der talte i dag ved en konference for lederne af IMF, Verdensbanken og den Europæiske Centralbank for at mindes 75-årsdagen for Bretton Woods-Systemet, sagde følgende: “Bretton Woods, som vi kender det, har nået sine grænser… medmindre vi formår at genopfinde Bretton Woods, kan den Nye Silkevej blive den nye verdensorden.”

Sandt nok. Men Le Maires opfattelse af at et sådant nyt paradigme er en trussel mod den vestlige verden er nonsens. Det begreb, som Franklin Roosevelt forestillede sig på Bretton Woods-konferencen i 1944, hvor Roosevelts “hamiltoniske” vision blev vedtaget frem for det Britiske Imperiums repræsentant John Maynard Keynes’, er systematisk blevet undergravet af det britiske “frihandels”-dogme og omdannelsen af det regulerede finanssystem til uhæmmet spekulation i tiden efter Glass-Steagall. Den igangværende opløsning af Deutsche Bank er et af tegnene på det hastige sammenbrud af den “billioner af dollar store” boble af derivater og gearede lån, der nu hænger over det vestlige finansielle imperium.

Det nuværende Bretton Woods-spøgelse er færdigt. Det kan ikke reformeres, men stedes til hvile gennem en total reorganisering af verdens finansielle system, som skitseret af Lyndon LaRouche for længe siden, med den enorme vækst og udviklingsproces, skabt af Bæltet & Vejen som udgangspunkt for samarbejde mellem Kina, Rusland, Indien, USA og andre i et helt nyt system. Den nuværende bølge af kulturel optimisme, skabt af 50-årsdagen for menneskets heroiske landing på Månen på lørdag, og den modige erklæring fra præsident Trump og hans NASA-direktør, Jim Bridenstine, om at en mand og en kvinde vil vende tilbage til Månen inden for fem år, og at vi vil blive på Månen som en base for at nå Mars og hinsides – denne bølge af optimisme må blive den kanal, gennem hvilken verdens folk genvinder deres følelse af en fælles menneskehed.

Tusindvis af begivenheder finder sted rundt om i verden i denne uge til ære for den store præstation for 50 år siden, og inspirerer folk og nationer til at slutte sig sammen om det der virkelig forener hele menneskeheden – den “udenjordiske forpligtelse”, at menneskeheden, og menneskeheden alene, kan forestille sig et univers med 2 billioner galakser, og forestille sig en fremtid hvor menneskeheden virkelig er udødelig, og bringer herredømme over stadig større dele af universet i løbet af de næste tusinder af år. Som LaRouche sagde i 1986: “Hvad er den gode persons ønske? Hvad, udover at opdage skabelsens love mindre ufuldendte, med det mål at vores viden som vejledning for vores praksis afviger mindre fra Skaberens vilje, som udtrykt i den lovmæssige orden i dette univers. Hvem kan blive god, hvem længes ikke efter at komme overens med Skaberen og på den måde mindske ufuldkommenheden i ens egen forståelse af den lovmæssige orden i skabelsen?

I dag mødtes LaRouchePAC-organisatorer foran den amerikanske Kongres for at kræve, at LaRouches navn bliver renset, for at hans dybtgående ideer kan blive formidlet til de mennesker der lever i dag, som en nødvendig forudsætning for at klare den store udfordring med at forberede menneskeheden til den forestående opgave, som illustreret af Måne-Mars-missionen. Megen morskab kom fra at gøre grin med den skøre prins Charles, der for nylig advarede om, at verden ikke kan overleve, hvis vi ikke stopper kulstofudledninger inden for 18 måneder. En organisator spurgte de underholdte og fornøjede forbipasserende: “Hvor mange vindmøller skal der til for at flyve til Månen?” Lederne af den psykotiske miljøplan i Kongressen, “Green New Deal”, (nu kendt som “Apokalypsens fire Damer”) er blot marionetter for den britiske kongefamilie og deres håndlangere, som Al Gore og George Soros, der forsøger at redde deres bankerotte finanssystem gennem nedskæringer, affolkning og krig.

Deltag i Schiller Instituttets fejring af månelandingen lørdag den 20. juli kl. 19.00, på https://youtu.be/6G_mx9ix68I under overskriften: “Menneskehedens fremtid må bestemme vores nutid – en dialog mellem kulturer om, hvordan man udvikler befolkningen og de produktive kræfter for Jordens næste halvtreds år.”

 




NYHEDSORIENTERING JUNI 2019:
Rens Lyndon LaRouches navn for at forhindre krig

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

Her er mere af Helga Zepp-LaRouches webcast fra side 2.

Renselse af Lyndon LaRouche er afgørende for at stoppe det Britiske Imperiums fremstød imod 3. Verdenskrig

Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 21. juni 2019

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Goddag! Jeg er Harley Schlanger fra Schiller Instituttet, og jeg vil gerne byde dig velkommen til denne uges webcast. Det er den 21. juni 2019. Vi taler med Helga Zepp-LaRouche, grundlægger af, og præsident for, Schiller Instituttet.

Dette er et utroligt historisk øjeblik. Der er en uge til G20-topmødet i Osaka, Japan, hvor der er potentiale for et historisk vendepunkt omkring ideen om en fire-magts-aftale om etablering af et nyt finansielt system – et ‘Ny Bretton Woods’ – en idé som Lyndon LaRouche fremsatte for næsten to årtier siden. Samtidig kommer der en utrolig krigsmobilisering fra krigspartiet, som forsøger at forsvare et bankerot system.

Men jeg synes at vi, for at starte diskussionen, virkelig skal tage fat på spørgsmålet om LaRouches frifindelse, og det initiativ der er blevet taget af LaRouche PAC og Schiller Instituttet med frigivelsen af to nye videoer; den ene hedder “LaRouche-sagen: Robert Muellers første Lejemord”; den anden er en video om mindearrangementet, der fandt sted i New York City for to uger siden. Så, Helga, vil du ikke give os en fornemmelse af mobiliseringen, der er i gang omkring frifindelsen, og betydningen af at disse to videoer bliver udgivet, rent faktisk, i dag?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: For mange mennesker vildet sikkert ikke være indlysende, men hvis Lyndon LaRouchesnavn ikke renses, tror jeg ikke, at vi kan stoppe de nuværendetrommehvirvler for Tredje Verdenskrig. At rense hans navn ogneutralisere den krigsmaskine, som driver verden mod TredjeVerdenskrig, er en og samme ting. For det er netop det apparat,der retsforfulgte min mand på trods af, at han var uskyldig i alleanklager, som nu driver verden til randen af udryddelse.I dag har vi, på samme tidspunkt i mange lande rundt om iverden, søsat en international operation med udgivelsen, i sær-deleshed, af dokumentarfilmen »The LaRouche Case (LaRou-che-sagen)«. Jeg vil opfordre alle seere, alle Jer som ser dette pro-gram, til straks at gå på vores hjemmeside, downloade videoen ogse den; send linket til enhver mulig kontakt, I har – e-mail lister,sociale medier, bare nogen I kender – og hjælp os med at sprededette internationalt (se: www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=27712).

Denne video, som viser den fuldstændig uhørte bøjning afloven i sagen mod Lyndon LaRouche, hvor vi har de absolut autoritative stemmer fra hans tidligere advokat, Odin Anderson,og USA’s forhenværende justitsminister Ramsey Clark, der kommer ind på årsagerne til, at LaRouche-sagen er det mest utrolige tilfælde af bøjning af loven og ødelæggelse af det amerikanske retssystem i USA’s historie. Nu er det vores mål at få disse videoer ud overalt, og få handlet på dem; hvilket betyder, at vi har brug for at rense LaRouches navn. Grunden til at dette er så absolut vigtigt er, at det efter min og mine kollegers bedste dømmekraft, er den eneste måde hvorpå Tredje Verdenskrig kan stoppes. Årsagen er meget enkel. Det apparat, der retsforfulgte min mand i 1980’erne, og fortsatte med det i 1990’erne og 2000’erne, er den samme maskine, som lige nu er den drivende kraft bag konfrontationen med Rusland og Kina. Blot for at nævne, hvor absolut påtrængende det er, og hvor tæt vi er på, hvad der kunne blive Tredje Verdenskrig, er det faktum, at ifølge et tweet af Trump, var ordren til at an-gribe Iran – efter at de skød den amerikanske drone ned – allerede givet; og 10 minutter før angrebet, der havde tre steder i Iran som mål, aflyste Trump angrebet. Ifølge hans eget tweet, spurgte han de relevante militære kommandanter, hvor mange dødsfald et sådant angreb på Iran ville have, og de sagde omkring 150. Så sagde han: »Dette er ude af proportion«, og han aflyste angrebet. Se, dette er en utrolig historie, for hvis det var sket, var vi måske på vej til Tredje Verdenskrig; og dette er ikke nogen overdrivelse.Trommehvirvlerne for krig var absolut utrolige. Tag blot et par skridt tilbage. Man havde artiklen i New York Times, der sagde, at de amerikanske sikkerhedsstyrker – Pentagon og såvidere – har optrappet cyber-angrebene mod Rusland bag ryggen på Trump, hvilket Trump kaldte forræderi. Så havde man historien om at det angiveligt var den iranske Revolutionsgarde, der stod bag angrebet på de to olietankskibe i Oman-bugten. Dette er efter al sandsynlighed endnu en af disse falske nyheder, en falsk flagoperation. Og det peger på det faktum,at man i USA lige nu har en dobbelt magtsituation.Som du nævnte, eller som vi vil diskutere mere, sker det en uge før G20-mødet, hvor, hvis dette blæses op, den sidste chance for fred kan gå tabt. Og på den anden side har man potentialet for at Trump mødes med Putin og Xi Jinping i særdeleshed og finder en løsning på de mange problemer i denne verden. Så vi er i en nedtælling.Men som jeg sagde, er rensning af Lyndon LaRouches navn helt afgørende; fordi den eneste måde man kan afvæbne ogneutralisere krigspartiet i USA er at gøre denne sag til det mest prominente problem. Fordi det peger på sammenhængen mellem krigspartiet i dag og det apparat som er ansvarlig for mørklægningen af 11. september samt »Russiagate«, og folk er nødt til at forstå denne forbindelse.

Schlanger: Videoen er tilgængelig med et link på denne hjemmeside, og den er også tilgængelig på LaRouche PAC [Https://action.larouchepac.com/exonerate]. Helga, hvad der står klart efter at have set denne video og talt med folk om det er, at selvom høringerne er fra 1995 eller 1996 – mere end to årtier gamle – er emnerne de samme, som det der sker i dag. Det er forbløffende, vil du ikke sige det?

Zepp-LaRouche: Ja, jeg mener at tribunalet, der fandt sted i 1995, hvor mange internationale VIP’er, amerikanske lovgivere gennemgik sagen og hørte vidnesbyrd fra Odin Anderson og Ramsey Clark; jeg synes at det gør det helt klart, at der må rådes bod på denne, min mands sag.

Jeg vil stærkt tilskynde folk til at se videoen om Lyndon LaRouches sag sammen med den, ganske vist, lange video af mindearrangementet, fordi man bør se de to ting sammen. Retsforfølgelsen og bagvaskelsen af min mand er i fuldstændig modstrid til hans virkelige liv og livsværk, hvilket man får et glimt af i den meget smukke video om mindehøjtideligheden. Det er i virkeligheden nøglebudskabet, som skal ud til verden. Som jeg sagde i tribunalet, var uretten mod Lyndon LaRouche ikke alene det, at han blev sat uskyldigt i fængsel; men hvad der så at sige også blev sat i fængsel, var hele tankegodset af hans ideer og løsninger til verdens kriser, og dette er endnu mere påtrængende i dag. Så igen beder jeg om, at man tager sig tid; se disse to videoer [https://action.larouchepac.com/exoneate]. Og hjælp os så med at få dem rundt om kloden ad hvilken som helst kanal man overhovedet kan, fordi det er nøglen til at løse faren for krig. Så det er min indtrængende appel til Jer alle.

Schlanger: Se, som du sagde, kunne vi have været i 3. Verdenskrig fra i aftes. Alt imens det blev undgået, fortsætter presset for denne konfrontation fra krigspartiet. Ser du nogen ændring i det, som følge af præsident Trumps beslutning om at holde sig tilbage?

Zepp-LaRouche: Det må tiden vise. Jeg synes, det er en hel utrolig demonstration af, at vi faktisk har en dobbelt magtsituation i USA. Det er blevet et emne for offentlig diskussion. Bare for at gennemgå det igen, fordi især vores internationale seere måske ikke har bemærket det på samme måde, men det faktum, at New York Times havde en artikel, i hvilken de pralede af, og de henviste til, at John Bolton sagde dette på et seminar afholdt af Wall Street Journal for et par dage siden, at USA’s sikkerhedsstyrker, efterretningstjenesten, Pentagon, optrappede den allerede eksisterende cyber-krigsførelse, som oprindeligt blev bestilt af Obama; at de optrappede dette og gik efter el-nettet i Rusland. Nu er dette ikke nogen lille affære, for naturligvis forsyner el-nettet i ethvert land energi til hospitaler, til militærkommandoen og kontrol, til vandforsyninger; så det må betragtes som en krigshandling.

Trump tweetede straks og sagde, at dette var forræderi. Han sagde også, at det på eller anden måde var falske nyheder, når hele historien blev lækket på denne måde. For eksempel påpegede professor Stephen Cohen, som er en meget kendt Rusland-analytiker i USA, det faktum, at {New York Times} efter al sandsynlighed lækkede denne historie i det øjemed at ødelægge potentialet for et topmøde mellem Trump og Putin på det kommende G20-topmøde; ligesom medierne har gjort det før ved mangfoldige lejligheder. Hver gang der er et potentiale for en løsning, lækker de noget, eller gør noget uhyrligt for at sabotere et sådant topmøde. Så dette er én ting; og det rejser helt åbenbart spørgsmålet om, at hvis præsidenten ikke er informeret, hvem er det så, der styrer USA? Det er et spørgsmål, der bliver stillet af mange menneske rundt om i verden; mennesker der bemærker det faktum, at Trump er en ting – som demonstreret af at han holdt angrebet mod Iran tilbage – men at sådanne medlemmer af hans kabinet som Bolton, Pompeo og andre, klart er ‘noget andet’. Så det er ikke klart, hvem der giver ordrerne.

Det samme synes at være sket i tilfældet med Iran – hvor, du ved, denne historie er utrolig. Iranerne, som svar på beskyldningen om at de var ansvarlige for angrebet på de to olietankskibe – for hvilket der ikke er noget bevis; flere regeringer, herunder den tyske og japanske regering, har krævet beviser, fordi denne video som Pompeo udsendte, klart ikke udgør noget bevis. Så nedskød iranerne en drone. USA sagde, at denne drone var i internationalt farvand, men iranerne har nu udgivet en video der viser, at ikke kun dronen, men også et amerikansk fly lettede fra De Forenede Arabiske Emirater, gik ind i Oman-bugten, vendte tilbage og kom derefter ind i, ikke alene internationalt farvand, men iransk territorium. Ifølge de iranske militærkommandanter sendte de flere advarsler om, at disse to amerikanske fartøjer – drone og fly – var kommet ind i iransk territorium uden at få nogen respons. Derefter nedskød iranerne dronen, men ikke flyet, som en advarsel til USA.

Dette er absolut – hvem vågner ikke op og indser, at vi er på randen af Tredje Verdenskrig? – En sådan person befinder sig ikke virkelighedens verden. Vi er tættere på Tredje Verdenskrig end på noget andet tidspunkt – jeg vil sige end på noget tidspunkt i hele efterkrigstiden. Denne fare er endnu ikke drevet over. Jeg synes det er en rigtig god ting, at Trump greb ind i sidste øjeblik, men det var 10 minutter før angrebet! Folk bør virkelig indse, at dette ikke er nogen vittighed. Men igen, på kort sigt er den eneste måde at respondere på at opretholde processen for at få renset Lyndon LaRouche. Hvis man vil stoppe Tredje Verdenskrig, så hjælp os med at få frifindelsen af LaRouche på dagsordenen internationalt; men i særdeleshed i forhold til præsident Trump, som har en meget god grund til at gøre det, fordi det ville tage sigte mod de samme kræfter som står bag ‘Russiagate’, og dem der gør det vanskeligt for ham at gennemføre hans hensigter med hensyn til at forbedre forholdet til Rusland og Kina.

Schlanger: Helga, med korruptionen af medierne i USA, hvor disse ting ikke på nogen måde dækkes i detaljer eller selv i virkeligheden, synes russerne at være mere direkte end nogensinde før i at advare om krigsfaren. Hvad kan du sige om det, som kan hjælpe med at vække folk op til at indse, hvor tæt vi er på denne situation?

Zepp-LaRouche: Præsident Putin advarer om, at et angreb på Iran vil have katastrofale konsekvenser. Han sagde også – umiddelbart efter St. Petersburg International Economic Forum – i et interview til nyhedsbureauet Mir, at situationen mellem USA og Rusland forværres for hver time der går. Jeg synes det er en fair beskrivelse, i betragtning af hvad der er blevet offentliggjort netop nu – nemlig at ‘The Joint Chiefs of Staff’ (den amerikanske overkommando for hæren, flåden og luftvåbnet, red.) for første gang i flere år har offentliggjort deres atomstrategi. Lad mig læse et citat for dig, der gør det helt klart. Dette er en gennemgang af den atomstrategi, planlægning, målsøgning, kommando og kontrol, som omfatter ideen om brug af kernevåben i enhver konfrontation. Citatet, som jeg vil læse for dig er:

“Brugen af atomvåben kunne skabe betingelser for afgørende resultater og genoprettelse af strategisk stabilitet. Specifikt vil brugen af et atomvåben grundlæggende ændre omfanget af et slag, og skabe betingelser der påvirker hvordan kommandører vil få overhånden i en konflikt. “[Fælles publikation 3-72, Atomoperationer]

Dette er utroligt! Det er ideen om, at man kan bruge et enkelt atomvåben. Som om mange eksperter, som for eksempel Ted Postol, ikke har skrevet lange og meget overbevisende artikler om, at det ligger i atomvåbnenes karakter, at det ligger i logikken af den slags våbensystemer, at når man en gang er startet på at bruge et sådant våben, vil de alle blive brugt. Det ville med al sandsynlighed betyde udryddelsen af vores civilisation.

Denne rapport var offentliggjort i en uge, og blev derefter pludseligt trukket tilbage, og det blev kun genopslået på initiativ af ‘Føderationen af Amerikanske Videnskabsfolk’, der ønskede at påpege denne doktrins faktum. Jeg tror, at alt skal ses i sammenhæng, og det understreger den absolutte nødvendighed af at neutralisere krigsfraktionen; hvis gruppering udtrykkeligt indbefatter briterne, om hvem Craig Murray, den tidligere britiske ambassadør, sagde, at for det britiske politiske system, regering og medier, er forskellen mellem fiktion og sandhed helt udvisket; og det burde vække alvorlig bekymring hos alle, fordi den britiske rolle i at anstifte alt dette er helt afgørende.

