Huset Windsors forestående fald

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. april, 2018 – Næsten et kvart århundrede efter udgivelsen af Lyndon LaRouches artikel fra oktober 1994, »Huset Windsors forestående fald«, er den stadig den mest rungende opfordring til, at hele menneskeheden skal gribe til forsvar for at blive de sidste rester af Det britiske Imperiums oligarkismes svøbe kvit; en svøbe, der endnu i dag udgør en trussel om hellere at ødelægge hele verden snarere, end den vil løsne sit greb om planeten. LaRouche skrev denne artikel som en introduktion til en 60 sider lang EIR-Specialrapport med samme titel, som blev udarbejdet under LaRouches personlige supervision umiddelbart efter hans løsladelse fra fængsel i begyndelsen af 1994, efter fem års uretfærdig fængsling, på selvsamme Britiske Imperiums bud. I denne artikel taler LaRouche i sin egenskab af den ledende anklager på vegne af menneskeheden mod det folkemorderiske Britiske Imperium.

»Mine damer og herrer fra læserskarens internationale jury, vi har bragt jer til denne domstol for at høre anklager, der har deres oprindelse i en af de mest monstrøse forbrydelser, der nogen sinde er begået i menneskehedens kendte historie; en forbrydelse, der er begået på en enorm skala.

Vi fremlægger her for jer beviserne for, at, i de seneste fireogtredive år siden dens stiftelse i 1961, har en ond organisation, der kalder sig selv sådanne ting som Verdensnaturfonden, deltaget i overlagt folkemord mod nationerne og folkeslagene i  subsahara-områderne i Øst-, Vest- og Sydafrika. Vi vil bevise for jer, at, i hele denne periode, har lederen af denne forbryderiske sammensværgelse været prins Philip, også kendt som hertugen af Edinburgh og den regerende dronning af Det forenede Kongeriges gemal …

Disse beviser vil vise, at han er personligt ansvarlig for dette igangværende og forsøgte folkemord imod befolkningen i Afrikas subsahara-område, såvel som også andre steder på planeten. Bevismaterialet viser, at denne royale gemal er skyldig i denne forbrydelse, ikke alene som person, men også i sin egenskab af den udpegede, prinselige leder (’kingpin’) af dette rædselsfulde foretagende. Der er mange andre skyldige parter …

Listen er, som den også bør være, lige som en opsummering af forbryderne under Nürnberg-domstolens kategori af forbrydere, under rubrikken, forbrydelser mod menneskeheden …

Det er fuldt ud og rimeligt udregnet, at de politiske forholdsregler, som prinsen og hans medskyldige har vedtaget og i øjeblikket er i færd med at gennemføre i verden, ville, om dette fik lov at finde sted, reducere befolkningstallet på denne planet fra de nuværende omkring 5,3 mia. mennesker til langt under 1 mia. inden for omkring to generationer, hovedsageligt gennem den hyperbolske og selvaccelererende virkning af hungersnød og epidemiske sygdomme hos mennesker, dyr og planter. Under omstændigheder, fremkaldt som et biprodukt af et sådant koncentreret chok til alle højere livsformers immunsystem, er det på ingen måde garanteret, at der overhovedet ville eksistere mennesker ved slutningen af det foreståemde århundrede, hvis prinsen og hans medskyldige ikke stoppes og politikkerne omstødes, nu. Vi kan håbe på, at et sådant holocaust ikke er vist, men vi vover ikke at forlade os på dette ønske; under alle omstændigheder må prinsen, hans medskyldige og deres onde politikker stoppes nu …

Den ondskab, der gennemsyrer prinsens og hans medskyldiges forbryderiskhed, er meget gammel, lige så gammel som de svagt oplyste horisonter af den tidligste, kendte historie. Den ultimative fjende er ikke denne ulyksalige prins, men snarere den særlige kriminelle tradition, der med rette beskrives som ’oligarkisme’. Denne oligarkisme er det særlige smitsomme stof, der er ansvarligt for den moral og mentale sygdom, som den anklagede prins og hans medskyldige lider af. Ved valget af en retfærdig og klog fremgangsmåde med hensyn til de igangværende forbryderiske handlinger, der her dokumenteres, må vi hæve os over de fleste nuværende, internationale juridiske og relaterede praksissers fremherskende dekadens for at helbrede problemet, snarere end, sådan, som sejrherrerne perverterede Nürnberg-rettergangen, idet de søgte at skjule vor egen, tidligere forsømmelse bag iøjnefaldende lidelser, der blev påtvunget nogle anklagede syndebukke …

Den udfordring, der udgøres af de beviser, der fremlægges for jer, er: Kan I, juryens medlemmer, provokeres af rædslen, der ligger i det faktum, at ingen løsning på kollapset af denne civilisation eksisterer under de nuværende, alment accepterede adfærdsregler, og til at opdage de nødvendige, radikale, aksiomatiske ændringer af de politiske beslutninger; sådanne ændringer, der kunne gøre det muligt for menneskeheden at genopbygge et ødelagt samfund umiddelbart fra ruinerne af det kollapsede dynasti, uden at gennemleve en ’Ny Mørks Tidsalders’ mellemliggende mareridt?«

(Hele LaRouches artikel kan ses her: https://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1994/eirv21n43-19941028/eirv21n43-19941028_012-the_coming_fall_of_the_house_of-lar.pdf)

Sammenlign denne strategiske vurdering af Lyndon LaRouche fra 1994 med den, som blev præsenteret af Maria Zakharova, talskvinde for det Russiske Udenrigsministerium, 19. april, 2018, i det afsnit, der bærer overskriften, »The Political Crimes of the U.K.«. I dette 17 sider lange dokument præsenterede Zakharova en udstrakt gennemgang af britisk folkemord over hele planeten i århundredernes løb. »Afrika har også fået sin andel af lidelser under britiske overgreb. Henved 13 millioner afrikanere blev udskibet fra kontinentet som slaver. Antallet af afrikanere, der døde under denne periode, er tre til fire gange højere end det antal, der blev fjernet fra kontinentet. Med andre ord, så løber det totale antal ofre op i titals millioner af mennesker … Historikere mener, at Storbritannien er verdensførende, når det drejer sig om folkemord, i betragtning af de millioner af uskyldige civile, der er blevet dræbt i britiske kolonier.«

Sammenlign nu begge disse tekster med den gentagent erklærede, britiske politik for at ødelægge Donald Trumps præsidentskab, hvor denne politiks mest skamløse trussel kom i en artikel af BBC-journalist Paul Wood, udgivet i londonavisen Spectator 21. januar, 2017 – dagen efter Donald Trumps indsættelse – under hovedoverskriften, »Vil Donald Trump blive myrdet, afsat ved et kup eller simpelt hen afsat gennem en rigsretssag?«

Med alt dette, der står fuldstændig klart for jeres indre øje – og som får yderligere kraft gennem bevidstheden om, at Kina og Rusland begge har handlet for at erstatte det bankerotte Britiske Imperium med et Nyt Paradigme – opfordrer vi jer, damer og herrer i læserskarens internationale jury, til at handle i overensstemmelse hermed.

Foto: Dronningen af Englands gemal hertugen af Edinburgh.   




Harmonien mellem konfuciansk
og vestlig filosofi: Mod økumenisk
enhed mellem Øst og Vest. Lektion 5 i
LaRouchePAC’s Undervisningsserie 2018,
»Hvad er det Nye Paradigme?«, 31. marts, 2018

Det er generelt tilfældet, at folk i både Østen og Vesten ofte har accepteret ideen om, at der findes en eller anden fundamental forskel mellem den kinesiske tankegang og den vestlige tankegang, og at dette er et uoverstigeligt svælg. Som Rudyard Kipling, den britiske imperialist, grundlæggende set sagde, »Øst er Øst, og Vest er Vest, og aldrig skal de tvende mødes«. Som jeg altid har sagt, så er dette ikke en konstatering af fakta, men er derimod en politik – dette er den britiske imperiepolitik, der sørger for, at der eksisterer en opdeling, for det er gennem at holde verden opdelt, at de kan fortsætte med at herske imperialt over de opdelte nationer.

Men vi har altså, både her i USA og i Vesten og i Kina, at folk accepterer denne idé om, at der skulle være en eller anden fundamentalt anderledes tankegang. Der er selvfølgelig forskellige karaktertræk i vestlig kultur og i kinesisk kultur – det er der ingen tvivl om. Men folk, der fremfører dette som et argument, er tilbøjelige til at sige, at deres side er den overlegne, og de andres side er underlegen; og dette ser man for øvrigt i Kina såvel som her.

Det, jeg vil gøre i dag, er grundlæggende set at tilbagevise denne opfattelse og forsøge at vise, at det, der er fundamentalt for mennesker overalt, er kampen mellem en humanistisk opfattelse af mennesket og så den oligarkiske anskuelse af mennesket som i heldigste fald en eller anden slags avanceret dyr; og at dette er arten af hele den vestlige kulturs historie og af hele den kinesiske kulturs historie.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 




Lyndon LaRouche:
Martin Luther Kings liv og mission

… den store leder, som Martin, stiger til et højere niveau. De tænker på deres liv, som evangeliet fremlægger det, som en talent (mønt); livet er en talent, man har fået givet. Man fødes, og man dør. Det er ens talent; hvad man har i denne tidsperiode. Spørgsmålet er, man vil under alle omstændigheder give den ud; hvordan vil man give den ud? Hvad vil man bruge den til at sikre, i al evighed? Hvad vil man gøre, som en mission, som vil gøre én fortjent til den plads, man ønsker at have i evigheden?