Det viser med al ønskelig tydelighed, at vi må ændre paradigmet; at krigsfraktionen skal stoppes; at Trump må sættes i stand til at gennemføre sine intentioner om at forbedre relationerne med Rusland og Kina, som han mange gange har sagt. Det er i virkeligheden dette, som jeg beder Jer, seerne, om at hjælpe os med at kommunikere ud: Fordi jeg tænker, at faren er virkelig som den var det i 1914. Uden en dybtgående mobilisering af mennesker over hele kloden, men især i Vesten, i Europa og USA, er vi i stor fare for – som søvngængere – at gå ind i en ny krig, præcis som det skete i 1914. Så kom med i vores mobilisering for at forhindre netop dette.

Schlanger: Hvis vi går tilbage til spørgsmålet om rensning af Lyndon LaRouches navn, så var det netop under lignende omstændigheder i slutningen af 1970’erne under Carter Administration, med galninge som Brzezinski og andre, der pressede på for krig, at Lyndon LaRouche intervenerede med SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative), og operationen imod ham kom som en konsekvens af Ronald Reagans vedtagelse af hans politik. Jeg synes, at dette er en anden parallel, der er ganske slående for at få folk til at forstå, hvorfor angrebet i dag er en parallel til, hvad der blev gjort imod Lyn i 1980’erne.

Zepp-LaRouche: Den eneste måde, hvorpå man i dette sene stadium af det strategisk spil, så at sige, kan komme ud af denne situation, ville være den slags samarbejde mellem – ikke kun USA og Rusland, som min mand i sin tid foreslog det mellem USA og Sovjetunionen – men som i særdeleshed også omfatter Kina og Indien. Fordi hans argument var, at der er behov for [enighed mellem] de fire mest magtfulde lande i verden for at afslutte det britiske system af imperialistisk kontrol over verden. Dette er yderst vigtigt. Det ville dybest set betyde, at der under G20-mødet forhåbentligt vil finde et topmøde sted, som der er planer for; men vær på tæerne, for i ugen op til G20-topmødet må vi forvente en indsats for at destabilisere dette potentiale indtil sidste øjeblik; som vi netop har set det med dette aflyste angreb imod Iran. Forhåbentlig kommer det til et topmøde mellem præsident Trump og Xi Jinping, og det ville ikke alene [kunne] afslutte handelskrigen, men barsle med en omfattende aftale. skulle forhåbentlig også komme et topmøde mellem Trump og Putin. Og hvis det skulle gå rigtig godt, ville der være et topmøde mellem de fire ledere. Husk på, at efter St. Petersborgs Internationale Økonomiske Forum og SCO’s [Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisation] topmøde i Bishkek et par dage senere, mødtes de tre ledere – Putin, Xi Jinping og Modi – allerede i Bishkek; og sagde at de ville mødes igen i Osaka på G20-mødet.

Så det bedste der kunne ske ville være, at de inviterer præsident Trump til at deltage i dette topmøde, og at Trump accepterer det. Fordi medmindre der er enighed om at tage fat på det meget presserende spørgsmål om det truende sammenbrud af det finansielle system, og en overgang til en Ny Bretton Woods-aftale, som især ville tage sig af det nødvendige kreditsystem til industrialisering af udviklingslandene, samt afslutte det system med kasino-økonomi, som vi har nu, ved at etablere et nyt kreditsystem og indføre et nyt paradigme. Jeg tror vi vil diskutere spørgsmålet om et nyt paradigme lidt mere, men der er brug for en helt anden tænkning om hvordan disse strategiske spørgsmål gribes an, for hvis vi forbliver indenfor området af geopolitik, som i forestillingen om at Europa skal blive en stærk, forenet bastion mod andre stærke kræfter – USA, Rusland, Kina; og hvis USA mener, at Kina og Kinas fremgang må inddæmmes – hvis man bliver hængende i den slags tænkning, så er det kun et spørgsmål om tid, før hele denne strategiske situationen vil gå helt grassat og komme ude af kontrol. Så lad os mobilisere for at sætte spørgsmålet om en ‘fire-magts-aftale’ for G20 på dagsordenen, og hjælp os med at mobilisere for det, fordi dette kan være den sidste chance for at gøre det. Fordi det står meget klart, at vi både strategisk, militært, men også med hensyn til den økonomiske situation sidder på en krudttønde. Derfor har vi brug for en akut ændring i hele tilgangen…

Zepp-LaRouche: Folk husker muligvis Martins Niemöller ord, som lød: Først kommer de efter dine naboer, så kommer de efter sigøjnerne, og så kommer de efter jøderne. Ja, man kan blot tilføje: “De er allerede kommet efter Lyndon LaRouche; de kom efter USA’s præsident; og nu må du hellere hjælpe os med at ændre hele denne dynamik”. Så bring venligst disse videoer rundt, og studér dem. Mange mennesker har været bange for at gå ud med ideen om at LaRouche repræsenterede magtfulde begreber, som er nødvendige for at løse verdens kriser. Hele retsforfølgelsen blev gjort med kun ét formål: At forgifte brønden, at gøre folk bange. Men at overvinde frygten, lige nu, for at slutte sig til Lyndon LaRouche og den bevægelse han skabte, er hvad der gør forskellen mellem krig og fred. Så gå med i vores mobilisering ….

 




Se foredragsrækken om LaRouches liv: Jordens sidste 50 år og Jordens næste 50 år

# 1: Oversigt: Den enkeltes rolle i historien. Klik her.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche. En person kan ændre historien, og den mest magtfulde kraft i historien er ikke våben, penge eller hære: det er ideer. Lyndon LaRouche udnyttede denne indsigt og brugte den til at ændre verden. I dag ses frugterne af hans årtier lange organisering, sammen med mange kolleger og hans kone Helga i potentialet for internationalt samarbejde, som eksemplificeret af det kinesiske Bælte- og Vejinitiativ. For at undgå den truende mørke tidsalder, som atomkonflikten mellem USA og Rusland udgør, er det vigtigt med en forståelse af den nødvendige renæssance.

# 2: LaRouches ufuldendte krig for en ny økonomisk verdensorden. Klik her.
Dennis Small. Historien om kampen for en retfærdig, ny økonomisk verdensorden (NWEO), baseret på nord-syd-samarbejde og udvikling, er et perfekt eksempel på hvordan ideer, og faktisk udelukkende ideer, skaber historien. De ideer, omkring hvilke de første kampe for en NWEO blev udkæmpet, især i perioden 1979-1983, og begrebet om hvordan man fører denne krig, blev udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche.

Han påviste, at denne politik ville være til gavn for både nord og syd. Hans metode var at fremlægge de underliggende filosofiske begreber og det videnskabelige fysisk-økonomiske grundlag for at bevise, at en sådan tilgang rent faktisk kan fungere. De politiske relationer mellem de store hovedpersoner i denne kamp, Mexicos José López Portillo og Indiens Indira Gandhi, blev også bevidst fremmet af LaRouche. Og da en flanke opstod, da Ronald Reagan overtog præsidentskabet i USA i januar 1981, kastede LaRouche sig over den for at bringe de kræfter, der rent faktisk kunne besejre fjenden og vinde den strategiske krig, ind i kampen. Dette er genstand for en lektion i uafsluttet krig.

#3: Lyndon LaRouches unikke bidrag til videnskaben om universel historie. Klik her.
Will Wertz. I et essay han skrev, som blev udgivet i foråret 1993 med titlen »Om Gud«, skrev han: »Hvis vi måler historien med standarden, at hver person er imago viva Dei, får vi en komplet anderledes opfattelse af historien, end det, som er beskrevet i vores tåbelige lærebøger fra universiteterne og lignende steder«. I et efterfølgende essay, udgivet i tidsskriftet Fidelio i efteråret 1993 med titlen »Historie som videnskab«, fortsatte Lyndon LaRouche: En rigoristisk definition af begrebet »historie« begynder med det faktum, at den fortsatte eksistens af den menneskelige art er styret af et princip, som ikke eksisterer for andre arter.«

#4 (18. maj): Italiensk Videnskab og Kultur. Klik her.
Liliana Gorini og John Sigerson. LaRouches ideer afspejler i Italien et fremskridt for den videnskabelige og kunstneriske revolution i det 15. århundredes florentinske renæssance. Dette fremskridt omfatter en tilbagevenden til en naturlig musikalsk stemning, hvilket Giuseppe Verdi krævede for mere end et århundrede siden; Italiens nylige skridt til at gennemføre LaRouches forslag om en Glass/Steagall-banklovgivning, en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons principper om økonomisk politik; og Italiens dristige beslutning om at tilslutte sig Kinas Bælte og Vejinitiativ for verdens udvikling.

Klassisk musik: Den tyske dirigent Furtwängler blev den ledende inspiration for LaRouches insisteren på at musik ikke udfoldes i lyd, men i det riemannske komplekse domæne.

5. Det amerikanske system, LaRouche-Riemannsk økonomi, og et Måne-Mars projekt. Klik her. Den findes nederste på siden.
Ben Deniston og Paul Gallagher. Den 23. marts 1983 traf præsident Reagan en beslutning – trods stærk modstand fra sine rådgivere – om at gøre LaRouches strategiske forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) til USA’s politik. Det var en del af LaRouches rumprojektforeslag for en ny æra af potentielt set ubegrænset fremskridt.

Alle kan også ses på LaRouchePAC’s hjemmeside. Klik her.




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

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

Læs også afskriftet (på engelsk) nedenunder.

Trailer:

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

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

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

The Case for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche 

June 21, 2019 

 

[music] 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

[from Oct. 6, 1986] 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Thank you. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Dear Attorney General Reno, 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The [inaudible 54:09] rocket docket. 

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

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

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

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

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

 

MANN:  The session will come to order. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that was essentially our commitment as an association. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

MANN:  Thank you. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[closing music] 

 




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 20. juni 2019:
Vil Trump samarbejde med Kina og Rusland ved G20
eller blive manipuleret ind i krig med Iran?
Se også 2. del inkl. diskussionen

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: 2. del:

Kommer senere. Der skal rettes op på et lyd problem. I middertid, kan slutning høres i lydfilen nedenfor, inkl. “Hvad er Schiller Instituttet?”. (begynd på 1 time 47 min.)

Lyd:

 




Russiagate-fupnummer kollapser. Bring USA, Rusland og Kina sammen nu
for at erstatte det Britiske Imperium for evigt

Den 22. maj (EIRNS) — Det russiske svindelnummer startede ikke med Obamas efterretningsholds forræderi rettet mod Donald Trump. Det begyndte i 2014, da det samme hold af korrupte efterretningsfolk, sammen med Obamas udenrigsministerium og deres følgesvend George Soros, bakket op af den falske nyhedspresse, iværksatte det Britiske komplot for at vælte den folkevalgte regering i Ukraine, ved åbent at støtte de neo-nazistiske bander, som udfører en voldelig “farve-revolution” mod regeringen i Kiev. Ved at tildele 5 milliarder $ til anti-russiske NGO’er, uddele små kager til hagekorsbærende bøller på Maidan-pladsen, gennemførte Obamas repræsentant, Victoria Nuland, og hendes ven Christopher Steele – den samme MI6-agent, der senere opdigtede det falske dossier om Trump – et kriminelt, voldelig kup, skød skylden på russerne, og igangsatte deres operation for en 3. verdenskrig.

Derefter opfangede kandidat Donald Trump stemningen fra en amerikansk befolkning, der afskyede den økonomiske nedgang, evindelige koloniale krigsførelse, den forsætlige overmedicinering af deres venner og børn, og kulturen af pessimisme og grimhed. Hans løfte om at genoprette det amerikanske system fandt genklang hos borgere, der havde oplevet 50 års organisering af LaRouche-bevægelsen, som både advarede om truslen om depression og krig under den britisk dominerede monetære og strategiske politik fra familien Bush og Obama, og samtidig fremsatte de nødvendige økonomiske, strategiske og kulturelle politikker for at opnå en ny, produktiv og fredelig verdensorden.

LaRouche, ene og alene, advarede om det onde i den grønne psykose, der forgiftede den historiske amerikanske optimisme. LaRouche alene identificerede det faktum, at “Dope, Incorporated” (A/S Narkotika –red.,) blev drevet af bankerne i London og Wall Street, de samme spekulative banker som organiserede og finansierede de endeløse krige, der krævedes af “det militær-industrielle kompleks”. LaRouche alene kæmpede for et Måne-Mars-projekt for at realisere menneskehedens “udenjordiske imperativ”. LaRouche alene fremsatte nødvendigheden af at gøre en ende på det Britiske Imperium, en gang for alle, med dets geopolitiske, dyriske syn på mennesket – intet mindre – og at dette udelukkende kunne opnås ved, at USA sluttede sig til Rusland, Kina og Indien, som et minimum, for at erstatte det fallerede britiske monetære system med et nyt kreditsystem, baseret på de hamiltoniske principper, der havde skabt det oprindelige amerikanske system. LaRouche alene foreslog “Den Nye Silkevej” for at forene øst og vest efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, som et middel til at afslutte geopolitikken for evigt og etablere en ny verdensorden baseret på suveræne stater viet til menneskehedens fælles mål.

Alt dette er nu inden for vores rækkevidde, og er blevet foreslået eller i det mindste antydet af præsident Trump. Hvis dette skal opnås, må det amerikanske folk indse, at forfølgelsen og retsforfølgningen af Lyndon LaRouche i 1980’erne, af de samme mennesker der udførte det fejlslagne kup mod præsident Trump, forhindrede denne politik i at blive gennemført dengang, før de sidste 30 års katastrofale degeneration.

LaRouches frifindelse af præsident Trump ville bringe denne sandhed frem for verden, og give præsidenten den offentlige og internationale støtte han behøver for at smide den britiske spændetrøje, der er pålagt af den korrupte Kongres, de falske nyhedsmedier, de neokonservative og de neoliberale. Tiden er knap. Tiden er inde. Potentialet for sejr har aldrig været større.

 




Hæfte: Genopret USA’s sjæl: Rens Lyndon LaRouches navn

To dele af følgende hæfte er oversat til dansk:

1. Underskriftindsamling: Rens Lyndon LaRouches navn
og få ham renset for den uretfærdige forfølgelse, domfældelse og
fængsling han var udsat for

2. Nekrolog: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1922-2019)

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Bøger af Lyndon LaRouche og hans medarbejdere,
som kan bestilles via Amazon eller Schiller Instituttet i Danmark

Her er en oversigt med nye og genudgivne bøger fra LaRouche-bevægelsen . Bøger markeret med et “*” er tilgængelige fra Amazons Print on Demand system. De andre bøger kan også bestilles gennem Amazon.com

Nogle af bøgerne kan bestilles direkte fra Schiller Instituttet i Danmark. Ring +45 53 57 00 51 for at høre, om vi har dem på lager.

 

A Fifty Year Development Policy for the Indian Pacific Ocean Basins, af Lyndon LaRouche

A Manual on the Rudiments of Tuning and Registration*

Against the Current!  A Critique of the Trade Policy of the German Realm from the Standpoint of Carey’s Researches*

Cold Fusion:  Challenge to U.S. Science Policy, af Lyndon LaRouche

Colonize Space:  Open the Age of Reason

Development Is The Name For Peace

Earth’s Next Fifty Years:  EIR Edition*, af Lyndon LaRouche

Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. I*

Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III*

Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. III*

Friedrich Schiller, Poet of Freedom, Vol. IV*

How The International Development Bank Will Work, af Lyndon LaRouche

How The Nation Was Won*

How We Got To The Moon (Amazon only)

Now, Are You Ready To Learn Economics?*, af Lyndon LaRouche

Poetry is the Science of Reason*, af Lyndon LaRouche og W. Allen Salisbury 

Reflections of an American Political Prisoner

Saint Augustine, Father of African and European Civilization

So You Wish To Learn All About Economics?*, af Lyndon LaRouche

Stop Club of Rome Genocide in Africa!*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The Case of Walter Lippmann*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The Civil War and the American System*

The Economics of the Noosphere*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The EIR’s Policy of Republican Grand Strategy of the United States*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The Four Powers*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The Hitler Book*

The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land Bridge

The Political Economy of the American Revolution

The Power of Reason 1988*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The Renaissance and the Idea of Progress

The Science of Christian Economics*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The Secrets Known Only to the Inner Elites*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The State of Our Union:  The End of our Delusion*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The Toynbee Factor in British Grand Strategy*, af Lyndon LaRouche

The U.S.-Russian Entente That Saved the Union*

The Vision of Hamilton*

There Are No Limits To Growth*, af Lyndon LaRouche

Toward a New Council of Florence*

Treason In America

Why Credit Can Be Greatly Expanded Without Adding To Inflation*, af Lyndon LaRouche




Frifindelse kan nu ændre alt

Den 25. marts (EIRNS) – Præsident Donald Trump kaldte korrekt “de retslige” begivenheder i den forløbne weekend for sin frifindelse, og det kan nu føre til meget dybtgående ændringer af den nationale og globale situation, der var ved at blive ekstremt farlig. Præsidentens personlige advokat, Rudy Giuliani, talte straks om at komme til “navnet på den person, der startede dette”. Vi ved, at den nu eksploderede “Russiagate” blev startet fra British General Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) signalefterretninger og MI6’s oversøiske efterretningstjeneste i 2015, et netværk der drives af Sir Richard Dearlove og Sir Andrew Wood; Præsidenten og hans advokat ved, at angrebet var britisk. Derfor vil en målrettet modforskning, der ledes fra Det Hvide Hus, sprænge det amerikansk-britiske “særlige forhold” og det Britiske Imperiums krigs- og koldkrigspolitik. Det ville afslutte den geopolitiske krigskonfrontationspolitik, som London har trukket Trump ind i gennem ubønhørlig, McCarthy-agtig “Russiagating” på skamfuld vis, anført på stedet af ledende Demokrater – de nye, sande “neo-konservative”.

Præsident Trump kunne forholdsvis blive meget friere til at føre den politik, som han har talt for, men er blevet forhindret i at udføre, og samarbejde med andre stormagter – især Rusland og Kina – for fred. Og måske endda for udviklingen af tidligere krigshærgede regioner. Det bedste er, at dette pludselige skifte er startet lige så internationalt, som det nye paradigme for økonomiske og videnskabelige fremskridt, der er indbegrebet af Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ fra store infrastrukturprojekter, som breder sig i Asien, Afrika og Latinamerika, og nu i Europa med den nye aftale mellem Italien og Kina.

Men LaRouche-bevægelsen – som først sporede dette skændige angreb på præsidentskabet til britisk efterretningstjeneste og bragte denne afgørende sandhed frem – må føre an med disse ændringer. Ikke alene har den kæmpet for de økonomiske forandringer til at gøre det muligt, begyndende med Glass/Steagall-bankseparation og hamiltonisk nationalkredit, samt for videnskabelige gennembrud i atomkraft og rumforskning snarere end “grøn” radikal pessimisme.

Mere om sagens kerne: Retsforfølgningen og mediernes forfølgelse af Lyndon LaRouche og hans bevægelse etablerede et USA med tre årtiers afindustrialisering, kulturel demoralisering og krig. De fratog USA det økonomiske og strategiske lederskab, som LaRouche repræsenterede med hensyn til de økonomiske sammenbrud han forudså så præcist, og berøvede dem for de store projekter og videnskabelige fremskridt han udarbejdede til så mange regioner i verden. Og dem der organiserede angrebene på ham var netop de bevægelser, som hans bevægelse nu har afsløret igen i “Russiagate” – britisk efterretningstjeneste, som frygtede hans trussel mod den kongelige families “øko-fascisme”; Anglofile her som Henry Kissinger, som i officielle organer krævede LaRouches retsforfølgning; Wall Street-bankfolk; frem for alt de nationale liberale medier. LaRouche må nu frifindes, som påkrævet af en national underskriftindsamling, for at frifinde og frigøre landet til hans ideer. Og det er Præsident Trump, der kunne være fri til at rense LaRouche og frigøre sig selv til at handle, som han havde til hensigt i Det Hvide Hus.

Schiller Instituttets præsident, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der talte til dem der organiserede denne indsats i dag, sagde: “Det må naturligvis føre til briterne. Ved Trump og Giuliani og disse folk, at det var den britiske efterretningstjeneste? Det kan du være 100% sikker på, at de gør. Men det er tydeligvis helt klart op til os at fremskynde denne kampagne, og den bedste måde at gøre det på, er at presse på for Lyns frifindelse, for, som vi mange gange har sagt, det var nøjagtigt det samme apparat, der nu er taget i at udføre et kupforsøg mod USA’s præsident – og mislykkes med det – som var bag retsforfølgelsen af Lyn og hans medarbejdere, og som stod bag mørklægningen af 11. september. Og disse mennesker skal stilles for retten, og Lyn skal også frifindes: Fordi så længe der er denne tilstand af, at der var nogen som helst legitimitet for hvad der blev gjort mod Lyn, vil folk være forhindret i at få adgang til hans ideer.”

 




NYHEDSORIENTERING MARTS 2019: Nekrolog, Lyndon LaRouche (1922 – 2019)

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Nekrolog: Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. (1922-2019)

Lyndon LaRouche døde den 12. februar 2019. Han stiftede en politisk bevægelse midt i 1960erne, som Schiller Instituttet, stiftet af LaRouches kone Helga Zepp-LaRouche i 1984, er en del af.

Den 21. februar (EIRNS) – Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr., den US-amerikanske økonom og statsmand, der fra 1957 til 2007 udarbejdede og fremlagde verdens mest nøjagtige række af økonomiske forudsigelser, sov stille ind tirsdag morgen den 12. februar 2019. Han udgav i sit lange virke tusindvis af artikler og mere end hundrede bøger, boglange hæfter samt strategiske studier. LaRouche var en af de mest kontroversielle politiske personer i hele USA’s historie.

En afgørende årsag dertil var, at LaRouche igen og igen stolt og energisk førte i alt otte præsidentkampagner til hvert valg mellem 1976 og 2004 med den hensigt efter mordene på John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr. og Robert F. Kennedy mellem 1963 og 1968 at genetablere USA som en selvstyret nation på grundlag af den amerikanske forfatning. En anden årsag var, at det lykkedes ham at etablerede det, der vurderedes som verdens bedste uafhængig nyhedstjeneste, med et efterretningsapparat, der gav ham og hans samarbejdspartnere evnen til at indsamle ufiltrerede efterretninger fra hele verden. Dette gjorde dem i stand til på nøjagtig vis at gengive og rapportere om USA’s økonomis sande tilstand og om US-amerikanske og internationale politiske processers egentlige forløb, der ellers forekom mystiske.

LaRouche skabte også en international filosofisk forening, hvis udgangspunkt det var at genskabe en forståelse af det årtusind-gamle kontrovers, der har udspillet sig mellem den platoniske tradition og den aristoteliske skole, kampen mellem den republikanske statsmodel og det oligarkiske imperielle system.

LaRouches internationale rækkevidde opstod som et resultatet af hans vellykkede rekruttering af hundredvis af studerende med interesse for politik fra mange nationer, især europæiske samt syd- og nordamerikanske. Denne selvudpegede intelligentsia gav ham magten til at fostre og iværksætte politiske kursændringer via beskedne, men veluddannede og yderst velinformerede enheders indsats, der katalyserede meget større kræfter i forskellige nationer og undertiden gjorde, at disse fungerede som »ét sind på tværs af mange kontinenter.«

LaRouche var kendt for sin insisteren på, at hver borger i USA – såvel som borgere fra enhver suveræn nation – har ansvaret for at uddanne sig selv på de områder, der har afgørende betydning for de politiske beslutninger, som berører deres nationers og menneskehedens fremtid; for udelukkende at lave og forsvare politiske forslag, der »fremme[r] almindelig velfærd […] for os selv og vore efterkommere« (fra fortalen til USA’s forfatning – red.); og for at bekæmpe rovgriske økonomiske foranstaltninger, der vedtages for at opnå klodens affolkning, undertiden forklædt som »miljøbeskyttelse« eller »bæredygtig udvikling« og især rettet imod nationer i Afrika, Asien og Syd- og Centralamerika.

Selvom fremtrædende internationale personligheder og institutioner på det seneste er begyndt at rapportere om LaRouche, har ingen »større mediekilde« endnu haft modet til at citere Lyndon LaRouche for hans faktiske synspunkter på nogen af de områder, som han bidrog væsentligt til. Dette til trods for, at LaRouche var en af USA’s mest produktive forfattere. Denne frygt for LaRouche er bemærkelsesværdig, men ikke ny. Det har altid været tilfældet, at LaRouches modstandere havde en mindst lige så dybfølt frygt for den kraft, som LaRouches idéer besad, som de havde for personen LaRouche. Denne frygt vil ingenlunde aftage med hans fysiske bortgang.

Det anses stadig for utilladeligt, at LaRouches Fire Love; hans forslag til en firemagtsaftale mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien; hans opfindelse af Det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) – som daværende præsident Ronald Reagan præsenterede på nationalt TV 23. marts 1983 – og hans enestående fem årtier lange kamp for udviklingen af fusionskraft nævnes i massemedierne, sågar i anledning af LaRouches død. Kendte USA’s befolkning til disse politiske idéer, og dermed til, hvordan en påtvunget stilhedens sammensværgelse i årtier har nægtet dem adgang til LaRouche – især under de sidste 15 års finansielle kriser og nytteløse ødelæggende krige – ville de straks komme frem til, at nogen med stor ihærdighed i alle disse år må have prøvet at holde dem væk fra Lyndon LaRouches idéer.

Disse mennesker ville ikke længere finde sig i ordene »LaRouche er en slem fyr, men vi kan ikke fortælle dig hvorfor,« som forklaring på, hvorfor de ikke – heller ikke nu – bør vide, hvem Lyndon LaRouche er. Lykkes det os i dette historiske øjeblik at bryde de falske nyheders grænser ned, kan den virkelige Lyndon LaRouche endelig blive hørt og kendt. Til dette formål præsenteres følgende korte og meget ufuldstændige redegørelse for hans liv og arbejde.

Udviklingen af en global statsmand

LaRouche etablerede sig gennem mere end fire årtier som Det Britiske Imperiums største fjende, både i den form det tog før Anden Verdenskrig og i dets nuværende Commonwealth-form. At LaRouche tjente i Anden Verdenskrig, især i Indien-Burma-Kina-området, var personligt afgørende for ham: »Min livslange kamp for, at USA i efterkrigstidens skulle blive en verdensleder i arbejdet for at etablere en verdensorden viet til at fremme den økonomiske udvikling af de lande, vi i dag kalder ‘udviklingslande’, tog sin begyndelse med oplevelsen i Kolkata i 1946,« skrev LaRouche i sin selvbiografi The Power of Reason: 1988. LaRouche begyndte at kæmpe med den moderne udgave af Det Britisk-Ostindiske Kompagnis »politisk-økonomiske teoretikere« og slavehandlere, hvis teorier dominerede de US-amerikanske universiteters økonomiske fakulteter i kølvandet på Anden Verdenskrig.

LaRouche modsatte sig heftigt den opfattelse, som udbredtes af Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, Parson Thomas Malthus og John Locke, at mennesket er et dyr. I stedet genoprettede LaRouche videnskaben »fysisk økonomi« i USA, en videnskab etableret i 1672 af den tyske polyhistor Gottfried Leibniz, ophavsmanden til calculus og medopfinder af dampmaskinen. Gennem en intensiv studietid mellem 1948 og 1952 gjorde LaRouche fremskridt i sine uafhængige studier af fysik for at kunne udvikle sin metode til økonomiske forudsigelser. I bogen LaRouche: Will This Man Become President? hedder det: »I 1952 anerkendte LaRouche for første gang, at han ved at antage en opfattelse af energi, der er aldeles i overensstemmelse med Riemanns afhandling fra 1854 med titlen Om de hypoteser, der ligger til grund for geometrien (Ueber die Hypothesen, welche der Geometrie zu Grunde liegen – red.), kunne måle både teknologi og økonomisk vækst med denne forståelse af, hvad energi er. I LaRouches værker måles økonomisk værdi – reel økonomisk vækst – primært i form af stigninger i samfundets relativt mulige befolkningstæthed.«

LaRouche anså imidlertid alt sit arbejde med fysisk økonomi som et særligt udtryk for og en del af en dybere epistemologisk opgave. I sit skrift Beethoven as a Physical Scientist fra 1988 skriver han:

»På alle de områder, hvor jeg har bidraget, grunder mine vigtigste opdagelser i min vellykkede afvisning af det berømte kantiske paradoks, som gentages i Immanuel Kants Kritik af dømmekraften. Kant hævdede to ting, der er relevante her.«

»For det første insisterede han på, at, omend der findes kreative processer, som er ansvarlig for gyldige grundlæggende videnskabelige opdagelser, ligger det hinsides enhver menneskelig mulighed at forstå disse processer. Jeg beviste, at dette var forkert. Og fra dette bevis udviklede jeg en måde, hvorpå disse kreative processer, og dermed underforstået målingen af teknologisk udvikling som sådan, kunne fremstilles på forståelig vis.«

»For det andet argumenterede Kant på baggrund af den første antagelse for, at der i æstetikken ikke kan opstilles nogen forståelige kriterier for sandhed eller skønhed. At Tyskland og andre har godtaget denne tese, som Kant og efter ham Friedrich Carl von Savigny udbredte, har været årsagen til, at der i dag er så udbredt en tolerance indenfor alle kunstformer for enhver type af moderne irrationalisme.«

Lyndon LaRouches store produktion af skrifter om musik, økonomi, historie, sprog og de fysiske videnskaber inspirerede mange samarbejder og udvekslinger med mennesker over hele verden. LaRouche var først og fremmest en statsmand – ikke en politiker. Han udøvede statsmandskunst på en sokratisk-athensk vis.

Han etablerede organisationer ved at undervise. Først gav han adskillige forelæsningsrækker i 1966, i løbet af hvilke han gjorde yderligere fremskridt i og debatterede om sin metode for at lave økonomiske forudsigelser, især på universiteterne. Mange stødte først på LaRouche, mens han debatterede med de personer, der skulle blive 1970’ernes økonomiske og politiske akademiske autoriteter. Dette stoppede efter LaRouches berømte debat med økonomen Abba Lerner i 1971. Lerner tabte, da han gav udtryk for sin holdning om, at hvis man havde fulgt den tyske finansminister Hjalmar Schachts nedskæringspolitik i 1920’erne, »ville Hitler ikke have været nødvendig.« Indenfor få måneder kunne man ikke længere finde nogen, der ville debattere med LaRouche, og ingen yderligere debatter af denne art fandt sted.

LaRouches foredrag om, hvad der på det tidspunkt blev kaldt »dialektisk økonomi« var netop det – dialoger mellem LaRouche og filosofiske, økonomiske og videnskabelige personligheder fra historien, der er skildredes af ham med en fortællers nøjagtighed, altid uden noter og ofte uden nogen bøger overhovedet. De studerende blev forsynet med et omfattende pensum af læsemateriale, med foreslåede læseplaner, der angav hver uges anbefalinger. En student fortæller, at »vi blev henvist til passager fra et værk som Kants Kritik af den praktiske fornuft, for eksempel. Vi blev bedt om at læse det. Hvis man gjorde det og kom til forelæsningen den næste uge, ville han først beskrive, hvordan han forstod passagen, hvilket han gjorde både overbevisende og nøjagtigt. Han ville derefter splitte det ad stykke for stykke, og fordi man havde læst det og accepteret det, opdagede man nødvendigvis vildfarelserne, der lurerde på bunden af ens eget sind. Han viste os forskellen mellem at læse og at tænke. Det var ikke forelæsninger, det var en dramatisk monolog. Og det var sådan vi blev interesserede.«

LaRouches kerneorganisation, »National Caucus of Labor Committees« (NCLC), som senere blev til »International Caucus of Labor Committees« (ICLC), var en filosofisk forening organiseret omkring et »system af konferencer,« som normalt afholdtes to gange om året. Fra denne forening udsprang mange andre organisationer såsom »Fusion Energy Foundation,« »the U.S. Labor Party,« »the National Democratic Policy Committee,« the »Anti-Drug Coalition« og andre. LaRouche grundlagde og arbejdede også med organisationer i Frankrig, Tyskland, Italien, Sverige, Canada, Danmark, Mexico, Colombia, Peru, Australien og mange andre nationer.

I december 1977 giftede LaRouche sig med Helga Zepp fra Tyskland, der senere grundlagde Schiller Instituttet, en politisk institution til fremme af statsmandskunst og en renæssance i klassisk kultur.

»I efteråret 1977 foreslog jeg, at vi skulle gifte os. […]. Jeg var lidt overrasket, men på behagelig vis, da hun indvillige i det. […]. Der var intet ordinært ved nogen af vore liv, og det var heller ikke sandsynligt, at det nogensinde ville blive anderledes. Vi blev gift i Wiesbaden 29. december 1977. Vielsen foregik på tysk; tjenestemanden fra Standesamt spurgte mig på tysk, om jeg vidste, hvad der foregik. Dette spørgsmål gav i de følgende uger anledning til megen latter blandt mine venner.« De nåede at dele et godt 41 år langt ægteskab.

Den kamplystne karakter og polemiske stil i LaRouche og hans samarbejdspartneres kampagner, valgkampagner såvel som andre, var unikke i USA’s politiske liv i 1970’erne, 1980’erne og 1990’erne. Da LaRouche i 1976 købte 30 minutters sendetid til udsendelsen af hans Emergency Address to the Nation, var det første gang nogensinde, at en uafhængig kandidat havde købt den mængde tv-tid i et US-amerikansk nationalt valg. Under præsidentvalget i 1984 optrådte LaRouche femten gange på fjernsyn i 30-minutters segmenter og opfandt så at sige, hvad senere tider efterlignede med de såkaldte »infomercials.« LaRouches præsidentkandidatur og hans samarbejdspartneres kandidaturer ved forskellige valg, herunder opstillingen af omtrent 1000 kandidater til valg i 1986 alene, skræmte hans modstandere i USA. Og de inspirerede andre og gav dem mod til ikke blot at stille op til valg, men at bakke op om politiske idéer skabt til at gavne hele menneskeheden, og ikke kun deres »lokale mudderhul.«

Den Internationale Udviklingsbank (International Development Bank, IDB), som LaRouche fremlagde som koncept fra 1975 og fremefter, og som skulle erstatte Den Internationale Valutafond (IMF – red.) og udvikle det, der blev kaldt »Den Tredje Verden,« ved at skabe grundlag for eksport af hele byer og ikke kun US-amerikansk bygget teknologi, er et godt eksempel på et sådant politisk koncept. Disse byer skulle opføres som træningscentre, hvor befolkninger i udviklingssektoren hurtigt kunne tilegne sig de kompetencer, de skulle bruge, for at de kunne skabe deres egne på alle områder selvforsynende økonomier, frem for at blive gældsslaver, hvilket var, hvad der faktisk skete.

Personer som Frederick Wills, den daværende udenrigsminister for Guyana, talte for LaRouches IDB-forslag ved FN’s generalforsamling 27. september 1976. Mexicos daværende præsident José López Portillo og Indiens daværende premierminister Indira Gandhi mødtes med Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche og vedtog aspekter af hans forslag, som ofte blev udgivet i boglange afhandlinger såsom Operation Juárez for Mexico og The Industrialization of India: From Backwardness to Industrial Power in Forty Years (Indiens industrialisering: fra tilbageståenhed til industriel magt på fyrre år) og A Fifty-Year Development Policy for the Indian-Pacific Oceans Basin (50 års udviklingspolitik for Stillehavets og Det Indiske Oceans bassiner), hvis kernebetragtninger, på trods af at de alle er skrevet i begyndelsen af 1980’erne, stadigt er aktuelle, ikke kun i dag, men for det næste årti eller mere.

Den ukonventionelle metode, som LaRouche anbefalede til at sprede disse idéer, var sokratisk: at tale med mennesker direkte og personligt. Den daglige gadeorganisering fandt sted ved jobcentre, posthuse, lufthavne, trafikkryds og på gadehjørner, i midtbyen og i indkøbscentre. Denne direkte kontakt med USA’s befolkning resulterede i, at LaRouche havde en bedre føling med, hvad der rørte sig blandt den almindelige befolkning i USA, end nogen anden politisk kraft i landet. Korrupte elementer i justitsministeriet, og »angiveligvis-ikke-statslig organisationer« som blev givet grønt lys til ulovligt at afbryde LaRouches samarbejdspartneres forfatnings-garanterede ret til at organisere, var nødte til at karakterisere organisationen som en »kult« for at afskrække borgerne fra at bidrage til LaRouches organisationer.

Ingen af LaRouches kritikere er i stand til at benægte den række af korrekte økonomiske forudsigelser, som han har fremlagt, herunder Bretton Woods-systemets sammenbrud 15. august 1971, sammenbruddet af Wall Streets aktiemarked i oktober 1987 (forudsagt af LaRouche i maj samme år) og forudsigelsen 25. juli 2007, der udsendtes som et webcast med titlen The End of the Post-FDR Era, af det finanskollaps, der fra september 2008 og fremefter førte til en billion-dollar-stor redningspakke. Nogle af de mest forbløffende af LaRouches forudsigelser var imidlertid ikke strengt taget økonomiske. På Columbusdag 12. oktober 1988 sagde Lyndon LaRouche i en tale på Kempinski Hotel Bristol i Berlin:

»Af profession er jeg økonom i tradition med Tysklands Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz og Friedrich List og USA’s Alexander Hamilton og Matthew og Henry Carey. Mine politiske principper er de samme som Leibniz’, Lists og Hamiltons, og de er også i overensstemmelse med Friedrich Schiller og Wilhelm von Humboldts principper. I lighed med vor republiks grundlæggere har jeg en kompromisløs tro på princippet om aldeles suveræne nationalstater, og jeg er derfor imod enhver overnational myndighed, der ville kunne undergrave nogen som helst nations suverænitet. Men ligesom Schiller tror jeg, at enhver person, der stræber efter at blive en smuk sjæl, bliver nødt til at være en sand patriot for sin egen nation og på samme tid verdensborger.