Martin havde en klar fornemmelse af dette. Denne ’bjergtopstale’ for mig, slog mig ligesom en klar forståelse af, hvad han sagde, hvad han sagde til andre.[1]

Livet er en talent. Det er ikke, hvad man ’får ud af’ livet. Det er, hvad man lægger ind i det, der tæller. Martin havde dette.

»Vi har, mener jeg, to problemer, som bør være grundlag for at reflektere over Martins liv i dag. 1) Vi har en national krise. Jeg vil ikke lægge fingrene imellem eller tale ud fra det politiske partiapparat (Demokraterne); men kendsgerningerne skal frem: Denne nationaløkonomi er ved at kollapse. Situationen, med hensyn til USA’s grundlæggende økonomiske infrastruktur i dag, er relativt set værre end i 1933, hvor Roosevelt i marts måned kom ind i Det Hvide Hus. Det vil sige, hvis man undersøger infrastruktur, energi osv., livsbetingelserne for vort folk og i hele verden – lad være med at se på de store byer, hvor de går rundt med en facade og siger, alt går godt; men se på lokalsamfundene; Detroit, f.eks., har nu halvdelen af det indbyggertal, byen plejede at have. En industriby er forsvundet. Se på Birmingham, man ser det samme rapporteret; det var aldrig rigt, men deres oplevelse af tab, tab, tab; det er situationen i USA. Og der er en ligegyldighed over for USA’s problemer. Mindst 48 af de 50 stater er bankerot, håbløst bankerot; dvs., at staterne umuligt kan øge skatteindtægterne uden at sænke økonomien yderligere, for at imødekomme regeringens essentielle forpligtelser. Det er karakteristisk for mindst 48 stater, og det bliver værre. Hvis man ser på leveomkostningerne, stigningen i leveomkostningerne i forhold til det, der officielt rapporteres, se på priserne for mad hos købmanden hen over de seneste 6 måneder i USA. Se på det faktum, at den amerikanske dollar, som for ikke så længe siden kunne købe en euro for 83 cents; i dag koster det 1 dollar 26-28 cents at købe en euro. Den amerikanske dollar er ved at kollapse i værdi; det, der stiger, er den pengemængde, der associeres til hasardspil, og den mest omfangsrige form for hasardspil finder sted på Wall Street. Pengene går, for rent spekulative formål, til at drive separate hasardspilsindsatser på sidelinjen i økonomien i vejret, for at drive værdien at aktiepriserne op for visse selskaber; og så snart et eller andet selskab bliver rigt, kommer lederne af selskaberne i fængsel, ligesom i Enron; for vi er gået fra ’stålindustrien’ til ’stjæle-industrien’! Det er arten af nationaløkonomien.

Vi er i vanskeligheder. Vi er i vanskeligheder på global skala. Siden januar 2002, da den nuværende præsident holdt en uheldig tale, i sin ’State of the Union’-tale. Holdningen over for USA er faldet hastigt, til det laveste niveau, jeg nogensinde har set; fra nationer i hele verden. I hele Eurasien; i de amerikanske lande, er USA nu foragtet, hvor det i det mindste var respekteret, eller endda elsket, før. Vi er i vanskeligheder. Og se på verden. Verden konfronteres med en stor krise; USA konfronteres med en stor krise, med den måde, det behandler verden på. De største befolkningskoncentrationer i verden, i Kina, f.eks., 1,3 mia. eller mere; Indien, Pakistan, Bangladesh og landene i Sydøstasien; dette er den største befolkningskoncentration på planeten. Det er en fremvoksende del af verden; spørgsmålet er, hvad er USA’s relation til disse asiatiske folkeslag, der i det store og hele repræsenterer forskellige kulturelle baggrunde i forhold til USA og Vesteuropa. Hvordan skal vi finde fred i en urolig verden; hvordan skal vi finde forsoning i en verden i vanskeligheder med lande, der har vendt sig mod os pga. Cheneys og et par andres krigspolitikker?

Vi står altså over for en situation. Lad os gå lidt tilbage til det tidspunkt, hvor Bill Clintons blev indsat som præsident. Tænk nu over noget, nogle af jer ved noget om; tænk på den sorte vælgerskares status, den lovgivende, sorte forsamling … i 1993, da Bill Clinton kom ind i Det Hvide Hus. Gå nu igennem listen over navnene; hvor er disse mennesker, og deres erstatninger, i dag? Der har været en udvælgelse af de politiske præstationer i hele landet af de sorte vælgerkredse/folkevalgte. Det er dette problem, jeg konstant konfronteres med, og fra 1996 blev det værre, accelererede brutalt.

Så vi konfronteres altså ikke med et nyt problem i dag, men med det samme problem, principielt, som Martin med succes konfronterede, og jeg vil fremføre, at, i arven efter Martin Luther King og hans liv, er der noget, vi kan lære i dag, som bringer ham tilbage i live, som om han stod her i dag, i live. Der er noget særligt ved hans liv, hans udvikling, som vi i dag bør indfange, ikke alene med hensyn til at adressere vor nations problemer, som er ved at blive forfærdelige, men problemerne med vore relationer med verden som helhed. Hvordan skal vi agere over for disse kulturer, der er forskellige fra vore egne? Med asiatiske kulturer, der er forskellige fra vore egne; med muslimske kulturer, der er over 1 mia. muslimer i hele verden; med Kinas kultur, der er forskellig fra vores; med kulturen i Sydøstasien, der er forskellig fra vores? De er alle mennesker, der har alle de samme krav og behov, men de er forskellige kulturer, de tænker anderledes, de responderer til andre (kan ikke høres) end vi gør. Men vi må have fredeligt samarbejde med disse mennesker, for at løse globale problemer. Så begynder man at tænke over en person som Martin, og jeg vil indikere, i denne sammenhæng, hvad Martins betydning er i dag.

Vi havde ingen erstatning for Martin. Første lektie. Martin var en enestående person; han var ikke en talentfuld person, der tilfældigvis snublede over lederskab og let kunne erstattes af andre ledere, der havde lært jobbet og kunne tage over bagefter. Han havde ingen efterfølger; der var ingen, som befandt sig i en position til at efterfølge ham. Mange ønskede det; de havde det ikke.

Hvad var det, Martin havde? Hvad var essensen af Martin, der gjorde ham til noget specielt?

Lad os sammenligne tre tilfælde for forstå dette. Et tilfælde, Martin selv. Det andet er tilfældet med Frankrigs berømte heltinde Jeanne d’Arc, og jeg er godt bekendt med den faktiske historie af Jeanne d’Arcs tilfælde, som på en måde er sammenligneligt, på en særlig måde, med Martins tilfælde. Og så også med et fiktivt tilfælde, som peger på det problem, vi står overfor, tilfældet med Shakespeares Hamlet; især Hamlets monolog i 3. akt.

Hvad handlede det om? Martin var en sand Guds mand, på en måde, som meget få mennesker kan virkeliggøre i deres livstid. Det var ikke alene det, at han var en Guds mand, men at han voksede op til fuldstændigt at forstå, hvad det ville sige. Hans billede var selvfølgelig Kristus og Kristi korsfæstelsespassion. Det var hans kilde til styrke. Han levede det. Han havde besteget bjergets top, på et tidspunkt, hvor han vidste, hans liv var truet af magtfulde kræfter internt i USA. Og han sagde, ’jeg vil ikke vige tilbage fra denne mission, om de så dræber mig’; præcis som Kristus sagde, og jeg er sikker på, Martin tænkte på dette, på dette tidspunkt. Kristi korsfæstelsespassion er det billede, der er essensen af kristendom. Det er et billede i f.eks. Tyskland og andre steder, hvor Bachs Mattæus-passion opføres, en ca. to timer lang forestilling. Og i disse to timer genlever publikum, menigheden, sangerne, musikerne på en kraftfuld måde Kristi korsfæstelsespassion. Dette har altid været vigtigt, at genleve dette; at indfange essensen af, hvad Kristus betyder for alle kristne, og Martin viste dette.

Forskellen er det følgende; og jeg vil vende tilbage til Jeanne d’Arc; de fleste mennesker er tilbøjelige til at tro, jo, jeg vil gerne i himmelen, eller noget i den retning. Eller også er de ikke, de er ligeglade. Men de leder efter svar inden for rammerne af deres dødelige liv. De tænker på kødets tilfredsstillelse, den sikkerhed, de vil nyde godt af, mellem grænserne for fødsel og død; hvorimod den store leder, som Martin, stiger til et højere niveau. De tænker på deres liv, som evangeliet fremlægger det, som en talent (mønt); livet er en talent, man har fået givet. Man fødes, og man dør. Det er ens talent; hvad man har i denne tidsperiode. Spørgsmålet er, man vil under alle omstændigheder give den ud; hvordan vil man give den ud? Hvad vil man bruge den til at sikre, i al evighed? Hvad vil man gøre, som en mission, som vil gøre én fortjent til den plads, man ønsker at have i evigheden?

Martin havde en klar fornemmelse af dette. Denne ’bjergtopstale’ for mig, slog mig ligesom en klar forståelse af, hvad han sagde, hvad han sagde til andre.[1]

Livet er en talent. Det er ikke, hvad man ’får ud af’ livet. Det er, hvad man lægger ind i det, der tæller. Martin havde dette. Der er derfor, han var en leder, og jeg har kendt de andre ledere, der var med ham i denne periode. De havde ikke helt den samme gnist. De accepterede måske ideen, de troede måske på den, men det greb dem ikke på samme måde, som det greb Martin. Og det greb ham mere og mere, er jeg sikker på, i takt med, at han påtog sig større og større ansvar; som en leder føler man dette, man ser sit folk, man ser, hvad man må håndtere, man ser lidelserne, man ser farerne, og man må finde i sig selv styrken til ikke at vige tilbage, ikke gå på kompromis.

Lad os tage tilfældet Jeanne d’Arc, til sammenligning. Dette er den sande historie; hun var en så signifikant person i det 15. århundrede, historien blev grundigt dokumenteret dengang og er blevet krydstjekket osv. Hun var en person i hele kristendommen; hun er en hovedperson i Frankrigs historie. Her er hun så, en ung kvinde (17), der kom fra bondestanden, og som havde forhåbninger om, at Frankrig måtte befries fra de normanniske ridderes forfærdelige besættelse; at Frankrig måtte blive en sand nation, og at det måtte løftes ud af sin tilstand og blive en nation for at tage sig af disse problemer; at Gud ønskede, dette skulle ske. Så, gennem flere hændelser, henvendte hun sig til en prins, som var den nominelle arving til Frankrigs trone, og hun sagde til denne prins – jeg har glemt, der var diverse akkreditiver – ’Gud ønsker, at du skal blive konge’. Og han så på hende og sagde, ’Hvad ønsker du af mig?’ Hun svarede, ’jeg ønsker ingenting af dig; Gud ønsker, at du skal være konge’. Og, på grund af hendes kraftfulde personlighed og hendes mission, gav kongen hende kommando over nogle soldater til en meget alvorlig kamp på det tidspunkt, idet han formodede, hun ville blive dræbt som leder af disse soldater, og det ville løse problemet. Men hun blev ikke dræbt, hun vandt slaget, som hun personligt anførte. Og Frankrig blev mobiliseret til sin uafhængighed; ideen var dets uafhængighed i det store og hele som et resultat. Så kom tidspunktet, hvor kongen blev kronet, prinsen blev kronet til konge: men så forrådte kongen hende, til Frankrigs fjender, til briterne, normannerne. Og hun blev retsforfulgt af inkvisitionen, som var en rædselsfuld ting, den værste form for uretfærdighed man kan forestille sig. Og under retssagen blev hun tilbudt lokkemad; hvis du trækker dig lidt, vil vi ikke brænde dig levende på bålet. Hun sagde nej; hun veg tilbage; måske skulle jeg gå på kompromis, hun havde præster, der forsøgte at få hende til at gå på kompromis. Hun sagde, ’jeg vil ikke gå på kompromis. Jeg kan ikke forråde min mission’. Hun havde besteget bjergets top; jeg vil ikke forråde min mission; jeg vil fastholde min kurs. Så de tog hende og bandt hende til en pæl; de stablede brændet op om pælen; de satte ild til bålet, mens hun var i live og kogte hende ihjel. Så åbnede de brændestakken for at se, om hun var i live eller ej og fandt, at hun var død, og så fortsatte de processen og genantændte bålet og brændte hende til aske (hun var da 19, -red.)

Men ud af dette skete der to ting: Frankrig blev genoplivet og fik sin uafhængighed og fik senere den første, moderne nationalstat, under Louis 11 af Frankrig.

Betydningen af dette for os i dag, er, at pga. denne sejr, pga. det, der skete med Louis 11 af Frankrig, fik vi den første europæiske stat, i hvilken hele regeringen var ansvarlig for hele folkets almene vel. Det almene vel betyder præcis det, det betyder i 1. korintherbrev, kap. 13, hvor Paulus skriver om agápe, undertiden kaldet kærlighed eller godgørenhed. Det er denne egenskab; det er ikke loven, det er ikke lovbogen, der tæller; det er ens kærlighed til menneskeheden, der tæller; at man altid må leve for ens kærlighed til menneskeheden. Og derfor er en regering ikke legitim, undtagen som en regering, der officielt er forpligtet over for ikke alene det almene velfærd for hele folket, men også over for forbedringen af livsbetingelserne for deres efterkommere. Og for første gang i Frankrig, i denne stat, [fik man] princippet om forfatningsmæssig lov; at en regering ikke kan behandle nogle blandt befolkningen som menneskeligt kvæg. Det er ikke lovligt, det er ikke en nation, hvis den behandler nogle blandt sin befolkning som menneskeligt kvæg. Man skal tænke på hele befolkningens almene velfærd; det må være indfanget i forpligtelse over for hele folket, og over for deres efterkommere. For vi er alle dødelige, og for at vække i os selv de passioner, mens vi er i live, som vil tilskynde os til at gøre det gode, må vi have en følelse af, at forbruget af vort liv, brugen af vor talent, vil betyde noget for de kommende generationer. De bedste mennesker ser efter ting, ligesom Moses, som vil finde sted, når han ikke længere selv er der til at nyde dem! Denne fornemmelse for udødelighed er det, som de bedste forældre opofrer for deres børn; det er det, som lokalsamfund opofrer for uddannelse til deres børn, for deres børns muligheder. Man gennemgår pinen ved lidelser og mangel, men man har en følelse af, at man er på vej fremad, at ens liv vil betyde noget, at man kan dø med et smil på læben; man har overvundet døden, man har brugt sin talent vist, hvorfor livet vil betyde noget bedre for de kommende generationer. Det var princippet. Det princip inspirerede den mand, der blev kong Henrik 7 af England, til at gøre det samme imod den onde kong Richard 3, og til at etablere England på det tidspunkt som den anden, moderne nationalstat. Det var på en måde, hvad Martin gjorde. Samme form for proces.

Men lad os nu tage den anden side af sagen. Lad os tage tilfældet Hamlet. Hamlet siger, vi har muligheden for at kæmpe og befri os selv fra forfærdelige tilstande, men, men – hvad sker der, når vi dør? Hvad sker der efter døden? Det er frygten for, hvad der sker efter døden, som gør folk til krystere. Og det er vores problem i USA i dag. Det er problemet med vores lederskab i det Demokratiske Parti; det er problemet med det Republikanske Parti, for det er ikke alle i det Republikanske Parti, der er dårlige, nogle af dem er meget gode, og jeg har til hensigt at inkorporere nogle af dem i min regering; jeg er ikke særlig partisk, når det drejer sig om regeringen. Jeg er partisk med hensyn til at få den etableret.

Det er pointen. Problemet her er det følgende: Tror vi rent faktisk på, at mennesket er forskelligt fra dyrene? Tror I på, at, i skolerne i dag, i aviserne i dag; tror I på, at amerikanere tror på, på nogen som helst signifikant måde, at mennesket er forskelligt fra dyret? Det er ikke det, vi underviser; se på vores standardpensum. Mange af jer ved noget om uddannelse. Vores uddannelsespolitik er en national forbrydelse. Man lærer ingenting; man lærer at bestå en prøve. Man spørger sig selv, om de, der udarbejder prøven, ved, hvad de taler om. Man har prøver at bestå i forskellige steder i landet, ikke for at teste, hvad man har gjort ved eleverne med hensyn til, hvad de ved; undertiden kommer eleverne og siger, ’jeg ved ingenting, i mine skoleår lærte jeg ingenting’. Sådan, som man underviser nu. Det, man tester, er elevernes lydighedstræning i dette skoledistrikt eller den del af landet, målt ud fra underlødighed. Distrikterne konkurrerer om penge! Og præstationerne, som skoleelevernes hundetræning, bliver en standard for, hvor mange penge, og hvor mange udmærkelser, dette distrikt vil modtage det følgende år. Vi er ikke længere interesseret … Vi tror som nation ikke længere på at udvikle mennesker! Vi er, ligesom det gamle Rom, blevet et samfund for ’brød og cirkus’; få din krumme, og lad dig underholde! Og underholdningen bliver mere og mere ond, som det skrider frem. F.eks., arbejder folk i dag; er deres mentalitet, at de skal arbejde? Tror de på arbejde, tror de på, at samfundet giver dem mulighed for at arbejde? Nej, det gør det ikke. Det giver dem mulighed for at få fat i nogle penge. Hvad er den største vækstindustri i USA? Hasardspil! Hvad er Wall Street? Hasardspil. Hvad er Enron? Hasardspil. Hvad er disse fyre, der kommer i fængsel i New York? Hasardspillere. Mentaliteten i landet er, at, hvis du sidder i held og vinder i lotteriet og vinder på væddeløbsbanen, så går det fremad for dig. Til trods for, at ens industri er ved at kollapse, ens landbrug er væk, byrådet ikke længere har råd til at sørge for centrale behov; vi er blevet et hasardspilssamfund. Vi er afhængige af hvad? Masseunderholdning. Hvilken form for masseunderholdning? Er dette noget, man i realteten bør skamme sig over?

Vi anser ikke længere mennesker for at være mennesker. Vi forstår ikke længere, hvad menneskeligt er.

Jeg startede en ungdomsbevægelse for henved 4 år siden, der fokuserer på unge mennesker, 18-25 årige, dvs. aldersgruppen for universitetsstuderende. Som I ved, når folk bliver omkring 18 til 25 år, under normale betingelser, er de gået videre end til at tænke på sig selv som unge mennesker, halvt voksne, halvt børn, og til at blive voksne mennesker. De har den voksnes selvtillid, den voksnes impulser osv. De er klar til at påtage sig ansvar i samfundet. I et velordnet samfund, ville alle have adgang til en kvalitetsuniversitetsuddannelse, for at udvikle den enkeltes talenter for at finde ud af, hvad deres mission i livet skal være, hvilken form for karriere, de skal satse på, og man giver dem muligheden for at gennemarbejde dette, finde ud af dette, finde ud af, hvem, de virkelig er som voksen, og at vælge deres fremtidige profession i livet på denne basis. Det, jeg understreger med denne træning, er, forstå forskellen mellem menneske og dyr.