»Af disse årsager er jeg gennem de sidste 15 år blevet specialist i mit lands udenrigspolitiske anliggender. Som et resultat af dette arbejde har jeg opnået en voksende og betydelig indflydelse blandt visse kredse i min egen regering vedrørende USA’s udenrigspolitik og landets strategi, to indbyrdes forbundne emner. Et godt eksempel på dette er den rolle, jeg spillede i løbet af 1982 og 1983, hvor jeg arbejdede med USA’s nationale sikkerhedsråd for at få gennemført vedtagelsen af et politisk initiativ, der blev kendt som Det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI). Selvom detaljerne er hemmelighedsstemplede, kan jeg godt fortælle jer, at mine synspunkter om den nuværende strategiske situation har større indflydelse i USA i dag end på noget tidligere tidspunkt. Derfor kan jeg forsikre jer om, at det, som jeg nu præsenterer for jer om udsigterne for genforeningen af Tyskland, er et forslag, som vil blive studeret seriøst blandt de relevante kredse i det US-amerikanske etablissement. Under de rette forhold ville mange i dag være enige om, at tiden er kommet til at tage de indledende skridt mod Tysklands genforening med det åbenlyse prospekt, at Berlin kunne genoptage sin rolle som landets hovedstad.«

Udpeget som mål for eliminering

To dage efter hans tale på Hotel Kempinski rettede den US-amerikanske stat anklager mod Lyndon LaRouche og adskillige af hans samarbejdspartnere. Senere, da han talte om anklagerne i den Nationale Presseklub, udtalte LaRouche: »Man kunne sige om selve anklagen, at alle, der begår lovovertrædelser mod Gud, menneskeheden eller begge, før eller siden straffes.« Anklagerne fulgte to år efter et mordforsøg mod LaRouche 6. oktober 1986, om hvilket LaRouche i 2004 skrev følgende i sit hæfte med titlen ‘Convict Him, or Kill Him!’ The Night They Came To Kill Me (»Døm ham eller dræb ham!« Natten de kom for at dræbe mig):

»6. oktober 1986 holdt det, der praktisk talt var en hær på mere end firehundrede bevæbnede personer, sit indtog i byen Leesburg, Virginia, for at gennemføre en politirazzia mod EIR (Executive Intelligence Review – red.) og dets medarbejdere, og for at gennemføre en anden, mere dyster mission. De lokaler, hvor jeg på det tidspunkt opholdt mig, blev omringet af en væbnet styrke, mens luftfartøjer, pansrede mandskabsvogne og andet personel ventede på ordre om at rykke frem og åbne ild. Heldigvis fandt drabet ikke sted, fordi en person med højere myndighed end chefen for justitsministeriets afdeling for kriminalitet, William Weld, beordrede angrebet på mig afbrudt. De styrker, der stod klar til at trænge ind på mig, min kone og en række af mine samarbejdspartnere, blev trukket tilbage om morgenen.«

»Dette var det andet fuldt dokumenterede tilfælde, hvor USA’s justitsministerium var involveret i operationer, der var målrettet mod at eliminere mig personligt fra politik.«

Omend LaRouche og seks andre blev fundet skyldige ved en domstol i Alexandria, Virginia, i december 1988 og blev fængslet 27. januar 1989, fortsætter den internationale og nationale protest mod disse korrupte domme til denne dag. Den tidligere amerikanske statsadvokat Ramsey Clark karakteriserede LaRouche-sagen som følger: Sagen »repræsenterede en bredere vifte af bevidst udspekuleret og systematisk embedsmisbrug over en længere tidsperiode ved brug af statsapparatets magtmidler end nogen anden retsforfølgelse ført af den US-amerikanske regering i min tid eller til mit kendskab.« Executive Intelligence Reviews dossier fra september 2017 med titlen Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin: He Will Do His Job If You Let Him (Robert Mueller er en amoralsk juridisk lejemorder: Han gør sit job, hvis du giver ham lov) giver et omfattende indblik i, hvordan Donald Trumps nuværende særlige anklager var en nøglekomponent i denne politiske forfølgelse af Lyndon LaRouche i 1980’erne.

Under sin afsoning fortsatte LaRouche med at skrive, hvilket ofte foregik ved, at han dikterede hele kapitler af et bogmanuskript over telefonen, naturligvis uden at have adgang til nogen form for baggrundsmateriale. Udover samlingen med titlen The Science of Christian Economy and Other Prison Writings (Videnskaben der ligger til grund for kristen økonomi og andre skrifter fra fængslet), skrev eller optog LaRouche mange andre dokumenter, hvoraf nogle er ved at blive samlet med andre ikke tidligere offentliggjorte skrifter.

Da det i løbet af 1989 blev klart, at Sovjetunionens indflydelsessfære kendt som Comecon oplevede stigende økonomiske vanskeligheder, indledte LaRouche og Helga et intensivt samarbejde om et program, der fik navnet The Productive Triangle Paris-Berlin-Vienna (Den produktive trekant Paris-Berlin-Wien), som efter Sovjetunionens opløsning blev udvidet til Den Eurasiske Landbro. Efter jerntæppets fald foreslog han med dette program, at Europas befolkninger og industricentre skulle sammenkædes med Asiens gennem såkaldte udviklingskorridorer. Det var den eneste omfattende fredsplan for det 21. århundrede, som på daværende tidspunkt lå på tegnebrættet, en mulighed, som briterne og USA’s anglofile neokonservative heftigt modarbejde. Disse gennemtvang i stedet deres ideologi om en unipolær verden med et neoliberalt system. Den Eurasiske Landbro blev snart kendt som Den Nye Silkevej. Mere end to årtier senere er det kinesiske Bælte og Vej Initiativ, som voksede ud af dette koncept, blevet det primære lokomotiv for verdens fysiske økonomi.

Forandrede tusinder af menneskers liv

Efter hans løsladelse fra fængslet 26. januar 1994 fortsatte LaRouche sin karriere med at lave forudsigelser. Han udviklede i 1995 et pædagogisk værktøj ved navn »tripelkurven« for at illustrere for ikke-økonomer, hvordan en proces af »hyperinflation a la Weimarrepublikken« havde grebet den transatlantiske verden og havde udplyndret den i en sådan grad, at der ikke kunne gøres noget for at bevare det gængse pengesystem, og hvordan det var nødvendigt at omorganisere pengesystemet fra top til bund, idet man tog Glass-Steagall-loven fra Franklin Roosevelts »New Deal« i brug som første skridt i en reorganisering af bankerne. I januar 2001 advarede LaRouche om faren for et voldsomt terrorangreb på en eller flere amerikanske byer. En advarsel han fremlagde i forbindelse med en gennemgang af, hvorfor og hvordan det finansielle system var overgået til en tilstand af en »high-tech boble« i 1999-2000.

LaRouche talte om muligheden for en slags rigsdagsbrand i takt med, at USA, der med hastige skridt nærmede sig økonomisk ruin, blev stadigt mere umuligt at regere. I tråd med hans forudsigelse fra maj 1987 om et sammenbrud af aktiemarkedet i oktober samme år, udtalte LaRouche 25. juli 2007, et år før nedbruddet af Lehman Brothers/AIG i september 2008:

»Det verdensomspændende monetære finanssystem er faktisk i øjeblikket i færd med at falde fra hinanden. Der er intet mystisk i det; jeg har talt om det i nogen tid, det har været under udvikling, det tager ikke af. Hvad der er bogført som aktieværdier og markedsværdier på de internationale finansielle markeder er nonsens! Disse værdier er rene fiktive beløb. Der er ingen sandhed i det; bedraget er enormt. Der er ingen mulighed for, at det nuværende finanssystem ikke går ned – ingen! Det er slut, nu!«

»Det nuværende finanssystem kan ikke fortsætte med at eksistere under nogen omstændigheder, under nogen præsident, under noget lederskab eller nogen form for internationalt lederskab. Kun en grundlæggende og pludselig forandring af verdens monetære finanssystem vil forhindre et alment, øjeblikkeligt kædereaktionslignende sammenbrud. Hvor hurtigt det vil gå, ved vi ikke, men det vil fortsætte, og det vil være ustoppeligt. Og jo længere det fortsætter, jo værre vil tilstanden blive.«

LaRouche fortsatte, som det fremgår af ovenstående forudsigelse fra hans 84. leveår, med selv at frembringe originale bidrag op i en enestående høj alder, men det var ikke alt. Ved årtusindskiftet gik LaRouche i spidsen for en bevægelse, der rekrutterede unge mennesker – en bevægelse der fik så stor success, at Demokraterne i forskellige dele af landet forsøgte at overtage den. Tusindvis af unge gennemgik denne dannelsesproces. LaRouches ungdomsbevægelse frembragte banebrydende bidrag, bl.a. i deres præsentation af fysikeren Johannes Keplers arbejde, i oplæringen i bel canto klassisk sang af både gymnasieelever og som modgift imod kulturel selv-degradering og i audiovisuelle præsentationener af USA’s historie, herunder US-amerikansk nutidshistorie (i modsætning til »aktuelle begivenheder« eller de endnu mere ødelæggende »nyheder«), såsom dokumentaren 1932, som er blevet set af over 1,2 millioner mennesker.

Siden LaRouche for første gang optrådte som offentlig person for over halvtreds år siden, har den eneste tragedie, der karakteriserede hans liv, været, at han aldrig, hverken som præsident eller som rådgiver for en siddende præsident, fik lov til at føre de økonomiske reformer ud i livet, som ville have forbedret livet for millioner af US-amerikanere og for milliarder af mennesker rundt om i verden.

Selvom Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. vil være savnet af mange venner blandt ledende figurer indenfor videnskab, musik, økonomi og politik, var hans største ven – når vi tillader os at se bort fra hans enke Helga Zepp-LaRouche – de glemte mænd og kvinder i USA og i mange, mange andre lande.




Schiller Instituttets Konference på Præsidentens Dag – panel I, II & III

Schiller Instituttet afholdt den første amerikanske nationale konference i mere end femten år i weekenden på Præsidentens Dag, hvilket var en enorm succes i henseende til kvaliteten af præsentationerne og deltagelsen af tilhængere fra hele verden der deltog på konferencen. Konferencen, der nu præsenteres i sin helhed nedenfor, giver et sandfærdigt og optimistisk syn på mulighederne for menneskeheden som helhed for at overvinde den krise, som verden står overfor, mens det tidligere regerende, nu døende Britiske Imperium, kæmper for sin overlevelse mod den nye verdensorden, som tager fat i visionen fra Lyndon og Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Panel I

Lyndon
LaRouche taler
:
Et talent, der blev brugt godt

Jacques
Cheminade
,
Præsident for Solidarité & Progrès: Lyndon LaRouches kommende
verden

John
Gong
,
Professor i økonomi ved ‘University of International Business and
Economics’, Beijing: Kinesiske investeringer og amerikansk
infrastruktur under nye sino-amerikanske relationer

H.E.
Ambassadør Vassily A. Nebenzia
,
Ambassadør and Permanent Repræsentant for den Russiske Føderation
ved de Forenede Nationer, præsenteret af rådgiver
Theodore Strzhizhovskiy
,
den Russiske Føderations mission ved FN: Prospekter for øst-vest
samarbejde: Den Russiske Føderations Synspunkt (transkript)

William
Binney
,
tidligere teknisk direktør, NSA

Jason
Ross
,
Schiller Instituttet, medforfatter af “Udvidelse af den Nye
Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika”: Det presserende behov for et nyt
paradigme i Afrika

Dennis
Small
,
EIR’s redaktør for Latinamerika: Retfærdighed i Verden – Hvorfor
Donald Trump må rense Lyndon LaRouche nu

Panel II

Video
af ’Den æstetiske uddannelse af mennesket for skønheden af sindet
og sjælen’ – Panel II

Schiller
Instituttets kombinerede kor
:
Benjamin
Lylloff, arrangement: “Mo Li Hua” (“Jasmin Blomst”)
Benjamin
Lylloff, dirigent

H.T.
Burleigh
,
arrangement: “Dyb flod” (“Deep River”)
William
L. Dawson
,
arr: “Hver gang ånden kommer over mig” (“Ev’ry Time I Feel
the Spirit”)
Diane Sare, dirigent

Megan
Beets
,
LaRouchePAC Videnskabelige Forskningsteam, “Kunstnerisk og moralsk
skønhed” (“Artistic and Moral Beauty“)

Bruce
Director
,
kasserer, Schiller Instituttet i USA:
“Om LaRouches begreb om
betydningen af kunst for videnskaben, og videnskab for kunsten”

Diane
Sare
,
administrerende direktør for Schiller Instituttets kor i New York
City: “Kor princippet”

Johannes
Brahms
:
“Dem dunkeln Schoß der Heil’gen Erde”
(tekst fra Schillers
“Sangen om Klokken” (“Song of the Bell”)
Schiller
Instituttets kor
John Sigerson, dirigent

Johann
Sebastian Bach
:
Brandenburg Concerto No. 5 in D-dur, BWV 1050
I. Allegro
Schiller
Instituttets Orkester
John Sigerson, dirigent
Solister: Gregor
Kitzis, violin; Laura Thompson, fløjte; My-Hoa Steger, klaver

Ludwig
van Beethoven
:
Choral Fantasia, Op. 80
Schiller Instituttets Orkester, Kor, og
Solister
John Sigerson, dirigent
My-Hoa Steger, klaver

Spørgsmål
& svar session

Panel III

Kesha
Rogers
,
LaRouchePAC Politiske Komité, tidligere kandidat for den amerikanske
Kongres – Rummets grænseområder: Opfyldelsen af menneskehedens
skæbne som mennesket i universet

Thomas
Wysmuller
,
Grundlæggende medlem af ‘Det rette klima stof” (“The Right
Climate Stuff”): Hvad NASA har gjort, og hvor NASA er på vej hen

Larry
Bell
,
Grundlægger, Sasakawa Internationalt Center for Rumarkitektur,
‘College of Engineering’, Universitetet i Houston: Hvad der gør
mennesker enestående

Benjamin
Deniston
,
LaRouchePAC Videnskabelige Forskningsteam: LaRouches Strategiske
Forsvar af Jorden

Hal
BH Cooper, Jr. PhD PE:
 Infrastrukturelle
behov for jernbane-, energi- og vandsystemer til at fremme den
fremtidige økonomiske udvikling af Afrika




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 21. februar 2019:
Lyndon LaRouche er død, men hans ånd og ideer lever videre
i det nye paradigme vi skaber.
Se også 2. del her.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

  1. del:

2. del:

Lyd:




LaRouches metode, nye opdagelser og tapperhed er fremtiden

Den 12. februar (EIRNS) – Det er med bedrøvelse at vi må meddele, at Lyndon LaRouche gik bort i dag i en alder af 96 år. De, der elskede ham, sørger over ham. Det er et stort tab. Det er hverken muligt eller passende i disse første triste øjeblikke at forsøge at opsummere det dybtgående bidrag, som Lyndon LaRouche har ydet til menneskeheden. Men i lyset af dagens vurderinger, kan vi ære ham ved at oprette et imperativ, som han gentagne gange fremsatte: bedøm ideer og handlinger på grundlag af hvordan de bidrager til den fremtidige udvikling af menneskeheden. I dette perspektiv befinder vi os i et kritisk øjeblik i kampen.

For at begynde med den negative side, er der fortsat vildt dumme geopolitiske manøvrer i Europa, hvor regeringer slår om sig af mangel på at følge LaRouches paradigme om fremskridt. For eksempel blev der for nylig udgivet en ny rapport, “The Great Puzzle, Who Will Pick Up the Pieces” (‘Det store puslespil, hvem samler brikkerne op’) af ‘Münchens Sikkerhedskonference’, som mødes senere i denne uge. Rapporten henviser til uorden i den “liberale internationale orden”, hvilket har givet anledning til forslag, såsom at de vigtigste europæiske NATO-medlemslande ville være tjent med at distancere sig fra USA og NATO, og i stedet tilslutte sig Frankrig for at komme med ind i præsident Macrons nye militærblok.
 I mellemtiden har USA’s udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo besøgt Ungarn og Slovakiet i denne uge og opmuntrer centraleuropæere til at distancere sig fra Kina og Rusland og i stedet slå sig sammen med USA-blokken. Alle sådanne former for at spille den ene ud imod den anden er en intrigant blindgyde og meget farlig. Det er orkestreret lige ud af den britiske imperialistiske drejebog. Der vil sandsynligvis komme mere af samme slags i morgen i Polen, når den britiske udenrigsminister Jeremy Hunt kommer og tilslutter sig Pompeo og vicepræsident Mike Pence i et møde om sikkerhedsplaner for Mellemøsten.

Den modsatte, positive impuls ses i de gentagne opfordringer fra præsident Donald Trump, om at USA afslutter sit engagement i “evige krige.” Dette er en forudsætning for en fremtid til gavn for alle. For eksempel er planlægningen for Hanoi-topmødet den 27.-28. februar mellem Trump og den nordkoreanske leder Kim Jong-un, stærkt på vej. I dag er vietnamesiske embedsmænd i Pyongyang for at arrangere, ikke alene topmødet, men også et muligt statsbesøg af Kim i Vietnam, hvilket ville være det første af sin slags siden Kims bedstefar, Kim Il-sung, for 50 år siden. Kinesiske og russiske udsendinge mødtes i dag for at hjælpe med at Trump-Kim-mødet bliver fuldt vellykket. Om blot to måneder vil der være en verdenskonference med en oversigt over denne win-win-dynamik, nemlig det 2. Bælte- og Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde i Kina. Præsident Xi Jinping henviser til processen som opbygning af et “fællesskab med en fælles fremtid for hele menneskeheden.”
 Lyndon LaRouches livsværk har lagt grunden til dette, og meget, meget mere. Som han elskede at minde os om: Fremtiden bestemmer nutiden.




NYHEDSORIENTERING JANUAR-FEBRUAR
2019: Overvind geopolitik og rens Lyndon LaRouches navn

Download (PDF, Unknown)




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 4. oktober 2018:
Trump i FN: Afskaf supranationalt diktatur og vend tilbage til national suverænitet

Med formand Tom Gillesberg
Lyd:




Lyndon LaRouche: En Firemagtsaftale
kan skabe et nyt, globalt kreditsystem

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. maj, 2018 – Det britiske Imperium og dets allierede kræfter har lanceret en række koordinerede angreb på globalt plan, som er udtænkt at skulle sikre, at ingen holdbar koalition for udvikling og fred skabes omkring planetens fire, ledende magter – Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA. Disse angreb inkluderer eskalerende provokationer, der har til formål at udløse surrogatkrig i Mellemøsten (Iran og Syrien); i Ukraine; og på Koreahalvøen – og som alle igen har til formål sluttelig at eskalere til en global krig, med USA imod Rusland og Kina.