Jeg bliver lidt teknisk omkring dette, for det er et vigtigt punkt. Hvad er forskellen mellem menneske og dyr? Kan man bevise, at mennesket ikke blot er et dyr? Og hvordan kan man bevise det? Hvis mennesket var en abe, f.eks., ville det menneskelige befolkningstal på denne planet aldrig have oversteget et par millioner individer. Så lad være med at gøre mennesket til en abekat (et fjols). Vi har nu over 6 mia. mennesker, vi skal sørge for, på denne planet, og tallet vokser. Pointen er, at mennesket har været i stand til at opdage, hvad intet dyr kan gøre, at opdage universelle, fysiske principper i universet, og at anvende disse opdagede principper til at frembringe forbedringer i samfundet, som øger menneskets magt over naturen; præcis, som man kan læse i Skabelsesberetningen i 1. Mosebog: mand og kvinde skabt i Skaberens billede, efter hans lignelse; og ansvarlige for denne funktion. Det er, hvad vi er. Når vi underviser i fysisk videnskab; når vi underviser i klassisk kunst og den slags ting, når vi underviser i historie ud fra dette standpunkt, formidler vi i realiteten en fornemmelse af deres menneskelighed. De er i stand til at genopføre fortidens store principper, det være sig inden for kunst eller inden for fysisk videnskab. Når de kender dette, kender de forskellen på sig selv og dyret; de bryster sig af dette og siger, vi er menneskelige. Og de kan se på hinanden med kærlighed, en form for kærlighed, der kommer til udtryk inden for uddannelse med den rigtige form for undervisning, hvor eleverne er delagtige i processen med at kæmpe sig igennem handlingen for sig selv at opdage et princip, der præsenteres for dem som en udfordring og et paradoks. Det vil sige, en kærlig relation, en klasse med typisk 15-25 universitets- eller skoleelever, hvor eleverne gives ansvaret for, gives en udfordring med at kæmpe sig igennem det for sig selv, og den gode lærer forsøger at fremkalde denne form for respons blandt eleverne; finde to til tre i klassen, der kan starte diskussionen og få hele klassen involveret i diskussionen, så det, der kommer ud af det, ikke er udenadslære fra en lærebog, men at det, der kommer ud af det, er en proces, hvor man i en social oplevelse opdager betydningen af et princip, som om de selv havde gjort den oprindelige opdagelse. Dette gøres, ikke ved at undervise den enkelte elev, selv om det nogen gange virker, men ved at få eleverne til at interagere i diskussionsprocessen. Det er derfor, man helst skal have en klassestørrelse på mellem 15-25 elever. Ikke for mange, som kan udelukke muligheden for, at alle kan deltage. Og ikke for få, så man ikke får stimulering til at starte diskussionen. Det er denne sociale proces med en relation mellem mennesker, der elsker hinanden i en højere forstand, fordi de har været fælles om processen med at opdage et princip. Eller … noget om historie; men de var fælles om det, og ideen om at være fælles om menneskelig viden, som menneskelig viden, er den essentielle kærlighedshandling. Man elsker menneskeheden og er tilfreds med menneskeheden, når man har arbejdet sammen for at gøre en opdagelse sammen. Og man indser, man kan regne med dem til denne form for metode – har man et problem med dem? Gå tilbage til metoden. Tal med dem på samme måde, som man gør i klasseværelset. Og man kæmper sammen igennem det, disse unge mennesker kæmper til kl.3-4 om morgenen. Når jeg holder foredrag for disse fyre, er de over mig i henved fire timer. Jeg holder en præsentation på en times tid, de er over mig konstant. Men det er smukt, det er vidunderligt. Jeg tror, at alle, der har arbejdet med undervisning, ved, hvad jeg taler om. Det er smukt; det er vidunderligt.

Så problemet er dette: Vi har en befolkning, vi har en verden, der har en mangel på mennesker, der rent faktisk fuldt ud forstår forskellen mellem menneske og dyr; at mennesket, som det defineres i Skabelsesberetningen i 1. Mosebog, er et væsen, der er skabt i universets Skabers billede. Det er os. Fordi vi overfører disse ideer, fordi vi overfører dette arbejde, som intet dyr kan, elsker vi hinanden; vi elsker de mennesker, der var før os; vi elsker dem, der kommer efter. Vi kerer os om dem, på en meget selvisk måde, for, idet vi bruger vores talent her i livet, vores skønhedssans beror på, hvad der kommer ud af vores liv, i de kommende generationer. Vi elsker børn af denne grund. Der er børn; vi elsker børnebørn endnu mere end børnene, undertiden, fordi vore børn var i stand til at producere disse børn, det er fantastisk! Man elsker dem især, for dem, der bliver bedsteforældre, de elsker specielt disse børnebørn af denne grund.

Men denne form for kærlighed mangler generelt i befolkningen, hos ledere.

Martin havde selvfølgelig dette. Martin var ét af de sjældne mennesker, på hans tid, som havde en dybtgående følelse af, hvad det vil sige at være et menneske; som havde en dybtgående forståelse af læren fra Kristi passion på korset. Han var i stand til at bringe dette ind i politik – han kom ikke ind i det som politik som sådan – han var en naturlig leder. En naturlig leder er ikke én, der kommer ud af den politiske proces som sådan, men ud af folket. Martin opnåede aldrig et politisk hverv. Og alligevel var han sandsynligvis en lige så betydningsfuld person i USA som nogen moderne præsident var. Det opnåede han. Hans myndighed som en leder kom fra folket. Han kæmpede mod folket og med folket for at befri dem. Han var en leder i ordets sande betydning. Hans indflydelse som en politisk kraft i nationen og i verden kom fra hans forhold til folket.

Og det er vores situation i dag, og grunden til, at jeg er så glad for denne lejlighed til at være sammen med jer, for I typificerer dem, der kæmper med vanskeligheder, i dette land og uden for dette land, for den såkaldte ’glemte mand’; som Franklin Roosevelt, der i 1933 blev indkaldt til at være præsident. 80 % af befolkningen i USA i særdeleshed, og mange i hele verden, er den glemte mand og kvinde. Der er ikke rigtig nogen, der kerer sig om dem. Tag eksemplet med historien om sundhedssektoren; tag eksemplet med alle mulige ting. Den eneste måde, hvorpå man kan forny en nation, som Martin ydede et stort bidrag til en fornyelse af USA, er, at man må gå til den glemte mand og kvinde; især til de ubemidlede, og hvis man kan udtrykke en kærlig holdning over for problemet med de ubemidlede, dem, der befinder sig på den laveste side i livet, så er man i stand til at repræsentere det princip, på hvilket moderne regeringsførelse bør baseres; det samme princip, som Jeanne d’Arc på sin vis muliggjorde gennem sit bidrag til Frankrig som den første, moderne nationalstat, der var helliget det almene velfærd. His man vil være en ægte politiker, må man være forpligtet over for det almene velfærd. Man må være forpligtet over for menneskeheden, og for at være forpligtet over for menneskeheden, må man se på det menneske, der befinder sig i de værste omstændigheder, generelt, og løfte dem op. Så har man virkelig bevist, at man kerer sig om det almene velfærd. Hvis man ikke går til disse mennesker, er man ikke med det almene velfærd. Hvis man ikke har sine rødder i kampen for det almene velfærd, er man ikke i stand til at lede vores nation, som er en nation, der forfatningsmæssigt er forpligtet over for det almene velfærd. Martin havde dette. Alle de store ledere i historien er som regel kommet fra denne form for baggrund; de fødtes ikke til at være ledere, de blev ikke valgt som ledere; nogle blev valgt i løbet af livet, men de startede ikke med at etablere deres lederskab ved at blive valgt. De etablerede deres lederskab ved at finde deres rødder i kampen for menneskehedens velfærd. De blev repræsentanter for en eller anden gruppe, der kæmpede for deres rettigheder, eller de blev fortalere for denne gruppe, der kæmpede for sine rettigheder. Og de kom frem til en lederposition, fordi de havde en indbygget, moralsk karakter, i billedet af Kristi passion og korsfæstelse. Og jo mere, de kommer ind i det, og jo farligere, det bliver, i takt med, at de vinder mere indflydelse – livet bliver farligere i takt med, at man vinder mere indflydelse – så indser de, at de sætter deres liv på spil, og de må spørge sig selv: hvad er det, jeg vil risikere mit liv for; hvad er det for en sag, jeg ikke vil forråde, selv, hvis prisen er, at det koster mig mit liv? Og han kastes direkte tilbage til Kristi korsfæstelse og passion. Og dér er vi i dag. Martin havde dette; og problemet med USA og bevægelsen i dag, er, at bevægelsen er blevet, skal vi sige, for ’civiliseret’ med hensyn til at bøje af for at komme ud af det med det politiske establishment, og hvor den tenderer mod at tro på, at vejen til succes er at bøje af for at komme ud af det med dem. Man fortaber passionen, som bør motivere den sande, politiske leder. Og passionen er denne helligelse; man har en talent, man har en fornemmelse af, hvad ens liv betyder, man har en fornemmelse af forpligtelse, af en mission i livet, for at opløfte nationen ved at løfte en bestemt del af befolkningen, eller hele befolkningen. Og man vil ikke gøre noget som helst for at forråde dette. Det giver én kraft. Det giver én kraft til at være et menneske, der er skabt i den levende Skabers billede. Man tapper ind i det. Martin tappede ind i det. Han var en Guds mand, ikke kun af Gud, men en Guds mand. Han var en mand, som, i løbet af livet, af skæbnen fik givet missionen at være en Guds mand. Og han havde styrken til at gøre det. Han havde styrken til at gå i Kristi fodspor; til at gennemleve Gethsemane; til at gennemgå korsfæstelsen. Han havde denne styrke. Som Jeanne havde på sin måde.

Og det er den lektie, jeg mener, må undervises, må blive forstået, hvis vi skal redde denne nation. Vi må tappe ind i denne kraft. Og som jeg siger, blandt alle de billeder af nylige, politiske ledere i USA, er Martin, både som en national leder og som en global leder, hvilket han også var med hensyn til sin indflydelse, det bedste eksempel på den form for personlighed, vi må have og må udvikle for at komme ud at det forfærdelige, frygtindgydende rod, der i dag truer os.

Mange tak.«       

[1] Hør hele Martin Luther Kings sidste tale, ’I have been to the mountain top’, her https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixfwGLxRJU8




Lyndon LaRouche: Det britiske Imperium er stadig den
civiliserede verdens fjende nr. 1

Jason Ross: Ingen forstår briterne bedre end Lyndon LaRouche. Alt imens Storbritannien ikke længere hersker over havene eller verden med skibe, fly og imperiehære, så inficerer deres måde at tænke på kulturer i hele verden og former den måde, hvorpå folk analyserer og opfatter virkeligheden. Storbritannien udøver også magtfuld kontrol over verdens finanssystem gennem City of London og deres indflydelse over Wall Street. De har haft utrolig succes med at bondefange vore eliter til at være overbevist om, at amerikansk råstyrke med britisk hjerne bør kontrollere verden.

Men, hvor mange flere amerikanske liv skal ofres, og hvor mange flere ofre for unødvendige, geopolitiske krige skal dø og lide i hele verden på vegne af britiske, geopolitiske strategier, før vi udrydder dette barbariske system?

Lad os lytte til LaRouche:

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 




Theresa Mays anti-russiske korstog er
intet andet end UK’s krig mod Trump

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 26. marts, 2018 – Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har hen over de seneste 35 år spillet en hovedrolle i udformningen af relationer mellem nationer til det bedre: gennem LaRouches idé til præsident Reagans Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI) fra 1983, og gennem »LaRouche-doktrinen« for stormagtsrelationer, som ledsagede denne idé; og gennem deres kampagne fra 1989 for den »Eurasiske Landbro«, som sluttelig bidrog til Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, der nu udvikler mange nationer i hele verden. Hele vejen igennem var fjenderne af disse tiltag hen mod et nyt paradigme for udvikling, City of Londons finansimperium og britisk geopolitik.[1]

Denne tidligere, hyppigt skjulte virkelighed er pludselig, på dramatisk vis, blevet åbenlys. Den britiske premierminister Theresa May og udenrigsminister Boris »bondske« Johnson har tyranniseret USA og 14 europæiske nationer ind i en eskalerende konfrontation med Rusland, der tilsigter at ødelægge stormagtssamarbejde for fremskridt gennem projekterne i Bælte & Vej, og som meget hurtigt kan føre til verdenskrig.

I går understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at London har gjort dette som en reaktion på miskrediteringen af det af britisk efterretning styrede Russiagate-kupforsøg mod præsident Donald Trump. Hun sprængte den udokumenterede sag om »russisk nervegift« som værende intet andet end Russiagate fortsat, genopfundet og genoplivet. Denne sags foreløbige succes, efter at Russiagate mod Trump var slået fejl, er ekstremt farlig, sagde hun. Både Kina og Rusland vil reagere på denne ændrede, transatlantiske dagsorden.

Kina har, gennem sin præsident Xi Jinping og sine partiorganer som Global Times, indset, at Kinas fredelige opkomst, konfronteret med et sandt stormløb af britisk geopolitisk og økonomisk krigsførelse, måske ikke vil få lov at blive let eller fredelig.

Men Kina har udløst en udviklingsdynamik og hæver produktivitet og levestandarder i mange nationer, såvel som i sin egen, og bruger et nyt koncept, som Lyndon LaRouche for 30 år siden kaldte »Verdenslandbro-udviklingen«. Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ tiltrækker nu også nationer fra selv Vesteuropa. Dets lederskab vil ikke lade sig standse af toldkrig eller investeringsembargo; i stedet anvender det dette nye paradigme for at stoppe dem.

Som Helga LaRouche udtrykte det, så er Kina omsider i færd med at feje Londons århundredelange Malthus-politik og nulsums-geopolitik til side; og Kina erstatter det med et Nyt Paradigme for gensidig fordel for nationer, for udryddelse af fattigdom, videnskabeligt fremskridt og for »et fællesskab for en fælles skæbne«. Lyndon LaRouche har i 50 år insisteret på nødvendigheden af denne udskiftning. Hans LaRouche-bevægelse har fremlagt ammunitionen til overvindelse af angrebene mod præsident Trump, som kommer fra britisk efterretning, og for de tiltag for en økonomisk politik, der kan virkeliggøre Amerikas fremtid på den »Nye Silkevej«.

[1] Se Harley Schlangers præsentation af geopolitikken historie, fra serien, ’Hvad er det Nye Paradigme’ (video; dansk pdf.)

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump i samtale med britiske PM Theresa May under et bilateralt møde i det ovale kontor, 27. januar, 2017. Premierminister May var det første statsoverhoved, der aflagde statsbesøg i Det Hvide Hus. (Official White House Photo)




Videnskaben om at gøre en ende
på fattigdom og geopolitik

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 25. marts, 2018 – I det aktuelle, globale miljø, med undertiden hektiske diskussioner om geopolitiske forholdsregler og modforholdsregler, om handelssanktioner og gengældelse, om udskiftninger af personer og personel i ledende regeringer i verden – side om side med det klare potentiale for dramatiske ændringer, som præsident Trumps nylige, improviserede opringning til præsident Putin var et bevis på – er det nyttigt at træde et skridt tilbage og vende tilbage til nogle grundlæggende spørgsmål, som begynder med et halvt århundredes fundamentale opdagelser af Lyndon LaRouche, især inden for videnskaben om fysisk økonomi.

Denne eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan gøre en ende på det nuværende, geopolitiske mareridt, som er Det britiske Imperiums system, og etablere det politiske fundament for en varig fred, skrev Lyndon LaRouche tilbage i marts 1984 (»LaRouche-doktrinen: Udkast til aftalememorandum mellem USA og U.S.S.R.«), er ved at sikre: »a) Alle nationalstaters ubetingede suverænitet, og b) Samarbejde mellem suveræne nationalstater med henblik på promovering af ubegrænsede muligheder for at blive delagtig i fordelene ved teknologisk fremskridt, til gensidig fordel for hver enkelt nationalstat, og alle nationalstater.«

Et afgørende spejlbillede af et sådant fremskridt er udryddelse af fattigdom og inkludering af voksende befolkningslag i teknologisk progressive former for produktion. Her har Kina i løbet af de seneste 35 år været ledende i verden og har reduceret sin fattige befolkning fra 875 million i 1981 til i dag 30 million. Tilbage i 1981 husede Kina 46 % af verdens fattige inden for landets grænser; i dag er denne procentsats mangefold reduceret, til 5 %.

Denne udvikling accelererede med begyndelse i 2008, da politikken med at bygge et netværk af højhastigheds-jernbanekorridorer blev sat i gang i Kina og bragte industrialisering og teknologisk fremskridt til alle hjørner af landet. Et resultat har været, at fattigdom i Kina blev reduceret med ikke mindre end 85 % mellem 2008 og 2017 – under et årti.

Med præsident Xi Jinpings lancering i 2013 af Bælte & Vej Initiativet, er denne samme drivkraft for udvikling begyndt at stråle ud over hele planeten – spredningen af den Nye Silkevejsånd, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche så ofte refererer til.

Lad os overveje Kinas præstationer i lyset af de indledende bemærkninger i Lyndon LaRouches artikel, »Om LaRouches opdagelse«, fra 21. november, 1993 (genudgivet i EIR, 11. aug., 2017):

»Det afgørende indhold af mit originale bidrag til Leibniz’ videnskab om fysisk økonomi, er skabelsen af en metode til at behandle det kausale forhold mellem, på den ene side, enkeltpersoners bidrag til aksiomatisk revolutionerende fremskridt inden for videnskabelige og analoge former for viden og, på den anden side, de heraf følgende forøgelser af den potentielle befolkningstæthed i de tilsvarende samfund.«

En lignende fremgangsmåde – om end uden den dybtgående, videnskabelige og filosofiske stringens, LaRouche har skabt – er i realiteten grundlaget for Kinas præstationer. Som præsident Xi Jinping præsenterede sine marchordrer for økonomien i en tale 9. juni, 2009:

»Udløs i størst mulig grad videnskabens og teknologiens enorme potentiale som den primære kraft for produktion … og udvikling, støttet af videnskab og teknologi, og som er rettet mod fremtiden, og fremskynd tempoet for opbygning af et innovativt land.«

Man kunne således udmærket karakterisere Kinas fremgangsmåde i dag som anvendelsen af det Amerikanske Økonomiske System med kinesiske karaktertræk, en fremgangsmåde, der har ført til en succes uden sidestykke i udviklingen af Kinas relative befolkningstæthed, og på det seneste, med Bælte & Vej Initiativet, hele verdens.