Samtidig, og med en omhyggeligt koreograferet timing, har samme britiske kræfter optrappet deres heksejagt mod præsident Donald Trump og tyer til at fiske efter potentiel skadelig information – en aktivitet, der er lige så ekstrem, som den er farlig. Den seneste af disse er den lækkede trussel, at den særlige anklager Robert Mueller måske vil indstævne præsident Trump til at besvare Muellers ligeledes lækkede 40 spørgsmål, ifald præsidenten nægter at besvare dem »frivilligt«.

Præsident Trump svarede selv skarpt i et tweet her til morgen: »Der er ikke tale om nogen forhindring af rettens gang (det er et set-up & en fælde). Det, der er tale om, er pågående forhandlinger med Nordkorea om atomkrig …«

For nu at sætte sagen på spidsen: Det britiske fremstød for krig, og det britiske fremstød for at afsætte USA’s præsident, er parallelle operationer, der har et enkeltstående formål. Der kan ikke være noget heldigt forsvar af præsidentskabet imod Muellers beskidte operationer uden samtidig at stoppe fremstødet for at bruge Iran, Syrien, Korea og Ukraine til at udløse krig mod Rusland og Kina. Og modsat; det britiske fremstød for krig og for at kuldkaste hele det westfalske system ved at rive gyldig, international lov, folkeretten, i stumper og stykker med militærangreb og krige, kan ikke stoppes uden at besejre Mueller-FBI-kuppet imod præsident Trump.

Både Demokrater, Republikanere og Uafhængige – såvel som også folk i andre nationer – må vågne op til denne kendsgerning, før det er for sent. I kan ikke vælge, hvilken del af denne forenede, britiske operation, I ønsker at gå imod, og hvilken del, I ønsker at støtte, baseret på de ideologiske fordomme, I inderligt holder fast ved.

Tiden er inde til moral, anført af videnskab, sådan, som det eksemplificeres af Lyndon LaRouches forslag om en Firemagtsaftale.

LaRouches første, betydningsfulde præsentation af denne idé til en politik, kom på et Forum for strategiske og sikkerhedsmæssige studier i New Delhi, Indien, 3. dec., 2008. Dernæst udvidede LaRouche denne strategi i en tale den 10. okt., 2009, han holdt på det Globale offentlige Forum for Dialog mellem Civilisationers syvende årlige forsamling. LaRouche opsummerede denne tale fra Rhodos under et privat frokostmøde for diplomater i Washington, 4. nov., 2009.

Bemærkningerne ved dette frokostmøde, som vi her bringer uddrag af, blev fremsat næsten fire år før den kinesiske præsident annoncerede sin Nye Silkevejspolitik, som i dag kendes som Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

»Det var min opgave [på Rhodos] klart at præsentere, hvad en Firemagtsaftale mellem USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien, samt andre lande, der bringes ind i samme aftale, ville betyde for planeten. Det ville betyde, at vi kunne få en konvention, en aftale, om skabelse af et nyt system, der skrotter det nuværende, monetære system, som kan skrottes, fordi det allerede er bankerot …

»Rusland og Kina stod på randen af en aftale, i denne periode, i hvilken Kina har for en billion dollar i amerikanske statsobligationer, som USA skylder Kina … Det, der grundlæggende set skete i forhandlingerne mellem Rusland og Kina, var et arrangement om at anvende den legitime gæld, som skyldes til Kina mod en forpligtelse fra USA’s side, og til at bruge dette; monetisere det, ved at investere det i noget, der er produktivt, som ville være gavnligt for Asien. Og Rusland og Kina aftalte et storskala-projekt for transport og relaterede systemer.

Planen var, ikke at stoppe dér: Planen er at udvide denne form for aftale til Sydøstasien generelt, og til at inkludere Indien. Nogle af os har en plan for at bringe USA ind i samme arrangement. For, den kombinerede magt af USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien og nationer, som ønsker at være tilknyttet dem i denne form for venture, er den største, økonomiske magt på planeten. Hvis denne planetære magt beslutter at gøre det, der må gøres, kan vi reorganisere og genopbygge verden og hurtigt skifte over fra en nedadgående udvikling og til en opadgående udvikling. Det er den valgmulighed, vi har.

Omdrejningspunktet er: USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien. Uden en aftale mellem disse fire nationer vil en sådan økonomisk genrejsning af verden ikke være mulig. Med disse fire nationer, samt andre nationer – såsom, umiddelbart, Sydøstasien, Korea, Japan og så fremdeles – andre nationer kommer med ind, og nu taler vi om muligheden for et generelt program, om skabelse af et nyt fastkurssystem, som et kreditsystem, ikke et monetært system, men derimod et kreditsystem baseret på fastkursaftaler, til langfristet samarbejde om infrastrukturinvesteringer, som vil være drivkraft for udviklingen af produktive investeringer.

Med infrastruktur mener vi først og fremmest storskala-transport: moderne jernbaner, og overlegne jernbanesystemer [maglev], til transport over land. Formålet er at kunne rejse over land igennem Eurasien, gennem Beringstrædet og ind i landene på det amerikanske kontinent; og gennem Mellemøsten og ind i hele Afrika. Vi kan således skabe forbindelser med denne form for massetransit, som er mere effektive end transport over vand, og som vil udgøre en drivkraft for udvikling i alle de områder, igennem hvilke et sådant jernbanesystem og relaterede systemer rejser.«




»En dialog om tre præsidentskaber:
Bøj universets moralske bue mod retfærdighed«
Hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche på
Schiller Institut Konference i New York, 7. april, 2018
(Video og engelsk udskrift)

Introduktion:

Den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin kunne, i løbet af de næste par måneder, sammen træffe en række af de absolut vigtigste beslutninger, som ville indvirke på menneskeheden, siden renæssancen i det 15. århundrede. Den mulige løsning på Korea-spørgsmålet er blot et enkelt eksempel. De rette beslutninger, truffet af disse tre nationer og deres allierede i de næste par uger, kunne, i den nærmeste fremtid, begynde at fjerne fattigdom, kolonialisme og krig fra planeten. Løsningerne for at fjerne dette tredobbelte onde ligger både i stjernerne og i os selv.

Britiske imperiekræfter har midlertidigt mistet kontrollen over den svigtende transatlantiske, geopolitiske proces. Nu forsøger de at genvinde fordelen. Ligesom med den britiske efterretningsagent Christopher Steeles Russiagate-svindel, er det nu svindlen med »Rusland forgiftede Sergei Skripal og hans datter«, der efter planen skal drive en kile ind mellem præsident Trump og Vladimir Putin. Hvis denne bestræbelse lykkes, vil alt det arbejde, der er udført af Devin Nunes’ Husets Efterretningskomite og andre, for at afsløre den korrupte rolle, som FBI, Justitsministeriet, Udenrigsministeriet og andre har spillet i det britiskkørte kup imod det amerikanske præsidentskab i 2016, have været forgæves.

Evindelig krig, som de amerikanske administrationer Bush 41, Bush 43 og Obama var fortalere for, kan nu erstattes med en ny økonomisk platform og en ny kulturel platform.

Lørdag, 7. april, er Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche hovedtaler på denne konference, der skal samle amerikanerne omkring dette optimistiske perspektiv. En vedtagelse af de økonomiske forholdsregler og standpunkter, der kendes som LaRouches Fire Love[1] samtidig med en accept af det stående, kinesiske forslag [om USA’s deltagelse i den Nye Silkevej] ville give grundlaget for at skabe en hurtig forøgelse i amerikansk, produktiv beskæftigelse, levestandarder og uddannelse af ungdommen i USA.

Grundlaget for en dialog mellem de »tre store« præsidentskaber er indeholdt i et dokument af Lyndon LaRouche fra marts, 1984, med titlen, »Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.«[2]

Indledningen lyder således:

»Det politiske fundament for varig fred må være: a) Alle nationalstaters ubetingede suverænitet, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med det formål at fremme ubegrænsede muligheder for at blive delagtig i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til gensidig fordel for enhver nationalstat, og alle nationalstater.

Det mest afgørende aspekt ved en aktuel implementering af en sådan politik for varig fred er en dybtgående ændring i de monetære, økonomiske og politiske relationer mellem de dominerende magter og de relativt underordnede nationer, som ofte klassificeres som »udviklingslande«. Med mindre de uligheder, der stadig dvæler i kølvandet på moderne kolonialisme, gradvist afhjælpes, kan der ikke være nogen varig fred på denne planet.«

Sidstnævnte tema vil blive behandlet på mødet 7. april i en præsentation af Jason Ross, medforfatter af Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport, »Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika: En vision for en økonomisk renæssance«.[3] Med en befolkning på størrelse med Indiens og med den yngste befolkning i noget kontinent i verden, ville Afrikas fysisk-økonomiske udvikling gennem fælles arbejde, udført af USA sammen med Kina, gøre de gamle koloniregimers racister tavse for altid. Verdens to største økonomier kunne, ved hjælp af Sun Yat-sens og Abraham Lincolns »Tre principper for folket«[4], udgøre spydspidsen for en anti-koloniudvikling og fjerne den fattigdom, som er udløser af racisme og krig.

Her følger engelsk udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale:

 

 Schiller Institute Conference with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
        New York City, April 7, 2018

A DIALOGUE OF THREE PRESIDENCIES:

BENDING THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSE TOWARD JUSTICE 

DIANE SARE: Good afternoon.  I’m Diane Sare with the
Schiller Institute here in Manhattan and at the conference
called “The Dialogue of Three Presidencies:  Bending the Arc of
the Moral Universe toward Justice.”
Fifty years ago this year, our nation suffered two major
assassinations:  The first, on April 4th, 1968, was that of
Martin Luther King, Jr.,[5] who was gunned down while he was
participating in organizing for a sanitation workers’ strike in
Memphis, Tennessee; then, on June 6th, Robert Kennedy — the
second Kennedy to be assassinated — who was likely on a
trajectory to become the President of the United States.  I think
it’s very important to reflect on that change in the United
States 50 years ago.  I was very struck a few weeks ago, having
heard about a speech by Chinese President Xi Jinping, where he
spoke in China of the Century of Humiliation.  Starting in 1840,
the Opium Wars against China, which were absolutely devastating
and destructive, run by the British Empire — which is still the
enemy of civilization today; to the Japanese occupation in the
1940s, under which 35 million or more people died.  What
President Xi said to these young people is that, in effect, we
have to take this as a source of strength; that our sacred honor
is that we will never allow ourselves to be humiliated in such a
way again.  And that we will never impose such humiliation upon
any other human being.
So, I was reflecting on the last 50 years in this country,
what we have tolerated.  And before I came here today, I was
reading a little bit from Martin Luther King’s book about the
process leading into his leadership of what became the Montgomery
Bus Boycott.  He described that the unity of the people —
because people may know, it wasn’t just that Rosa Parks refused
to move to the back of the bus and got arrested and somehow there
were demonstrations.  People went on for nearly a year, refusing
to ride the bus.  That meant that people with the postal service
were organizing all these elaborate carpools; and people in their
60s and 70s were walking 12 miles a day to not take the bus.  And
I was thinking to myself, how many Americans today would be
prepared to walk 12 miles a day until we got the Manhattan subway
system fixed, for example?  Or until we found out who actually
was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks?  Or until the torture of
people, which is completely degrading to man as in the image of
God?  How many Americans would be prepared to do that kind of
hard work over an extended time?  I began to think that this is
the — when Lyndon LaRouche a few years ago, we did a series of
memorial concerts on the 15th anniversary of 9/11; and he talked
about the humiliation of Americans not having done anything.  I
thought that’s kind of an odd term; what does he mean
“humiliation”?  When I was reading what Dr. King had to say this
morning, I thought, “Well, of course.  We should be humiliated.”
In a sense, we should be ashamed that we have allowed our nation
to be in the shape that it is, and not have acted sooner.  If we
would take this opportunity this year, to come to that conclusion
firmly as strongly as Xi Jinping means it in China, then there is
absolutely nothing that can stop us.
The person whom I am about to introduce, has been a very
important leader for 40+ years, 50+ years, in that fight.  It is
a very challenging world right now.  The American people clearly
rejected a continuation of British imperial perpetual war and
Wall Street bail-out policies when they rejected the election of
Hillary Clinton.  Because President Trump represents an
opportunity, as this conference is called “Three Presidencies:
Trump, Putin, and Xi Jinping.”  Because there is a potential
represented by this administration to end the long reign of the
evil British Empire; everything is going a bit crazy.  I heard
this morning, apparently there was a car that plowed into a crowd
in Muenster, Germany, killing several people and injuring many
others, today while we’re here.  In the United States, we are
bombarded; the American news media is violent in its coverage,
because what it does to you is, it causes whipsaw.  You’re
reading one thing one day, another thing the other day. President
Trump says he wants to get the troops out of Syria; and then we
hear, “The White House says the troops must remain in Syria.”
Well, who is the White House?  It’s apparently not the same thing
as President Trump.  So, this causes a great deal of confusion
and anxiety among the American people.
Mrs. LaRouche, who not only is the founder and chairwoman of
the international Schiller Institute, is also a brilliant writer
and scholar.  She is an expert on Nicholas of Cusa, who wrote a
very important paper called “The Coincidence of Opposites.”  So,
I am confident that her address to us here today, will help all
of us to make sense of the situation and give us an idea of how
we can conduct ourselves to end this 50 years of humiliation in
the United States.  So, with that, I’d like to introduce Helga
Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I want to say “Hello” to you, and I’m
very happy to talk to you, at least via video, so I can share
with you my ideas.
I think in the recent weeks, many people in many countries
have been very distraught about the so-called Skripal affair.
This was the assassination attempt, the poison gas attack on the
former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter. Immediately,
the Theresa May government accused Russia that they did it.  I
think that this particular situation has demonstrated in a way we
have not seen it ever, what is the role of the British Empire,
the British government, British policies in the present
escalation against Russia, and in a certain sense against China.
This affair was immediately made an issue of NATO, of the
European Union.  Many EU members immediately declared
unconditional solidarity with Theresa May, and they agreed on the
formulation that there is no other plausible explanation than
Russia did it.  I think this reaction is very telling, because it
shows on the one side, the degree of British control in NATO, and
in part in the European Union.  Fortunately, about half of the
European Union members did not agree.  But it also demonstrated
the incredible Orwellian character of the present Western
democracies of the so-called “liberal” Western system.  Because
the idea that you immediately abandon the principle that {in
dubio pro reo}, that the innocence is relevant until proven
guilty; that this was abandoned and that truth was replaced by a
consensus among countries.  If that is the principle of
international policy, then we are all in very bad shape.
The immediate danger is naturally that this thing is not
just leading to mass expulsions of diplomats.  The United States
expelled 60 diplomats; the British expelled a similar number, and
Germany four.  Altogether, I think 23 diplomats in the other
European countries.  But obviously, this has the implication of
leading to a broader escalation of confrontation with Russia and
possibly even war; because this is a prewar propaganda.  If you
look at the timing of this affair, first of all the two Skripals
fortunately seem to be in much better condition.  That raises a
whole bunch of questions because if it was Novichok nerve gas,
then the question is, how did the British have so quickly an
antidote that they are now happily surviving?  Or, maybe it was
not Novichok.  How could they come so quickly to the conclusion
that it was Russia, when Scotland Yard said it would take several
weeks to find out what really was the nerve gas agent used in
this attack.
The timing was at a point where, in the United States, the
whole focus of Congressional investigations of the House
Intelligence Committee, the House Judiciary Committee, similar
committees in the Senate, was about the role of the British
Empire in the Russia-gate affair, or the Trump-gate, or the
Mueller-gate, depending on how you want to call it.  The focus of
several committees started to really put into the limelight the
role of Christopher Steele, the so-called “former” MI6 agent, the
role of the British government, the collusion not with Russia but
with the British in the whole attempt to make a coup against
President Trump.  So, that was very convenient, because all of a
sudden, it was the Russia issue again.  May, in these days, you
could always say that the days of Theresa May seemed to be
numbered; because she was in such an unstable position.
Now, cui bono?  Who has the motive?  In whose interest
would be such an affair?  Well, Russia really has no motive; why
would this occur just weeks before the Presidential election in
Russia?  Would Putin really want to have such notoriety just
before the election, and just before the World Soccer World Cup?
So, also Russia would have had many opportunities to kill
Skripal; he was, for many years, in a Russian jail, he lived for
many years in Great Britain without any problem.  Nevertheless,
despite that, Merkel and Macron, half of the EU immediately came
out saying, “No, it is the only plausible explanation that it was
Russia.”  Boris Johnson gave an interview to a German radio
called Deutsche Welle, where he said that he had absolute
scientific proof from the scientists of the Porton Down
laboratory, who had definitely said that they had 100 % proof that
it was Russia.  In the meantime, the scientists refused to
provide the after-the-fact evidence, and the head of the lab, Mr.
Aitkenhead, said that they could identify that it was Novichok;
but that they absolutely could not identify the source of the
origin of this poison gas.  This was a very lamentable situation,
so the Foreign Office immediately deleted the tweet in which this
was stated; which now has Boris Johnson’s stand there as a liar.
That does not prevent the Theresa May government from continuing
to push the lie that Russia did it.
Many officials in Russia — Foreign Minister [Sergey] Lavrov; Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman [Maria] Zakharova, the head of foreign intelligence
[Sergey] Naryshkin — the all pointed to the fact that the {cui bono} and
the likelihood, and who has the capacity and motive, actually
points to British intelligence.  This whole operation — and this
was pointed out by many experts and commentators — this
absolutely parallels what the British did in the Iraq case in
2003; where also MI6 produced a dossier supposedly proving that
Saddam Hussein was in the possession of weapons of mass
destruction which could reach every city within 45 minutes around
the globe.  That Saddam Hussein supposedly had absolute
connections with al-Qaeda; which was a blatant lie, because
Saddam Hussein used to throw al-Qaeda people into jail and other
things.  But this was then used as a pretext.  So, Colin Powell
gave the famous speech in the United Nations motivating U.S.
participation in the Iraq War.  Then, the war against Iraq
occurred, with many hundreds of thousands of people losing their
lives as a result.
This is what some people in Russia in the meantime have
called “Goebbels” propaganda.  Why is there such a demonization
of Russia?  Why is there a demonization of President Putin coming
essentially from the same people who are also demonizing
President Trump and President Xi Jinping?  This is the same
foolishness which already led to the Second World War and which
could easily trigger a Third World War.  There is the danger that
these war-mongers are repeating the same methodological mistake,
stupidity, which led to two world wars.
What is behind that is a mixture of desperation because the
financial powers of the City of London and their Wall Street
backers and collaborators see clearly that their system is
failing.  Obviously, they have a complete fear that this would go
with a complete loss of their political and financial power.  But
it is also an obsession that their schemes will function, and if
they just have enough containment and escalation then their
system will be proven superior.  They are confronted with their
system not succeeding, but failing; they don’t have the intended
unipolar world, but they are confronted with the emergence of a
completely New Paradigm in the world.
If you want to understand why Russia is such a focus of
Russophobia right now, you have to take the situation back to the
end of the Soviet Union.  Because in the United States, at a
point when the Soviet Union started to disintegrate and there
would have actually been the possibility for a peace order for
the 21st Century, you had in the United States the consolidation
of the neo-cons.  They revived the American Century doctrine,
which originally was formulated by Walter Lippmann in 1943, when
he published a book with that name which then became the entire
basis for the post-war order; the legitimacy of NATO, the whole
Cold War.  It was the idea to revive that with the project for a
new American Century and the idea that you would replace the two
superpower system with an unipolar world based on the
Anglo-American special relationship, and a neo-liberal monetarist
system.  This was essentially a continuation of the idea that you
would control the developing countries, keep them in relative
backwardness, and deregulate the financial system in order to
bring back the power of Wall Street and the City of London, and
basically control the world that way.
In 1989, when the German reunification happened, this was
actually combined with the promise that NATO would never expand
eastward.  You have to remember that the Soviet Union agreed to
the dissolution of the GDR and German reunification without the
use of force.  You could say, in light of the history of the
Second World War, where the Soviet Union had suffered tremendous
losses of life and naturally had a very terrible memory of Nazi
Germany that it was extremely generous of the Soviet Union to
agree to that.  The promise was clearly given not to expand NATO
eastward; this was emphasized many times by the former American
ambassador in Moscow at that time, John Matlock.  In the recent
publications of the archives from George Washington University,
it was also clear that this was, indeed, a promise made.
In 1990, the General Secretary of NATO at that time, Manfred
Wörner, made a speech in Brussels which is worth remembering.  He
at that time said, “The goal for the next decade is the creation
of a European security structure, including the Soviet Union and
the states of the Warsaw Pact,” and that the Soviet Union would
play an important role in the construction of such a security
system, and that he would understand the wish of the Soviet Union
not to be excluded from Europe.  “The West cannot answer to the
erosion of the Warsaw Pact with a weakening or dissolution of
[NATO]”; and therefore, “the only answer is the creation of a
security framework which includes both alliances” and which
includes the “Soviet Union into a cooperating Europe….  The
very fact that we are ready not to deploy NATO troops beyond the
territory of the Federal Republic [of Germany] gives the Soviet
Union firm security guarantees,” Wörner said.
This is all proven by these new documents which have been
published that the West obviously, or the neo-cons and their
British partners, were clearly promoting a different policy and
making fake promises.  On the surface, the offer to the Soviet
Union continued.  Still in 1994, President Clinton said the NATO
expansion is not anti-Russian; it means inclusion instead of
exclusion.  But then, things became more dramatic.  In 1999,
there was the famous Tony Blair speech in Chicago, which was the
definite elimination of whatever relic of the Peace of Westphalia
system existed; and by that, also the elimination of the
principles of the UN Charter — namely, guaranteeing the
sovereignty of every country.  This was clearly a foreshadowing
of what Blair did later in 2003 with the Iraq War.  What replaced
the idea of respect for the sovereignty of countries was the idea
of “humanitarian” interventions.  Naturally, then in 2001 with
the September 11th attack, which was a complete assault on all
civil liberties and civil rights which had been fought for, for
decades.  And it imposed an international regime with the pretext
of the war against terrorism.
What followed then was regime change, color revolution.  You
had the Orange Revolution in 2004 in Ukraine; you had the Rose
Revolution in Georgia.  In the meantime, both the Russian and
Chinese militaries respectively stated that they regarded color
revolution as an absolute total form of warfare.  Naturally, the
Maidan coup against the Ukraine government belongs in this chain.
Also, already in 2002, the United States abandoned
unilaterally the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, and
proceeded to build up a global ABM system, which Russia had said
at the very beginning, they could not tolerate the Phase 3 and
Phase 4 of it to be implemented, because it would completely
undermine the strategic stability and therefore be a threat to
the security interests of Russia.
In the 16 years of Bush, Jr. and Obama, these
interventionist wars continued.  Bush declared the “Axis of
Evil,” and the various wars in the Middle East and northern
Africa started to eliminate governments which were not agreeable
to this idea of a unipolar world.  The world was slowly and
steadily going to more Hell, more refugee crises, more misery;
millions of people dying in the Middle East and northern Africa.
Then, in 2013, the world suddenly changed for the better.
President Xi Jinping announced a new model of international
relationships in Kazakhstan — the New Silk Road.  In the
tradition of the ancient Silk Road, which was an incredible
exchange not only of goods, technologies, cultures, ideas, but
also laid the foundation of a dialogue among nations; this New
Silk Road took on a development which is unprecedented I think in
all of history.  In the last 4.5 years, this new Spirit of the
New Silk Road started to catch on, so that by now, more than 140
countries are cooperating in Asia, in Latin America, in Africa,
even in Europe, with the New Silk Road.  You have a tremendous
sense of optimism in Latin America, where practically all Latin
American countries are now building and planning to build
bi-oceanic projects; bi-oceanic railway between Brazil and Peru,
bi-oceanic tunnels between Argentina and Chile, and many other
projects.  So, the Spirit of the New Silk Road has definitely
caught on in the Caribbean and Latin American countries.  It is
for sure the case in the Asian countries, and many corridors are
being built.  Africa has completely changed with the building of
railways from Djibouti to Addis Ababa; all along the eastern
African countries, the western African countries.  If you look at
the map of Chinese investments in railway systems and industry
parks and hydropower in many other agricultural projects, there
is a completely new spirit and self confidence among the Africa
nations that they can now overcome poverty and under-development
for the first time, in the near future.  Even in Europe, where
the EU has been absolutely blocking any cooperation, the New Silk
Road Spirit has absolutely caught on.  You have the 16+1 Eastern
and Central European countries; you have the Balkan countries.
Italy is now engaged together with China in a major project
called Transaqua, which will change the lives of 12 African
nations and bring industrialization into the heart of Africa. But
also, Portugal and Spain want to be the hubs not only for the
western end of the Eurasian part of the New Silk Road, but to be
also a hub for the Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking countries in
Africa and Asia and Latin America.  So, the New Silk Road Spirit
is absolutely on the agenda.  Also in Switzerland, in Austria,
and even in Holland, Belgium, and some of the Scandinavian
countries.
This is based on the idea of a win-win cooperation of
respect for the sovereignty of the other country and respect for
the other social system.  This has been an incredible
development.  It’s already 12 times larger than the Marshall Plan
was, but the amazing thing is that for 4.5 years where this
project is now progressing, the Western mainstream media and
Western politicians have virtually ignored it; they have not
reported it, and only in the recent period have they suddenly
realized this is unstoppable.  What is now occurring is a flood
of attacks from the main think tanks, saying this is just an
authoritarian effort by the Chinese to replace the Anglo-American
imperialism with a Chinese one, and they want to take over the
world.  It was quite a sudden change in the coverage and in the
comments.
A similar shock happened when they realized that Russia was
absolutely not a regional power as Obama had told, but that
basically it was about to become, under the leadership of
President Putin, a major power again.  So therefore, when Trump
suddenly won the election, the same apparatus which is now behind
the Skripal affair — British intelligence in collusion with the
intelligence heads of the Obama administration — started a
policy of a coup against President Trump.  There was an article
in January 2017 by the British paper {The Spectator}, which said
that President Trump would be gotten out of the White House
either through a coup, impeachment, or an assassination attempt.
That was obviously the policy which these people followed, and
the aim clearly was to prevent President Trump — who had
promised in the election campaign to improve relations with
Russia and bring it back on a stable and good basis — to prevent
Trump from doing it by saying, “If you dare to speak to President
Putin, that just proves you are a Russian agent.”  It took indeed
until the G-20 meeting in Hamburg last year, before Putin and
Trump had a personal meeting and actually hit it off very well.
Also, between President Trump and President Xi Jinping,
contrary to what Trump had said in the election campaign where he
was actually on a quite strong China-bashing mode, he received
President Xi Jinping in April last year at his private residence
in Mar-a-Lago.  And they established a very good positive
relationship between the two of them.  Then, when President Trump
went to Beijing for a visit in October last year, President Xi
Jinping returned this and gave Trump what they called a “state
visit plus.”  President Xi Jinping had the Forbidden City closed
down to visitors for an entire day, and gave a huge long history
lecture on Chinese history to President Trump and his wife.  They
established and deepened their relationship.
In the meantime, also Russia and China established the
deepest strategic partnership in their history.  Putin gave a
speech on March 3, 2018 to the Federal Assembly, where he
announced new weapons systems; basically, a long-range missile
which does not follow the ballistic curve, but is highly
maneuverable. Then also, a nuclear-powered cruise missile which
the West absolutely does not have, and a nuclear-powered
underwater drone which is quicker than above-water ships, and
laser weapons.  This combination of these and other weapons means
that all of sudden, the entire global ABM system the United
States had proceeded to build is obsolete.  President Putin said,
well, the West refused to even respond to all the offers made by
Russia since 2002; but now, they have to respond.  It is quite
amazing that, except the demand of four American ambassadors,
they have not yet responded.  Western media tended to belittle
these new weapons systems, or ignore them for the most part.
[Chinese Foreign Minister] Wang Yi and the Chinese Defense
Minister Wei Fenghe just attended the very large 7th Moscow
International Security Conference, which was attended by 900
guests and 700 media.  Wang Yi said that Russia can pursue its
own interests and play a larger role in the international and
regional stages.  The Chinese Defense Minister Wei Fenghe said he
came in order to send a signal to Washington that the
Russian-Chinese alliance is absolutely the strongest and that
there is a very close cooperation between the Russian and the
Chinese armed forces.
All of these things have to be seen as a dynamic process,
where we are now on the verge also of a full-fledged trade war.
Admittedly, the trade deficit of the United States with China is
untenable; but when President Trump said that he wants to impose
tariffs first on $60 billion trade deficit, and then on another
$100 billion trade deficit, this was met by an unusually sharp
response from the Chinese.  Global Times wrote yesterday that
China will not submit to the U.S. trade intimidation; that China
is prepared to react with a full list of their own tariffs on
American imports; that the trade war will cause pain for China,
but the Chinese society will rally and unite around the
government and the Party; and that they will also present a
detailed plan to respond, and then the Americans would have to
choose if they back their President in doing so, or if they hold
him accountable for the consequences.  China Daily even
mentioned that the Chinese countermeasures could include the
dumping of U.S. Treasuries, of which they have $1.4 trillion as
securities.
All of this comes at a moment where, at any moment, we could
have a new financial crash much worse than that of 2008, because
all the central banks did absolutely nothing to remove the root
causes of the crisis of 2008.  They just did quantitative easing,
zero interest rates, and naturally many corporations took that
gratis money to buy back their own stocks so that their stock
exchange values would go up, but the corporate debt would
increase.  Now, as the Federal Reserve is trying to increase the
interest rate, the blow-out of these corporate debt situations
could trigger a complete systemic collapse.  That is just one of
the many facets of this crisis.
An insider in the banking system, a well-placed one, told us
very recently that there is actually the possibility that some of
the financial forces could even deliberately trigger a crash
which they know is inevitable to come, as a deliberate plan to
pull the rug out from underneath President Trump; to bring back
the neo-cons, and that way to solve the problem which they could
not solve with the failed Russia-gate attempt. One thing is very
clear.  If that would happen and the neo-cons would get fully
back in the United States, World War III is as good as secure and
certain.
In the middle of this Skripal affair, President Trump and
President Putin telephoned; and President Trump absolutely
refused to send out tweets on this affair or otherwise join in
the present Russia bashing.
I want to make the strong point that there is a solution to
all of the problems I just mentioned.  That is, that there are
many possibilities.  For example, when Presidents Trump and Putin
will have a summit in the near future, they could discuss this.
Also, the Chinese Prime Minister Li Keqiang had recently pointed
to the fact that there is actually another way to solve the trade
deficit; namely, by massively increasing the trade.  President Xi
Jinping has offered to the whole world, including all the
European nations and the United States, that they should
cooperate with the Belt and Road Initiative.  China could decide
and choose not to dump U.S. Treasuries as a punishment for the
U.S. trade measures, but they could invest the $1.4 trillion in
U.S. Treasuries in infrastructure in the United States.  Diane
mentioned the Manhattan subway system in her remarks, and if you
look at the infrastructure — not only in Manhattan, but in all
of the United States — the condition of the highways, the
absolute absence of a fast train system; it is very clear that
the United States urgently needs investment in infrastructure.
President Trump had promised in the election campaign that he
would invest $1 trillion in infrastructure build-up; but so far,
he has not been able to find any financing, because the private
investors want an 11 % to 12 % return and a complete return of
their capital within 10 years.  Which means it is not possible to
finance it through private investment.  The neo-cons in the
Senate and in the Congress do not want to spend it in the Federal
budget.  The idea to distribute it to the regional and state
governments is just not practical.
So, if on the other side, China, which has a fantastic fast
train system of I think 25,000 km of fast train, and is planning
to connect every major Chinese city with a fast train system and
build 40,000 km of fast train systems by 2020; China could help
to build such a fast train system in the United States and
connect every major city with a fast train system going 350 mph
and in that way, completely transform the infrastructure of the
United States.  This would help not only to overcome the trade
deficit, but it would open the way for joint ventures between the
United States and China in third countries.  In Latin America
where, contrary to what former Secretary of State Tillerson had
said, China is not trying to build an imperial system in Latin
America.  But China and the United States could join hands in
building up the industries of the Southern Hemisphere.  Also, the
same could happen in Asian countries along the Belt and Road; and
also naturally in Africa.  It could happen in the reconstruction
and economic build-up of the war-torn region of Southwest Asia,
and naturally of Africa in general.
This could even include Great Britain eventually, if they
change their government and if they get their crimes cleared up
which they clearly have committed.  But it would mean absolutely
the necessity to reform the financial system of the United States
and Western Europe.
My husband, Lyndon LaRouche, has already developed several
years ago a package which together would absolutely remedy the
situation.  It would mean that the United States should go back
to a Hamiltonian banking policy, to a banking system in the
tradition of Alexander Hamilton; including the Glass-Steagall
banking separation of Franklin D Roosevelt.  Then, have a
national bank, a credit system, then have a crash program for
thermonuclear fusion and joint space cooperation with other
countries in order to increase the productivity of the economy in
a qualitative way.
What people really don’t realize, or most people don’t
realize, is that the present Chinese model of economy and the
early U.S. republic model are very similar.  They’re based on
Hamiltonian principles.  In China, they have now made a huge
effort to eliminate the speculative area, to forbid Chinese
investors abroad to invest in speculation.  It is very clear that
China, even if they don’t call it way, is actually very close to
the American System.  And it is no coincidence that the most
popular economist in China is Friedrich List, the German
economist who was sort of the predecessor to Henry C. Carey, and
who wrote important writings about the different between the
British and the American systems.  Germany also has a tradition
of that; namely, the Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, the Credit
Bank for Reconstruction, which was based on the Roosevelt
Reconstruction Finance Corporation and was the basis for the
German economic miracle in the post-war reconstruction.  So, also
in Europe, you have some relevance and memory of this system.
Now after Xi Jinping had announced the New Silk Road, the
Schiller Institute and our organization published a study which
we had worked on for 26 years with the name “The New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which is actually the absolute
blueprint and outline for an international economic cooperation
of all nations overcoming geopolitics.
Now just imagine if we could mobilize the American people to
exert pressure on President Trump and give him backing, and he
would accept the offer of Xi Jinping to cooperate with the New
Silk Road in this way and also the European countries would
eventually recognize — most of them are doing it already — but
even the remaining ones would recognize that the cooperation with
Russia, with China and the other nations who already have jointed
the Belt and Road initiative–that this would be much more in
their self-interest, than the present course of the British
confrontation with Russia and with China.
If such an international economic cooperation could be
realized, it would also be the realistic basis for a global
security architecture which would include among others also
Russia and China.  It would then require that we do exactly what
Xi Jinping has said many times, that mankind needs to move in a
new phase of international cooperation, what he calls the “shared
community of the future of mankind” or a “community of destiny,”
then we could start to focus on the real problems, the common
aims of mankind.  We could build a system to make nuclear weapons
obsolete, a new form of the SDI, what my husband had proposed, in
the end of the 1970s and then it was in the works for several
years; and then on March 23, 1983, President Regan had announced
the SDI as a way for both superpowers to cooperate to make
nuclear weapons obsolete. I think in light of the present danger
of a new arms race and the already-existing arms race and the
danger that this gets out of control, we need such an approach as
a new SDI; and also a new SDE [Strategic Defense of the Earth],
because the planet as a whole is threatened by dangers from
space, from asteroids, from comets, which could really extinguish
life on this Earth.
We should instead concentrate on the common aims of
mankind–the alleviation of poverty, the creation of a living
standard for a decent life for every human being on this planet,
and a system of earthquake precursors and joint space research
and travel.  We should concentrate on space colonization as the
necessary and possible next phase of the evolution of the human
species. I think that if we combine that with a dialogue of
cultures where each nation would emphasize and revive the best
traditions of its own culture, and then have a dialogue among all
of these nations and cultures, we could absolutely create the
basis for a new Renaissance.
Skeptics would say that this is completely unrealistic.  But
I’m saying that the fact that you have these three
Presidents–President Putin, who is obviously recognized and
loved by the Russian people, and has just been reelected with an
overwhelming majority; with Xi Jinping, who is an exceptional
leader who obviously is equally loved by the Chinese population,
and basically they decided to eliminate the limits to his term in
office so that he can guide China in these very, very important
coming years; and President Trump, who is absolutely not what the
media are making out of him, but who has shown again and again
that he has outflanked a pretty difficult factional situation in
his own party, and naturally with a Congress and a Senate which
are very obstructive for the most part.  I think that if the
three Presidents join hands and do what they clearly did very
successfully so far, in the attempt to solve the crisis of the
Korean Peninsula, I absolutely think this is a realistic option.
However, we should not sit on our hands, but we should
really get into an international mobilization to propose this
agenda, and do everything in our means to make it possible.  It
is the life of civilization which depends on it.
Thank you. [Applause]

SARE:  Thank you. We can now take questions from the
audience here. Please say your name, and if you represent an
institution or a press agency, please state what you’re
representing as well.

Q:  I would like to ask you a question on behalf of Weiwei
TV. As you may know, President Donald Trump has already
instituted trade policies on China and China made a serious
response.  So I would like to know how you see the relationship
between the United States and China? And what direction do you
think this relationship is going to?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that we have a very serious danger,
because if it comes to this trade war, as I mentioned, you have
already a collapsing financial system of the trans-Atlantic
region.  And a trade war could easily be one of the elements
triggering a complete meltdown of the financial system and that
would obviously be much worse for the West than for China, which
has taken certain measures to eliminate speculation and put the
whole Chinese economy on a solid ground.  Nevertheless, the
consequences of a financial crash would be potentially extremely
dangerous.  As I said, if the neo-cons would come back and Trump
would be ousted in this context, we would be back to Hell in no
time.
On the other side, the trade war has not yet started.  So
far, it’s just lists, and there is room to put on the agenda a
different proposal.  I think Prime Minister Li Keqiang already
pointed to it, to increase the trade in joint ventures in third
countries.  I think that the more people talk about this idea of
U.S. investments in infrastructure and, for example, Xi Jinping
could reiterate the proposal for the United States to join the
Belt and Road Initiative, I think the trade war can still be
avoided. But it does need determined action.
And I think that the possibility exists simply because the
relationship between Xi Jinping and Trump has so far lasted over
a year, and they have telephoned around many crises; and
basically the Korea situation is on a very good course.  There
will be a summit between [Shinzo] Abe and Trump, who also wants
to play a positive role.  There will be a meeting between Putin
and Trump, hopefully very soon; and Kim Jong-Un and Trump. So I
think there is a diplomatic framework where many initiatives can
be made, and I think the New Silk Road is definitely the answer
to solve all of these problems.