Tiden er inde til, at USA atter vedtager denne politik som sin egen og herved omsider gør en ende på fattigdom over hele planeten, og samtidig driver en pæl i hjertet på britisk geopolitik.

Foto: Kinesiske børn hilser præsident Trump med flag under hans besøg i Kina, november, 2017. 




Kreativitetens musik.
LaRouchePAC’s Undervisningsserie 2018
»Hvad er det Nye Paradigme?« Lektion 4,
17. marts, 2018: pdf, dansk/engelsk; video

I dag vil jeg guide jer til den fremtidige renæssance af klassisk kultur, som jeg er overbevist om, ikke ville have været mulig uden Lyndon LaRouches opdagelser om kreativitetens forrang, ikke blot i menneskelige relationer, men også i universet som helhed. Jeg træder i baggrunden til fordel for Lyndon LaRouche selv; og til fordel for forskellige uddrag af hans mange skrifter, og ligeledes klip fra video og audio, håber jeg at kunne komme ind på de hovedtemaer, som har optaget ham hele hans liv, som begyndte i 1922. Dette vil også være meget nyttigt, for det vil gøre det muligt for os at fortsætte, hvor Dennis Small slap i den foregående lektion, hvor han talte om den særdeles uheldige David Hume. Jeg vil diskutere den ondartede indflydelse fra den måske ondeste filosof til alle tider, en person, der er baseret på Hume, men som gjorde noget endnu værre; nemlig Immanuel Kant.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 




Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ 35 år i
dag: Omsæt Lyndon LaRouches
vise ord til handling for et
Strategisk Forsvar af Jorden.
LPAC Internationale Webcast,
23. marts. 2018

Vært Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 23. marts, 2018, en meget gunstig dato: Det er nemlig 35 års dagen for en meget vigtig dato, som var 23. marts, 1983, hvor præsident Ronald Reagan annoncerede vedtagelsen af det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ  (SDI; Strategic Defense Initiative). I dag er det et meget passende tidspunkt for at bedømme den stadigt mere presserene nødvendige vedtagelse af en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur for planeten, og den samtidige nye økonomiske arkitektur, som må ledsage den.

Vi befinder os i et meget dramatisk øjeblik i verdenshistorien, og jeg mener, at, hvis vi træder et skridt tilbage og ser på det store billede, så står det klart, at verdensordenen, som vi har kendt den i de seneste 70 år, er i færd med at undergå en total transformation. Og udfaldet af de strategiske kampe, der raser netop nu, både på den nationale scene her i USA, men især på den globale scene; udfaldet af disse strategiske kampe vil afgøre menneskehedes historie i mange generationer fremover.

Med de begivenheder, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste tre uger, siden den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin den 1. marts annoncerede, at Rusland havde udviklet en helt ny generation af strategiske våben, baseret på avancerede fysiske [principper], og som er i stand til at gennemtrænge alle kendte forsvarssystemer, har vi set, hvor dramatisk nødvendigt det er, med det presserende i en sådan ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. Ikke én, der bygger på Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD; garanteret gensidig ødelæggelse), men derimod én, der bygger på win-win-overlevelse og økonomisk fremskridt for alle nationer på denne planet; nødvendigheden heraf bliver i stigende grad mere presserende. Jeg vil gerne fremhæve, hvad præsident Putin selv sagde i denne tale 1. marts til den føderale forsamling:

Han sagde:

» … lad os sætte os ved forhandlingsbordet og sammen udtænke et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation. … Dette er et vendepunkt for hele verden og for dem, der er villige til, og i stand til, at forandre sig; de, der handler og går fremad, vil tage føringen.«

http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957

Men, snarere end klart og nøgternt at vurdere denne ændrede, strategiske virkelighed, med denne game-changing tale af Ruslands præsident, og besvare dette tilbud for at forhandle, med hans ord, »et nyt og relevant system for international sikkerhed og bæredygtig udvikling for menneskelig civilisation«, for endelig at bringe denne nihilistiske dødsspiral med stadigt mere dødbringende masseudslettelsesvåben til en afslutning; snarere end at gøre dette, har briterne og deres såkaldte »partnere« i Europa forsøgt at oppiske en generel støtte til en krigskonfrontation mod Rusland ved anvendelse af det, Labour-partiets leder, Jeremy Corbyn, meget korrekt karakteriserede som det, han kaldte »fejlbehæftet efterretning« og »uvederhæftige dossiers« af den type, som blev brugt til at retfærdiggøre invasionen af Irak. Og som Jeremy Corbyn advarede om, så bør vi ikke »affinde os med en ny Kold Krig … og en intolerance over for dissens som under McCarthy-perioden«.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går understregede i sin internationale webcast, så har briterne og Theresa May, i deres forsøg på at gennemtvinge en sådan krigsprovokation, overspillet deres hånd. Deres metoder og deres mål står nu afsløret for hele verden at se. På trods af Theresa Mays bestræbelser på at presse præsident Trump over i et hjørne, hvor han ikke ville vove at forsøge at tage skridt, der ville gøre det muligt for ham at honorere sin forpligtelse til at forbedre relationerne med Rusland; snarere end at lade sig blive bakket ind i et hjørne, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, så udmanøvrerede præsident Trump imidlertid hele operationen ved at tage telefonen og ringe til præsident Putin og lykønske ham med genvalget og hans næste periode som Ruslands præsident, og fortsatte med en meget sober diskussion mellem de to statsoverhoveder om nogle af de meget vigtige, fælles bestræbelser og fælles udfordringer, som disse to nationer, USA og Rusland, sammen konfronteres med; og som, hvis vi fik lov at gøre det, vi kunne arbejde sammen om at løse, såsom krisen i Syrien; såsom muligheden for et totalt gennembrud for fred på Koreahalvøen; såsom den igangværende situation i Ukraine; og meget signifikant, såsom at forhindre et nyt våbenkapløb.

Umiddelbart efter denne telefonsamtale, blev pressen, som I kan tænke jer, hysterisk, og Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær Sarah Sanders holdt en pressekonference i briefing-værelset i Det Hvide Hus, hvor hun ikke mindre end et halvt dusin gange understregede den absolutte betydning af at opretholde en dialog mellem USA og Rusland på lederskabsniveau, omkring fælles interesser og fælles udfordringer.

Jeg vil afspille nogle eksempler på nogle at disse gentagne udtalelser fra Sarah Sanders på denne pressebriefing i Det Hvide Hus.

 

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet:

 

SARAH SANDERS:  We want to continue to have a dialogue with
Russia, and continue to talk about some of the shared interests
we have, whether it’s North Korea, Iran, and particularly as the
President noted today, slowing the tensions when it comes to an
arms race, something that is clearly important to both
leaders….
We want to continue to have dialogue so that we can work on
some of the issues that concern both countries, and we’re going
to continue to do that, while also continuing to be tough on a
number of things….
The President once again has maintained that it’s important
for us to have a dialogue with Russia so that we can focus on
some areas of shared interests…
These are conversations that sometimes take place, and
certainly the President finds there to be an importance in having
that dialogue with Russia so that we can talk about some of the
big problems that face the world….
We disagree with the fact that we shouldn’t have
conversations with Russia.  There are important topics that we
should be able to discuss, and that is why the President’s going
to continue to have that dialogue.
Again the focus was to talk about areas of shared interests.
We know that we need to continue a dialogue.  It’s important for
a lot of the safety and security of people across the globe.  We
would like to be able to work with them on things like North
Korea, on Iran, and also both countries shared interest in
lowering the tensions when it comes to an arms race, recognizing
that that’s not the best thing for either country, and so we want
to be able to have those conversations and that was the point of
today’s call…. [end video]

OGDEN:  So, that’s a very clear message, obviously.  Now, on
the same day, President Trump himself reiterated exactly the same
points in a couple of tweets that he posted, and I would like to
just read you those tweets.  He said:
“I called President Putin of Russia to congratulate him on
his election victory (in past, Obama called him also).  The Fake
News Media is crazed because they wanted me to excoriate him.
They are wrong!  Getting along with Russia (and others) is a good
thing, not a bad thing.”
“They can help solve problems with North Korea, Syria,
Ukraine, ISIS, Iran, and even the coming Arms Race.  Bush tried
to get along, but didn’t have the ‘smarts.’  Obama and Clinton
tried, but didn’t have the energy or chemistry (remember RESET).
PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH!” he concludes.
Now of course that final phrase is a quotation directly from
President Ronald Reagan.   And this direct reference is a very
timely one, and perhaps is not merely a coincidental one:  As I
said, today, March 23rd, is the 35th anniversary of one of the
groundbreaking moments in modern history, and it’s one which
completely reshaped the global, strategic geometry at that time,
and which remains immediately relevant all the way up to the
present day.
That moment, March 23rd, 1983 was representative of a
complete shock, a shock wave which was felt around the world.
This was the surprise announcement by President Ronald Reagan at
the conclusion of a live, national television broadcast which was
an address to the nation, nominally on national security.  But
what President Reagan did at the conclusion of that broadcast, to
the surprise of almost all of his leading advisors in the White
House even, was to announce what came to be known as the
Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI, what President Reagan
called a “vision of the future, which offers hope.”
In the speech, what President Reagan did was that he
committed the United States to a crash program, a crash
scientific program for the development of advanced technologies
which would be based on new physical principles to
(quote/unquote) “free the world from the threat of nuclear war.”
And so, in so doing, President Reagan completely overthrew the
ideology of retaliatory nuclear deterrence through the threat of
instantaneous, total nuclear response in the event of the
detection of a nuclear attack against the territory of the United
States.  This was what was so-called Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD).
President Reagan completely rejected the very premise of
Mutually Assured Destruction and in so doing, Reagan shocked the
world, and truly did change the course of world history.  So,
right now, why don’t we wind the clock back 35 years, and listen
to what the world heard on that night, March 23rd, 1983:

My fellow Americans, thank you for sharing your time with me
tonight.
The subject I want to discuss with you, peace and national
security, is both timely and important. Timely, because I’ve
reached a decision which offers a new hope for our children in
the 21st century…
The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple
premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never
be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and
defend against aggression — to preserve freedom and peace.
Since the dawn of the atomic age, we’ve sought to reduce the
risk of war by maintaining a strong deterrent and by seeking
genuine arms control. “Deterrence” means simply this: making
sure any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States,
or our allies, or our vital interests, concludes that the risks
to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he
won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength;
weakness only invites aggression.
This strategy of deterrence has not changed. It still works.
But what it takes to maintain deterrence has changed. It took one
kind of military force to deter an attack when we had far more
nuclear weapons than any other power; it takes another kind now
that the Soviets, for example, have enough accurate and powerful
nuclear weapons to destroy virtually all of our missiles on the
ground. Now, this is not to say that the Soviet Union is planning
to make war on us. Nor do I believe a war is inevitable — quite
the contrary. But what must be recognized is that our security is
based on being prepared to meet all threats.
There was a time when we depended on coastal forts and
artillery batteries, because, with the weaponry of that day, any
attack would have had to come by sea. Well, this is a different
world, and our defenses must be based on recognition and
awareness of the weaponry possessed by other nations in the
nuclear age….
Now, thus far tonight I’ve shared with you my thoughts on
the problems of national security we must face together. My
predecessors in the Oval Office have appeared before you on other
occasions to describe the threat posed by Soviet power and have
proposed steps to address that threat. But since the advent of
nuclear weapons, those steps have been increasingly directed
toward deterrence of aggression through the promise of
retaliation.
This approach to stability through offensive threat has
worked. We and our allies have succeeded in preventing nuclear
war for more than three decades. In recent months, however, my
advisors, including in particular the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have
underscored the necessity to break out of a future that relies
solely on offensive retaliation for our security.
Over the course of these discussions, I’ve become more and
more deeply convinced that the human spirit must be capable of
rising above dealing with other nations and human beings by
threatening their existence. Feeling this way, I believe we must
thoroughly examine every opportunity for reducing tensions and
for introducing greater stability into the strategic calculus on
both sides….
Wouldn’t it be better to save lives than to avenge them? Are
we not capable of demonstrating our peaceful intentions by
applying all our abilities and our ingenuity to achieving a truly
lasting stability? I think we are. Indeed, we must.
After careful consultation with my advisors, including the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe there is a way. Let me share
with you a vision of the future which offers hope. It is that we
embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat
with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very
strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base
and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.
What if free people could live secure in the knowledge that
their security did not rest upon the threat of instant U.S.
retaliation to deter a Soviet attack, that we could intercept and
destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own
soil or that of our allies?
I know this is a formidable, technical task, one that may
not be accomplished before the end of this century. Yet, current
technology has attained a level of sophistication where it’s
reasonable for us to begin this effort….
I clearly recognize that defensive systems have limitations
and raise certain problems and ambiguities. If paired with
offensive systems, they can be viewed as fostering an aggressive
policy, and no one wants that. But with these considerations
firmly in mind, I call upon the scientific community in our
country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great
talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace, to give us
the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and
obsolete.
Tonight, consistent with our obligations of the ABM treaty
and recognizing the need for closer consultation with our allies,
I’m taking an important first step. I am directing a
comprehensive and intensive effort to define a long-term research
and development program to begin to achieve our ultimate goal of
eliminating the threat posed by strategic nuclear missiles. This
could pave the way for arms control measures to eliminate the
weapons themselves. We seek neither military superiority nor
political advantage. Our only purpose — one all people share —
is to search for ways to reduce the danger of nuclear war.
My fellow Americans, tonight we’re launching an effort which
holds the promise of changing the course of human history. There
will be risks, and results take time. But I believe we can do it.
As we cross this threshold, I ask for your prayers and your
support.
Thank you, good night, and God bless you. [end video]

OGDEN:  That was 35 years ago today.
Now, just as a side note, incidentally, President Trump is
not ignorant of this history.  In 1999, far before he ever was a
candidate for President, in a an interview with none other than
Wolf Blitzer on CNN, President Trump actually addressed what he
thought of as the necessity for the Strategic Defense Initiative,
but also the necessity for sitting down and having talks to work
out the tensions between the United States and Russia.  Here’s
just a quick quote from President Trump.  He said:
“As far as nuclear is concerned, this country, us, we need a
shield….”
Wolf Blitzer said, “A Strategic Defense Initiative?”
And Trump affirmed that, saying, “Because Russia is
unstable. We need a missile defense shield.  People used to
criticize Reagan, but now it’s very developable.  We need a
shield…. We need a change.  The ABM Treaty was 1972.  Who knew
what technology would develop?  We have to sit down with the
Russians and many others.”
So, that was just a side note.  That was Nov. 28, 1999.  But
as I think you can see, now-President Trump remains committed to
that inclination to sit down with the Russians and many others —
North Korea, for example; and to resolve these nuclear threats.
If you just go back again to that date in 1983, this was 35
years ago.  In President Reagan’s own words, he said that what he
announced that night would, indeed, change the course of world
history; and it did.  And, it took most of the world completely
by surprise.  But, it didn’t come out of nowhere, and this
history is very important for viewers to understand.
Let me just read you a portion of what Lyndon LaRouche had
to say at that time.  This is a statement that he issued the
morning following that historic speech, so this is from March 24,
1983.  What Mr. LaRouche had to say was the following:
“Only high-level officials of government, or a private
citizen as intimately knowledgeable of details of the
international political and strategic situation as I am
privileged to be, can even begin to foresee the Earth-shaking
impact the President’s television address last night will have
throughout the world…. [T]he words the President spoke last
night can never be put back into the bottle. Most of the world
will soon know, and will never forget that policy announcement.
With those words, the President has changed the course of modern
history.
“Today I am prouder to be an American than I have been since
the first manned landing on the Moon. For the first time in 20
years, a President of the United States has contributed a public
action of great leadership, to give a new basis for hope for
humanity’s future to an agonized and demoralized world. True
greatness in an American President touched President Ronald
Reagan last night; it is a moment of greatness never to be
forgotten.”
So that was Lyndon LaRouche, March 24, 1983.  Now, as
LaRouche alluded to in that statement, he was no bystander or
casual observer of the events of that night President Reagan
announced the SDI.  In fact, the grand idea behind what Reagan
announced that night, came directly from none other than Lyndon
LaRouche himself.  I would like to play for you a brief excerpt
of Mr. LaRouche, in his own words, speaking about the background
to what had shocked the world that night — March 23, 1983.  This
is taken from a video that LaRouche PAC published about ten years
ago, back in 2008, on the 25th anniversary of the SDI speech.
The video was titled “A Brief History of Lyndon LaRouche’s SDI.”
So, let’s listen to what Mr. LaRouche had to say in that video.

LYNDON LAROUCHE

:  I had been organizing the SDI
operation, including initially from 1977, long before it was
called an SDI.  I was the one who said, “We’re going to make a
project of this thing.”  So, I adopted this and stated this as my
program in 1979, when I was running as a Presidential candidate.
Then, I had this conservation with Reagan, and then as a
follow-up after he was President, we had a follow-up with various
people in the Reagan circle; including his National Security
Council.  I was working with the head of the National Security
Council on this operation, and with people from the CIA and this
and that.  I was sworn to this and sworn to that, so I was doing
the whole thing.  The SDI was my work, which they liked.  And
there was a faction, including the President, who liked it.  He
liked it because he was against, he always hated Henry Kissinger;
and he hated Henry Kissinger particularly because of the
so-called “revenge weapons.”  The idea that you build super
weapons, and if somebody throws a bomb at you, you obliterate the
planet.  That is not considered a good defense, and he was
against that.  When he saw from experts that what I was saying
was accepted experts — military and others — and this was
French intelligence, the leadership of the Gaullist faction in
France; this was the leadership of the German military; this was
the leadership of the Italian military, and all over the world.
So, I was the creator of the SDI.  Reagan liked it, he adopted
it.  I was creating the thing in direct cooperation during the
entire period, with the cooperation of the National Security
Council and the heads of the CIA.  People recognized that I was
right; I had the scientific capability and knowledge to do it,
and we were doing it.