Q:  Hello.  I think what you have said today is just
enlightening.  My name is Alan S.  I’m a screenwriter and
producer of a World War I mini-series, called “The 42nd Rainbow
Division.”  I think history is our greatest weapon and if we
start actually thinking back to what Russia actually did, for not
only World War II, but also World War I.  We would have lost both
world wars. And actually the United States wouldn’t have even
been in World War I, because we would have lost it before we even
got in.  They were a huge ally.
I think history needs to be taught to the young and that’s
why I’m doing this series, is because the younger generations
don’t realize that Russia has been an ally. And now we’re
vilifying Russia and making them into a villain when it should be
the opposite.  How do we actually teach this to the young?  The
younger generations are our hope and they’re our future.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think we need to change the narrative of
the neo-cons. Because when the Ukraine crisis started to develop,
President Putin said if it would not have been Ukraine, they
would have found another way to escalate the confrontation with
Russia. And I think that this is absolutely the case.
I think to change the narrative of the Ukraine, because this
is really when the total escalation against Putin as the demon
started, is a very urgent matter because right now President
Poroshenko has announced that he wants to basically have a
military solution for the east Ukraine, which could easily
provoke a war with Russia.
I think the narrative has to be replaced by the truth.  The
truth is that Victoria Nuland bragged that she and the State
Department spent $5 billion in building up NGOs to cause regime
change in Ukraine.  The former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt–even he
admitted that the Ukraine crisis started with the EU expansion
summit of Maastricht in 1992, when the eastward expansion of the
EU was decided, and the crisis was triggered when the EU wanted
to have the association of Ukraine (basically at the end of 2013,
which was the point when President Yanukovych decided he couldn’t
do it because it would have given NATO access to the Black Sea;
it would have flooded Russia with EU products.  This then
triggered the Maidan, which was immediately supported by these
NGOs financed by Nuland and the West, supported by neo-Nazis
which were then causing the violence, and finally the coup in
February 2014, imposing a fascist government as a reaction to
that. And the threat to forbid the Russian language, the people
in the Crimea decided to hold a referendum and they voted to be
part of Russia, so Crimea was not annexed, but it was a vote for
self-determination of the Crimean people.
I’m telling you all of this because part of the demonization
of Putin, is the Ukraine story and what he supposedly did with
Crimea, and all of this is not true.  I think we have to really
make an effort, to maybe produce many more movies and maybe we
can work together to this effect because we have documented many
of these wrong narratives and we must make them known. Because if
the mass media are just portraying this idea that Russia is about
to do everything, and behind every —  it is worse than the
McCarthy period and people are just hyped up which can only be
characterized as a prewar propaganda. Because why do you build up
an enemy image, because you want to make war against this nation.
This is a mortal danger in which the whole world is. And I think
this Skripal affair–the fact that it backfired, the fact that
the British were caught lying, is really also a chance.
I would suggest that we work together on making more movies.
We have already put out a lot of them, but I think we need and
call upon all of you to help to distribute them, and make them
known to as many young, middle-aged, and old people as we can.

Q:  Mrs. LaRouche.  Thank you very much for your speech.  I
think everyone here–we’re very pleased to hear what you said. My
name is Amber J. I’m political activist right now working with
several groups for supporting Trump and also for the midterm
election.  And also, I’m working for fighting for
Chinese-American minority civil rights kind of thing.
I have a question — I believe everybody came to this
conference understands your speech and understands the principle
of three countries cooperating with each other.  But there are
some Trump supporters, they stand for Trump because Trump is
starting a trade war right now.  How would you persuade those
Trump supporters to understand this win-win cooperation between
these three countries, to maximize the effort for these three
countries to cooperate together?
And also I believe a while ago, I heard India and Japan and
probably the U.S.A. talking about starting another kind of
international cooperation in terms of the infrastructure.  That
is the kind of thing similar to the Silk Road, the One Belt, One
Road.  How would you like to define that, or could you say about
something about it?  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think this is again another narrative
which needs to be replaced by truth. And that is, what is
actually the Chinese policy?  Part of this problem is that for a
long period of time the Western media and certain political
circles in the United States have also painted a very negative
picture about China.  I think Chinese-Americans, and you yourself
could help to correct that.
I must say, my image of China is incredibly positive;

because I was there for the first time in 1971.  This was in the
Cultural Revolution.  And this was an unbelievable experience
because at that time, the country was completely distraught.
People there were unhappy.  The Red Guards took people out of
their homes in the night.  They painted all the cultural
buildings, the Summer Palace and other places in Beijing, with
red paint.
Anyway, I’m just reporting that to say that when I returned
to China after 25 years, in 1996, already with the idea of the
Eurasian Land-Bridge, the idea of the New Silk Road, where I
attended a major conference on that subject in Beijing as a
speaker, the country had already been completely transformed as a
result of the policies of Deng Xiaoping.
But if you now go to China, it is unbelievable.  The country
is prosperous; there is a large well-to-do middle class.  People
are optimistic about the future.  They have an absolute vision, a
self-confidence about China, about eliminating poverty by 2020.
President Xi Jinping has a hands-on policy, going to the
villages, talking to individuals; finding out what measures must
be taken to eliminate poverty.
It’s just such an incredibly optimistic situation–where
also, culturally, China is pursuing the revival of Confucianism.
Xi Jinping personally has made a big emphasis that Confucian
philosophy is being taught on all levels of society.
I think that if people, especially in the Chinese-American
community would amplify our efforts to show the real, true
picture of China, I think the Trump supporters would absolutely
understand, that it {is} in the best interest for the United
States and China to cooperate.  If you think about it, if the two
largest economies in the world cannot cooperate, the danger of
world war is very big.
Many people have talked about the Thucydides trap.  This
refers to the rivalry between ancient Athens and Sparta, which
led to the Peloponnesian War, and the final disappearance of
Classical, ancient Greece.  If there would be a Thucydides trap
between the United States and China; if the United States would
react to the rise of China by a military confrontation, the world
as a whole would not survive it.
China has (especially the Chinese ambassador in Washington,
Cui Tiankai stressed that it is not the intention to replace the
U.S. as the strongest power, but to have a special great power
relationship, where both of them respect the sovereignty of the
other, respect the different social system of the other, and then
join hands and cooperate in all strategic matters.
I think there must be a very big mobilization where the
image of China in the United States is being straightened out,
because once people know the beauty of Chinese culture, the
optimism of the Chinese population, everything will change.
It is right now that the United States has a big moral and
cultural crisis.  You have for the first time the life-expectancy
going down.  For two years in a row, you have the life-expectancy
of all categories of life in the United States shrinking.  If
there is any parameter for a collapsing economy, it is the
life-expectancy. And that is naturally due to the new opium
epidemic, the rate of suicides because of depression, alcoholism,
and the terrible culture of death, which expresses itself in the
youth culture, violence of the video games, in the whole
entertainment industry, which is contributing to these many
school shootings.
You do have a cultural problem.  And I think you have to go
back to the philosophy of Benjamin Franklin, the founder and
father of America, who used to be a complete Confucian
philosopher.  He recognized the wonderful aspects of the moral
philosophy of Confucius and modeled his own moral system on the
basis of Confucius.  There are many parallels.  You have the
Confucius tradition with Benjamin Franklin, and in China, you
have the American System of Alexander Hamilton in the early phase
of the American republic, and now, in the Chinese model.  And you
have many similarities which, once you see, you can see that
there are universal principles uniting these two countries, which
are much more deep and much more important than the superficial
conflicts.
I would say the best thing one can do to intervene in this
situation is, we have proposed the project for the China
investment in infrastructure.  This has been picked up by a
Chinese professor recently, John Gong.  It has been covered by
CGTN TV.  There is a very famous Trump supporter in California,
who just made a similar proposal.  I think that has to be talked
up. I think we have to talk up the idea of overcoming the danger
of a trade war, by putting instead on the table Chinese
investment in infrastructure, U.S. and China joining in joint
ventures in third countries, and start a real cultural dialogue,
so that the two people start to know each other and know the best
of each other. And that way we can overcome this crisis.

SARE:  Helga, I have a question which I think is related.
You may want to say more.  It comes from Sr. Pat C., of the
Dominican Sisters of Peace who is also a member of the alto
section of the Schiller Institute chorus.
She writes, “In your view, what concrete actions now will
help catalyze the transition from a competition of nations to
cooperation and mutual respect?”
I think you largely have addressed that, but there may be
more that you want to say.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think that the knowledge about the
incredible dynamic of the Belt and Road Initiative, once people
know that, it changes there view.  For example, take the case of
Austria.  Austria is a small country, but they want to take a
leading role in becoming a hub for the New Silk Road.  They just
had a conference planning to broaden the gauge of the railway
from Vienna all the way to Moscow, so that they can be better
integrated in the container trains and similar things.  All the
Balkan countries are completely on board.  The Eastern European
countries, the Central European countries are all planning to be
hubs and bridges.
The excitement in Africa– I mean, if people would know,
there is a completely different spirit!  No longer do the
Africans want to be receivers of donations.  They want to be
treated as equal partners. They want to have investments, and the
spirit of the New Silk Road has absolutely changed the
self-esteem and self-confidence of all the African leaders and
many of the people.
Just take this case of the Transaqua project.  Transaqua is
a project which was originally proposed by Bonifica, an Italian
engineering firm, already more than 30 years ago. And the
Schiller Institute and the LaRouche movement were campaigning for
that for decades, because it is one of the key projects for the
entire continent.  What it would essentially mean is that you
would take about 3-4% of the water from the tributaries of the
Congo River, at a 500 meter height, and then by gravitation, you
can bring this water through a system of canals all the way to
Lake Chad, which is now dried out to less than 10% of its
original volume.  This affects the live immediately of 40 million
people in the Lake Chad Basin.  When you bring this water back
into Lake Chad, not only do you fill up this lake again, and
create large volumes of water for irrigation for agriculture; you
also create an inland shipping system for 12 countries in the
heart of Africa; you create hydropower; you create a system of
industry parks, of industrialization. So you bring in the
industrialization in the middle of Africa, and that with all the
other infrastructure projects, will mean Africa has a future.
By the year 2040, there will be 2 billion people living in
Africa, and they need these jobs, they need education, they need
the kinds of projects, so that people are no longer marching
through the Sahara and dying of thirst, which is happening now
more than people even dying in the Mediterranean–it’s just not
being reported.  These young people would instead help in the
building up of the African continent.
This is such a fantastic development, and if the Americans
would know about it — I mean, I’m only talking about the tip of
the iceberg — but if people would see the sheer volume of change
and the magnitude of change which is already happening, they
would become absolutely optimistic and change their view, and
recognize that in the history of mankind, geopolitics is
something that absolutely has to be overcome, if we are supposed
to survive as a human species.  In the age of thermonuclear
weapons, if you do not overcome geopolitics, we are going to be
the destruction of our own species; and nobody in their right
mind can really want that because even those warmongers, who are
pushing it, would be eliminated themselves, too.
I think that the moment has absolutely arrived.  If we go
into a mass advertising campaign, a mass education campaign,
about the existence of this New Paradigm, I think it can
absolutely inspire the Americans and make the change which is
necessary in the short term.

Q: Hi, I am an American citizen and a Confucian, I believe
in Confucianism.  I’m an independent scholar of language and
civilization.  I was an instructor of Chinese at Harvard
University, in the Department of Eastern Language and
Civilization.
I have the same idea as you that America needs to join
China’s One Belt and One Road plan.  I grew up 10 years ago,
during the age of reform of China. I worked as at the FESCO, the
Foreign Enterprise Service Corporation.  I think more than 20
years ago, many American, European and Japanese companies
invested in China, and gave us was a better economy, and I think
it was very important.
Now, I think in the 21st century, China’s economy is much
improved.  It’s time to bring China’s investments into America
and to help America’s economy.  That’s why in 2016, I was for
Donald Trump.  I want to work with American people; I want to be
the bridge to connect China and America, to bring China’s
investment into America, to best help America’s economy.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Very good!  So many you can join with the
Schiller Institute to help us, to get this message out widely.
Because you know, already now the states which are doing large
business with China, see the advantage.  When President Donald
Trump was in China last November, he had with him delegations
from several states — West Virginia, Alaska, and some others.
And in the case of West Virginia, he brought back trade deals
and investment deals worth $83 billion!  And the governor of West
Virginia is completely optimistic that this will give back hope
to all the people in West Virginia.
And there are many projects, for example, one very exciting
idea is that Beijing, and the region of Hebei province and
Tianjin, this is a region of about 130 million people, and there
is a now a huge project whereby this region will be changed,
where the heavy industry, which still has some environmental
problems, causing smog and pollution is now being outsourced into
Hebei province and modernized; a new city is being built, I think
its name is Xiong’an, which is in the middle between Beijing,
Tianjin and Hebei, and it’s completely modernized.  Beijing on
the other side, will have lots of research and development, which
is much cleaner for the environment, and all of this is supposed
to be connected through an infra-urban modern transport system,
including modern maglev.  And the recent “Two Sessions”
conference and the National People’s Congress in China, the party
discussed building a new maglev system of 600 kph speed, for the
connection between the cities, and an inter-urban slow maglev
system of 160 kph.
This is very good for urban transportation, because the
beauty of the maglev system is that it accelerates immediately:
You are in a few seconds at full speed, with the slow maglev
you’re only going 160 kph, which is enough for inner city
transport; and they want to connect this entire region with this
modern transport system, so that essentially no job will be more
than 20 minutes away from the home of the working person.  So you
save all this commuting time.
And my idea is that this model of the Tianjin-Hebei-Beijing
region could be a model for the modernization of New York, New
Jersey, San Francisco, Los Angeles, the Midwest, and you actually
do something like that inside the United States.  And I think
President Trump is a developer; he knows about infrastructure,
and I think we just have to make sure that the Trump supporters
know about these plans, and that we create an environment where
this is actually intersecting the present crisis and danger of a
trade war.
If you move quickly enough, and get the Trump voters all
inspired with this idea, I think we can do a miracle. And I
definitely believe in miracles, as long as we do them ourselves.

Q: [follow-up] Thank you very much.  I totally agree with
you.  I believe that to bring China’s investment and enterprise
is more important in the trade market.  And secondly, I was a
professional Chinese instructor:  I want to educate more
Americans and Chinese people to understand each other, and make a
friendship to develop together.

Q: I’m José V.: I’m here from New York City.  Earlier you
touched upon the youth culture and the culture of death, and I
was hoping you could touch more upon that, because in my
experience — and I’m only 19 myself, too — but from what I see
of people around me, but also my nephew who will be turning 15
this year, I see he’s more interested in violent video games and
yelling into the microphone to imaginary people who aren’t there,
and spending a lot of money on things that will never really help
him out in life: for example, he brought a $300 belt buckle,
because it said somebody’s name on it, I think it’s Gucci. He’s
more interested in reading violent comic books that display gore
and showing people’s insides — I don’t have to go into that, you
know about that.
My question is, how do we overcome this violence?  How do we
overcome this culture of death, and how do we overcome this
culture of violence?  And more importantly, how do we stop
getting young people wanting to escape from reality by taking
drugs and whatnot?  So that’s my question.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think what we need for that is a mass
movement for development.  Because, first of all, I studied this
question some years ago, when we had some guests and the children
who came with the guests asked me if I knew about Pokémon, and
naturally I had never heard about Pokémon.  And they said:  Oh,
it’s beautiful, it’s violent, it’s fighting.  So I was so shocked,

I started to look into it, and I discovered Pokémon as a sort of

introduction drug to video games, and then naturally, the
evolution, where these video games come from.
Well, they were developed by the military in the postwar
period, because people had recognized in the Second World War,
only 15% of the soldiers were ready to shoot the enemy, because
human beings have a sort of natural barrier inside them, which
they don’t want to overcome, and when they kill somebody it goes
against that.  So many people have a healthy block, — or had a
healthy block. So the military developed these quickly changing
targets, like in target practice, not having just one target but
having many, and they change and move, so that you would learn to
shoot quickly — shooting, shooting, one shot after the other —
in order to train people to overcome the normal adrenalin shock
which happens if you shoot at another person; if you are not
brainwashed, then you have an adrenalin reaction and you start
shaking and so on.  So they wanted to get away from this, by
having these video simulations, where people would learn to
shoot, to increase the killer ratio of the soldiers.
So this is the basis for these video games which then became
commercial.  And while, in the military, and obviously it’s a
terrible thing in the military also, but at least you have an
officer, you have some guidance, you have military discipline;
but when these video games, which have become more insane over
the decades, if they are accessible to young children, and these
young children have not had any kind of an inoculation through a
humanist education, through the recognition of beauty in
Classical culture, through moral guidelines given to them by
their parents, but where you have a culture where everything is
allowed, everything goes — movies become more violent, more
perverse, more pornographic; even snuff movies, where killing is
being filmed, or at least the illusion that people are killed is
being filmed, this is really deadly stuff!  This destroys the
cognition of anybody, but especially of young people.
And when young people, then, children, pupils, students,
become autistic because they are only living in their social
media, and have completely lost the ability to relate to each
other, this is the death of a culture.  And I think this is
what’s happening in the United States.  You would not have these
unbelievable numbers of mass school shootings:  Like after
Columbine in 1999, there were 38 mass shootings. And after the
Parkland shooting, you had 50 alarms in the schools per day,
where pupils would see another pupil having a weapon, or having
crazy messages.
Now, obviously, this brings us to the question of, who is
promoting this?  President Trump had a meeting in the White
House, where he met with the pupils of the school in Parkland,
and the producers of these videos.  So obviously, President Trump
is aware of it, and I think we have to strengthen his resolve to
move against it.  And it happens to be that the Parkland
incident, in particular, was also the work of the FBI, because
they established a system which is run by some uneducated call
center, and so, many of the hints which were clearly given
before, were missed.  And it now turns out that in the Orlando
case, the father of the shooter was a longtime FBI informant.  So
there is a lot of these things to be pursued.
But I think the key thing is a mass movement for
development.  Because, if young people have no hope for the
future, and have no perspective, because it’s now the common view
that the coming generations will be worse off than the present
one — this is the first time ever this has happened; because
it used to be a moral standard for families, for everybody, that
you work so that your children will have a better life than
yourself.  And this has been abandoned for the first time.  So
what will young people have as a perspective?  Well, they have no
future.  And that is a huge difference!  And I can assure you,
I have seen it in all cases: There is a gigantic difference
between the optimism of the youth in China, and the pessimism of
the young people and the population in general in the United
States, and in countries like Germany, for example.
So the absence of a vision, where the future of a nation, of
the world will be, is what is feeding this kind of culture of
death, because then it doesn’t matter, life doesn’t matter, life
is worth nothing, whether you shoot somebody or not it makes no
big difference.
So I think a mass movement for the kind of economic
development which we were talking about before, is an absolute
ingredient, so that people have a reason to study, to develop
their minds, to develop their cognitive powers, to be productive.
If you have the feeling that you can be an astronaut, that you
can be a scientist in the realm of a thermonuclear fusion
economy; that you will travel to the Moon Village in your
lifetime, you have a motivation to study!  And I think without
such a motivation, it is very, very difficult.
So I would not look at it as a separate issue:  I would look
at it as an integral question to the whole discussion we are
having here.

Q: Thank you for your work, today, and throughout all your
time.
I’m Father Richard D., Franciscan Servants of God’s Grace.
My question to you, is we know that the President has written a
book showing that his way of dealing with a problem is to take an
{extreme} view, so he has room to compromise, to come back to
what he actually wants.  Do you believe he’s doing this with the
international trade situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I don’t know; it may be.  Because I think
President Trump has said of himself many times, that he knows how
to make deals, that he would get better agreements that most
other people.  And it may very well be that such an idea exists,
that he makes big announcements of tariffs and so forth, and then
in reality, he’s negotiating and has his ambassador and other
people, trade negotiators, making such a discussion.
I don’t know.  I find it a little bit risky, because I saw
some Chinese articles where they said that some people may think
that they can get a better result this way, but that China will
not be intimidated into making compromises and basically will
answer back.
I don’t know.  I think it is not necessary.  I think this
particular idea that you make a huge attack, and then you go for
something less, is still, in my view, — and as you probably have
realized, I’m very positive about the potential of President
Trump; I’ve stuck my neck out a year ago, when I said that if
Trump is able to put the relationship with Russia and China on a
positive basis, he will go into history as one of the greatest
American Presidents, and I stuck my neck out.  And I’m repeating
this, here.  So, as you can see, I’m very optimistic and positive
that it could happen.
But I also think that this particular style of negotiation
is very dangerous, especially in an environment which is fraught
with dangers as I touched upon in my earlier remarks.  A much
better way, in my view, would be to just say, “We want the United
States and China to work together on a New Paradigm.” There is
already the Belt and Road Initiative. The United States could
have some program, they could call it the American Silk Road, or
the American FDR Revival, or the American Founding Fathers
Celebration, if they don’t want to be part of something which
already has been put out by China, it doesn’t matter, as long as
the content of the policy is the same on.
And I think the potential for things to grow into a higher
level of reason — I mean, here we are talking about the one
humanity.  I mean, I think the spiritual dimension, if you want,
has to be brought into this matter, because man is different from
all creatures, because we are gifted by God with creative reason.
And you don’t have to be a Christian, you can be a Confucian
philosopher, you can be a Buddhist, you can be just a good
person, to understand that we have reached a point in human
history, where we either recognize that we are all part of the one
humanity, or we will not make it as a species.
Since Diane mentioned earlier Nicholas of Cusa, I can only
say, that Nicholas developed a way of thinking which  — she
mentioned in the Docta Ignorantia, the “coincidence of
opposites,” which is the idea that because we are capable of
creative reason, we can think the One as having a higher quality
and a higher power than the Many: The one humanity being first,
and then the many nations being also important, but being not in
contradiction to the progress and wellbeing of the one humanity.
So I think if we understand that it is really the question
of addressing that in us, which makes us human, the creative
potential, then I think we can just find a way of shaping a New
Paradigm where mankind is defined from a common future, how do we
want to be existing as a human species, in 100 years from now, in
1,000 years from now, or even in 10,000 years from now?  Because
we can think the future!  No dog, no donkey, not goose can
think the future.  If you tell a dog, “Let’s have a walk
tomorrow,” the dog will hear the word “walk,” which the dog
probably knows, and jump to the door and wag its tail, and be
happy.  But if you say “tomorrow,” it doesn’t mean anything to
the dog!
But I think we need to raise the level of our communication,
and just really do our duty as a human species, and prolong our
existence indefinitely, by working together.

Q: My name is J.  I’m the author of two books, Evidence Not
Destroyed
, and Spread Real Love.  I want to thank Mrs.
LaRouche; I want to thank this organization.  You’re some fine
people.  As I travel around America, I see many things:  I just
had to buy a new car, because the one I had had over 205,000
miles on it; and the one before that had 186,000 miles on it. But
I’m going around the countryside, and other countries, also,
spreading, putting this literature out for so many years.  And
I’m impacted with this organization.  It has some very find,
smart brains, that are sitting here in this auditorium today, and
I just thank God for you.
And when we come to a situation like we have today, I want
to know how we can go forward?  How we can promote civilization?
How we can carry on?  But if we have learned anything from our
history, we have to look back and look at our history, and look
at our results.  We have something that’s so profound here
today; we don’t get this kind of information on the TV no more. I
used to watch so much news, but now, they say the news is not
absolutely real! They say something about “fake” — I heard that
over and over again, so I turned my television off from the news.
And when I can come and get this type of real information, in a
setting like this, it makes one want to go forward.
So I’m here to help anyway I can.  I’ll put another 100 and
some thousands miles on the car I just bought, to get this
information out to the people, because if you don’t get it, the
news is not going to give it to you correctly, the way it should
be given.  So, I’m just thanking each one, and all of you that’s
working — just as I am;  Matt Guice, I’ve been working with him
since the ’90s; Lynne Speed and Dennis Speed, I’ve been working
with these people since the early ’90s.  And I’m so proud.
One thing, let me say, I think the reverend right before me,
a religious man — I sit in a church now, and I’m the only deacon
there!  Why is this?  Look where we’re going?  Why is that? We’re
reforming, we’re conforming, we’re complying to every situation
that’s not good.  And I think we have some real strength here,
and we can do some great things.  The main thing is, keep going
forward.  Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, I think people have to be courageous,
because the paradigm shift which occurred in the United States,
which you, Diane, referenced in the beginning, which really
started with the murder of John F. Kennedy and then the murder of
Martin Luther King, and the assassination of Robert Kennedy, you
know, we had several years ago, a Mozart Requiem performance in
Vienna, in the suburbs of Washington, and also in the Boston
Cathedral, commemorating the paradigm shift which has occurred in
the last 50 years of America, where, the fact that the Kennedy
murder, and also the murder of Martin Luther King, was really not
avenged — or,  not avenged, but not even investigated, and the
real culprits made known and punished, which has led to people
becoming depressed.  I said many times, the Americans almost have
become like the Germans, because if you ask a German person to do
something, 99 % of the people say “Oh, you can’t do anything,
anyway,” so people are really depressed, and feel that they are
powerless in the face of what is happening.
And that has happened to America as a result of these
unclarified murders.  And since we have this event today, because
of the 50th anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King, I think it’s a very good moment in history, to say, we will
not allow the murderers of King to be successful in eliminating
the hope which he represented.  I mean, Martin Luther King was
murdered at a moment when he had started to pick up many of the
same issues which are now being, in reality, changed by China.
Because he had started not only to take up the question of
economic justice inside the United States, but also he had
started to take on the question of jobs and overcoming poverty in
developing countries.  And that is what China is doing, exactly
today. And in the same way as the Schiller Institute has been
campaigning for, and LaRouche and his movement have been working
for, for almost half a century, is now becoming a reality.
So there is reason for optimism.  And I think that the best
thing we can do in a moment like this, thinking about the memory
of Martin Luther King, is to say, we will pick up the torch, we
will not allow the American people to be passive and desperate
and ignorant and all of these things, but we will all turn into
active members of the Schiller Institute, help to spread the
message; make the Schiller Institute a Renaissance movement, a
moment fighting not only for the economic buildup of the United
States, but also for a cultural Renaissance.  I think the two
things absolutely have to go together.
So I would encourage all of you to absolutely work with us,
because I think the solution to all of these problems are
absolutely within reach.

SARE:  As the next person is coming up I would just tell
everybody, during the break you will have the opportunity to do
exactly what Mrs. LaRouche has said, which is to become a member
of the Schiller Institute at our literature table.  And to
purchase copies of these very important, world-changing reports:
This is the one she mentioned, “The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge,”  which we produced right after Xi Jinping
announced it. And this report, of which Jason Ross is a coauthor
on “Extending the New Silk Road to West Asia and Africa: A Vision
of an Economic Renaissance.”

Q:  Hi, I’m Donald C.  My quick question is about the
liberals.  How are they teaching curriculums to our kids, and
they’re not giving them the chance to learn the right stuff, and
they’re just forcing the kids what their beliefs are?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, that is a big problem, because it
started with John Dewey, to basically develop this liberal
pragmatic idea of education.  And unfortunately, you have
generations of people who have gone through different phases of
such elimination of Classical literature, of natural science, so
it is a real problem.  And I would think that the best way to
proceed on that, is if you look at the kind of materials which we
present in the present [What Is the New Paradigm?] class series,
which you can find on the LaRouche PAC site, and you can register
to be part of it, this is the kind of curriculum which was
developed especially with the ideas of my husband, Mr. LaRouche,
who did an incredible job, because he revived the best traditions
of the 2,500 years of European civilization, the traditions in
science which were the source of qualitative progress, the great
Classical arts; and this is something which is not taught in
American schools, for the most part.
And I think we have to form, basically, educated people, who
then hopefully, we can influence this present administration to
change that.  I think President Trump has repeatedly shown, at
least for certain areas, an understanding; he talked about the
American System of economy; he talked about Lincoln and Carey, he
talked about Hamilton. So in the economic field there is
definitely something there, which we can build on.  I think there
are many other people are equally concerned about the condition
of the school system.  But I think the best thing is that you
register for these classes [http://discover.larouchepac.com/]. And
if you haven’t already done it, you can also watch some of the
previous classes in the series.[6]  Get yourself absolutely a firm
grip on universal history, of the great advances in science and
culture, and then, you know, basically help us to organize
change.
Because it will come from many places.  There are many
people are realizing that at this point it is the scientists, the
engineers and such people, who will be much more important in the
shaping of things, than many politicians who are part of a party
system and partisan, and therefore, don’t really regard these
issues are the important ones.
But the best advice I can give you right now, is if you join
with our efforts, we find ways to address all of these issues,
and build a growing movement to demand such a change.

Q: Thank you very much.  Your comments were very insightful.
I believe in the paradigm where the United States, Russia and
China, essentially a triumvirate is essentially going to lead the
world, hopefully forward and out of the morass that we’ve been
in. Especially over the prior eight years before this current
President came into office.
The question, I want to ask is, what do you perceive would be
the case — because I don’t believe this economy in this country
would have lasted another year, under the current policies.  We
would have had a significant economic drop which would have led
to, since this country’s GDP is 25 % of the world’s, would have
had a worldwide, negative impact.  Having said that, what do you
perceive would be the consequences in this country, or the for
that matter the world, on the movement forward that has occurred,
if President Trump did not have the position he has?  He may be
President, but he may have a weakened political system, in the
sense of a House and the Senate: Would we be able to move
forward?  And what would be the consequences, and under what
conditions could we move forward?  Could this economy continue to
grow if he can’t implement his policies?  What would be the
international consequences of that, from your perspective?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the strongest situation is Trump’s
relation with his voters.  That despite all of the attacks by the
FBI, by the British, by the heads of the intelligence services
from the Obama administration, — I mean, he had a pretty tough
environment, and nevertheless, he goes back to his voters, he
holds a rally, and the support for him is actually growing in the
polls.  So I think that that is for sure, a very strong point
which we should build on, because if we keep strengthening that,
and if we keep informing the Trump voters on all the issues we
are discussing here, that can actually help to outdo the Congress
and the Senate.
And since there is a midterm election, there is actually a
very good moment to do that.  I mean, the danger is naturally
that Trump could be convinced that to take an anti-China stance
would help him in the midterm election.  I mean, I’m not sure;
I’m not close enough to the situation to make a judgment on that.
But I think the strong point is, Trump is close to his
voters, the voters still recognize what a change he means, and I
think that we need to have a mass mobilization — I think there
is no shortcut from that; because the danger is very acute. What
I said in my initial remarks, when we talk to some really
well-placed figure in Europe, who said that there is a discussion
to pull the rug out from under Trump with a new financial crash,
and if you think that this is a conspiracy theory — well, maybe
before the Skripal case, you also thought that such things are
conspiracies, but we have just seen a classic example of how you
can manipulate a whole international community of nations to go
into an attack on Russia, based on a lie!  So these things do
happen and they can happen.
Now, there are also many warnings.  Just today, I think some
representative of the firm of Guggenheim put out a warning on
this corporate debt question that a financial crash can happen
at any moment.  And basically, you have the European banking
system, the Italian banks are in terrible shape, you have a
policy where the trigger point of a collapse of the financial
system is many-fold.  It’s also like a minefield where it’s not
clear which mine will trigger the explosion, but once it happens,
you could have a systemic blowout, much worse than that of 2008.
Because the central banks have done absolutely zero, to eliminate
the root causes of the crash of 2008.  They have, instead, used
the so-called tools and instruments — namely quantitative
easing, negative interest rate, money pumping — but this has
reached the point where now the Fed is forced, or think they are
forced, to increase the interest rate, because a negative
interest rate is very bad for the real economy, it’s bad for the
savings of the people, it’s bad for life insurance, it’s bad for
real investment; and the hyperinflationary consequence of such
money-pumping is already visible on the horizon in the form of
the totally overvalued stock market, in the form of real estate
prices, in the form of many other such phenomena.  So the Fed
needs to increase the interest rate, but that is already bringing
the immediate potential for a new crash.
If that happens, I think we are in {real} trouble: So our
whole point, is we need the implementation of Glass-Steagall, and
the Four Laws developed by Lyndon LaRouche, before the crash
happens.  I think this is also a subject — there are these four
dialogues which have been established between President Xi
Jinping and Trump; one of them concerns the dialogue on economic
matters; China has put a lot of emphasis on the dangers to the
international financial system, at the G20 meeting in Hangzhou
[in 2016] and on other occasions.  So I think that this question
needs to be urgently addressed, also between the United States
and China in these negotiations.
And then, if you put the whole package together, the Four
Laws — Glass-Steagall, a National Bank, a credit system in the
tradition of Hamilton, a crash program for the increase in the
productivity of the labor force, and then joining hands in the
Belt and Road Initiative — all of these measures together are a
very, very practical and realistic way to overcome these dangers.
But it is very urgent, because we are sitting on a powder keg,
and I think it can be done, but we need a lot of people of good
will to become active with us.

SARE:  Helga, we’re just about up on time. We have two more
questions.  Do you want to take both, or one, or?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, maybe both together, and then I’ll
answer both.

Q: Hi Mrs. LaRouche.  My question to you is, is that right
after the shooting at Parkland, [Broward County] Sheriff Israel
was all over the news speaking about going to all members of
Congress to use the Baker Act, to detain and profile people that
have experienced some sort of depression.  And that’s of great
concern to me, because there are many people who have experienced
that, and I feel this country is becoming more like Germany back
in World War II.  So I’m kind of scared, and I’d like to know,
what’s your opinion on it?  Thank you.

SARE:  OK, next question.

Q:  Hello, my name is Steve S.  I would just like to ask,
how much of a role do you think that psychological warfare plays
in everything that’s going on?  And how can we counter it?  Are
there people out there who specialize in psychological warfare? I
hear people talk about history being erased; you know, the
projection of violence through videos and commercials and that
matter.
So, a lot of people are very confused, as well as myself,
even when you find something that you believe in sometimes, it’s
presented in a way that you accept it in the beginning, and then
it comes out to be a lie. And right now, clearly, lie is just
pounding on the truth.  I mean, you have one truth, but you have
so many lies that it seems too overwhelming to survive.

SARE: Thank you.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I think the concerns that both of you
expressed is very real.  I mean, it is the fact that the West is
already living in a police-state.  Just take the recent example
of the Facebook firm, Cambridge Analytica — they sold data on 50
million people for commercial purposes, for election manipulation
and who knows for what else?  If you go on the internet and you
go on any website, you immediately have the advertisement for the
next years of your life of whatever you looked at.
So we are already in a completely surveillance state, where
the NSA and the British equivalent, the GCHQ, are monitoring
everything — your phone, your smart TV, your laptop — it’s
omnipresent.  And obviously this needs to be reversed.
In the time when I was growing up, being a young person, we
had a big concern about data protection.  It was a civil right to
make sure that your privacy was protected.  All of this has gone
out of the window!  And also, naturally, the big change came on
September 11th.  Because September 11th was the pretext for a lot
of the elimination of civil rights which used to be a
constitutional right up to that moment.
And therefore, I think the inquiry of what really happened
on September 11th, is still one of the big tasks to be solved,
because it led to police-state measures inside the United States.
It led to a similar kind of change internationally. And right
now, you have the ongoing trial of the families of the victims of
the World Trade Center suing the government of Saudi Arabia for
their role in the September 11th attacks.  And the Saudi
government tried to appeal against the lawsuit, and a court in
New York overruled that, so the court case can go ahead.
Now, this goes very slowly, but this is a very important
aspect; because eventually, we have to go back to a
constitutional state.  So you are quite right to be concerned,
because there is a lot of this going on.
Again, I think there is no shortcut:  We need more people
taking an active role, and force the coming Congress to pass laws
to protect the rights of the people again. This is absolutely
possible.  The whole argument, for example, that you cannot
control these things, or not control the internet, is absolutely
not true:  You can block certain things, you can prevent things,
you can make laws which prohibit the profiling; you can make laws
which it a criminal act to do all of these things you are worried
about.  So it’s not a self-evident development.
But I think it does require that more people become state
citizens:  A state citizen, I would define a somebody who takes
responsibility not only for his life, his family, his country,
but for the outcome of human history.  And I think to be such a
world historical individual in a moment like that, where the
options are so rich, and so beautiful that there is no reason to
despair, but it is really the individual decision, to be part of
the solution which can and will make the difference. [applause]

SARE:  Thank you.  That was very beautiful and appropriate.
Do you wish to say anything else to us?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Well, just be happy, and be productive, and
feisty, and courageous, and then you can do everything you plan
to do.

SARE: Thank you very much! [applause]

 

[1] http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/nyheder/alle-kategorier/oekonomi/larouches-fire-love-feature/

[2] Kan læses på engelsk her: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2018/eirv45n06-20180209/22-28_4506.pdf  Dansk oversættelse er undervejs.

[3] Læs en dansk introduktion til rapporten af de to forfattere, Jason Ross og Husein Askary, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23600

[4] Abraham Lincolns Gettysburg-tale: » – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth«.

[5] Martin Luther Kings berømte tale ’I have been to the mountain top’ fra 3. April, 1968, kan læses her: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/mlkivebeentothemountaintop.htm

[6] Se lektionerne i dansk oversættelse her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/category/lpac-new-paradigme/