OGDEN:  So, that’s the story in Lyndon LaRouche’s own words.
That is merely the tip of a very fascinating iceberg.  We
encourage you to watch that full video that I cited that that
excerpt was taken from.  But also, to visit the page on the
LaRouche PAC website which gives you the full background of this
story.  As you can see there, the link is larouchepac.com/sdi.
That gives you this full, historic background.  But as you heard
Mr. LaRouche say there in that video clip, this effort on his
part to craft the idea of what then became adopted by the
President of the United States in the form of the SDI, this
effort went all the way back to the mid-1970s.  Here’s an image
of a campaign pamphlet which was commissioned by Lyndon LaRouche,
titled “Sputnik of the ’70s: The Science behind the Soviets’ Beam
Weapon.”  In this pamphlet, Lyndon LaRouche called for an
international crash program to develop a space-based missile
defense system based on new physical principles.  A Manhattan
project-style mission which would provide the economic driver to
fuel global development.  The pamphlet proposed .”.. Long-range
economic and scientific collaboration with the Soviet Union,
among other nations, which would eliminate the danger of world
obliteration,” and it emphasized .”.. Tremendous revolutionary
industrial implications available to this nation and the world if
the political will of the United States forces a recommitment to
technological progress in the form of an International
Development Bank and its national concomitant Third National
Bank.”
So, as you can see, Lyndon LaRouche’s idea of this missile
defense system, was always framed around the idea of not
unilateral defense systems, but rather, a joint missile defense
and joint scientific and economic collaboration between the
United States and the Soviet Union.  To do so, would be to
unleash the revolutionary industrial and economic implications of
such technological breakthroughs as the basis for a new
international, economic order; something which he had been
involved in all the way back to at least 1971 when he first
issued the proposal for a new International Development Bank —
the so-called IDB.  So you can see in LaRouche’s idea, the kernel
of what became the SDI, always had with it a new international
security architecture, overthrowing this entire reign of terror
of Mutually Assured Destruction and revenge weapons.  But
concomitantly, a new international economic order, which would be
driven by the revolutionary, unprecedented economic boom that
would come out of the progress associated with such technological
breakthroughs around these new physical principles in the
collaboration of US and Soviet scientists to develop this joint
missile defense to make International Ballistic Missile and
nuclear war impotent and obsolete.
The history is as fascinating as it is extensive.  Here is
not the time or the place to go through every single aspect of
this history; but the full background, again as I said is
available on that webpage — larouchepac.com/sdi.  But if you
fast forward from that pamphlet “Sputnik of the ’70s” all the way
to the lead-up into the 1980 Presidential campaign in which
Lyndon LaRouche himself was a candidate for President of the
United States.  Let’s take a look at a picture here of Lyndon
LaRouche meeting face-to-face with then-candidate Ronald Reagan
at a candidates’ forum that took place in Concord, New Hampshire.
During this face-to-face meeting and in several other
opportunities to interface with the Reagan campaign team, Lyndon
LaRouche presented this idea, in principle and in detail.
Following Reagan’s victory and his election, Lyndon LaRouche and
representatives of his organization, were brought in for meetings
with first the Reagan Presidential transition team, and then with
leading members of the National Security Council and Reagan’s
intelligence community.  They discussed LaRouche’s idea for this
new strategic doctrine, and the related scientific and energy
policies that would go along with it.  So, Lyndon LaRouche
commissioned numerous reports and campaign pamphlets promoting
this idea.  As you can see here, this is from {Fusion}; this is a
special report titled “Directed Energy Beams; A Weapon for
Peace.”  Here’s the next one; this is an edition of the
{Executive Intelligence Review} magazine from November 30, 1982.
Again, before the March 23, 1983 announcement of the SDI.  This
was titled “Beam Weapons: The Science to Prevent Nuclear War.”
Here’s another one; this is a pamphlet.  “How Beam Weapon
Technologies Can Reverse the Depression.”  So, all along, this
was always an economic idea from Lyndon LaRouche’s standpoint.
As you can see, being an American at this point, in the years
preceding the 1980 Presidential election and then coming out of
Reagan’s victory, 1980, ’81, ’82, the idea of this Beam Defense
system which would be based on new physical principles, was
associated — including in the popular mind — it was associated
with Lyndon LaRouche.  And it had been associated with Lyndon
LaRouche for at least half a decade prior to Reagan’s historic,
groundbreaking speech.
The morning after Reagan’s March 23rd address, the media was
scrambling to try to find experts to interview to explain what it
was that Reagan had presented the night before.  Naturally, they
had to turn to representatives of the LaRouche organization.
Here’s a photograph of Paul Gallagher, who was at that time
Executive Director of the Fusion Energy Foundation, appearing on
CBS’ Evening News program on March 24, 1983 — the day following
Reagan’s address — to explain the science behind Reagan’s policy
that had been announced the evening before.
Immediately following Reagan’s address to the nation, Lyndon
LaRouche launched a mass educational campaign to educate the
American people as to what their President had just presented.
He published and commissioned the publication of numerous mass
circulation reports to inform the American people and also
policymakers on the details of how such a program would work.
This image here is an array of different publications that were
issued by the LaRouche movement, supporting Reagan’s announcement
of the Strategic Defense Initiative and detailing the scientific,
the economic, and the military-strategic implications of the
policy.  There you can see one pamphlet — “Support the
President’s Strategic Defense Initiative; Kill Missiles, Not
People.”
As should be very clear, Lyndon LaRouche was in a leading
position of authority following this groundbreaking announcement,
and the influence that his ideas had come to wield put him in a
position of real power inside the political structure of the
Presidency of the United States.  He used that influence to
launch and to escalate on his campaign to completely reorganize
the entire international economic and strategic architecture of
the planet.  Let’s take a look at a document that Lyndon LaRouche
released exactly one year following Reagan’s March 23, 1983
announcement of the SDI program.  This was called “The LaRouche
Doctrine:  Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the United
States and the USSR.”  This was published March 30, 1984.  Let me
read you some excerpts from what Lyndon LaRouche published under
this title “The LaRouche Doctrine.”  He begins by saying:
“The political foundation for durable peace must be: a) The
unconditional sovereignty of each and all nation-states, and b)
Cooperation among sovereign nation-states to the effect of
promoting unlimited opportunities to participate in the benefits
of technological progress, to the mutual benefit of each and all.
“The most crucial feature of present implementation of such
a policy of durable peace is a profound change in the monetary,
economic, and political relations between the dominant powers and
those relatively subordinated nations often classed as
‘developing nations.’ Unless the inequities lingering in the
aftermath of modern colonialism are progressively remedied, there
can be no durable peace on this planet.
“Insofar as the United States and Soviet Union acknowledge
the progress of the productive powers of labor throughout the
planet to be in the vital strategic interests of each and both,
the two powers are bound to that degree and in that way by a
common interest. This is the kernel of the political and economic
policies of practice indispensable to the fostering of durable
peace between those two powers.
.”.. [T]he general advancement of the productive powers of
labor in all sovereign states, most emphatically so-called
developing nations, requires global emphasis on: a) increasing
globally the percentiles of the labor force employed in
scientific research and related functions of research and
development … b) increasing the absolute and relative scales of
capital-goods production and also
the rate of turnover in capital-goods production; and c)
combining these two factors to accelerate technological progress
in capital-goods outputs.
“Therefore, high rates of export of such capital-goods
output to meet the needs of developing nations are indispensable
for the general development of so-called developing nations: Our
common goal, and our common interest, is promoting both the
general welfare and promoting preconditions of durable peace
between our two powers….
“By supplying increased amounts of high-technology capital
goods to developing nations, the exporting economies foster
increased rates of turnover in their own most advanced
capital-goods sectors of production….
“The importer of such advanced capital goods increases the
productive powers of labor in the economy of the importing
nation. This enables the importing nation to produce its goods at
a lower average social cost, and enables it to provide
better-quality and cheaper goods as goods of payment to the
nations exporting capital goods.
“Not only are the causes of simple humanity and general
peace served by such policies of practice; the arrangement is
equally beneficial to exporting and importing nations….
.”.. [T]he general rate of advancement of the productive
powers of labor is most efficiently promoted by no other policy
of practice.”
Then a little later in the report, he reviews the situation
of strategic tensions between the USSR and the United States.  He
says:
“Since the rupture of the wartime alliance between the two
powers, U.S. military policy toward the Soviet Union has passed
through two phases. The first, from the close of the war until a
point beyond the death of Joseph Stalin, was preparation for the
contingency of what was sometimes named ‘preventive nuclear war.’
The second, emerging over the period from the death of Stalin
into the early period of the administration of President John F.
Kennedy, was based on the doctrines of Nuclear Deterrence and
Flexible Response …
“From approximately 1963 until approximately 1977, it might
have appeared, as it appeared to many, that the doctrines of
Nuclear Deterrence and Flexible Response had succeeded in
preserving a state of restive peace, something called ‘détente,’
between the two powers. This appearance was deceptive; during the
period 1977-83, there was an accelerating deterioration in the
military relationships between the two powers….
“Beginning shortly after the inauguration of President Jimmy
Carter, the deterioration of the military situation
accelerated….
“In response to this direction of developments, the U.S.
public figure Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr. proposed that both powers
develop, deploy, and agree to develop and deploy ‘strategic’
defensive, anti-ballistic-missile defense based on ‘new physical
principles.’ This proposal was issued publicly by LaRouche
beginning February 1982; he proposed to U.S.A., Western European,
and Soviet representatives that the development and deployment of
such strategic defensive systems be adopted policy, as a means
for escaping from the ‘logic’ of Nuclear Deterrence….
.”.. The true solution must be found in the domain of
politics and economics, and the further shaping of military
relations between the powers must produce military policies by
each coherent with the direction of development of the needed
political and economic solutions….
“On the part of the United States of America, the government
is committed to avoiding all colonial, imperial, or kindred
endeavors in foreign policy, and to establish, instead, a growing
community of principle among fully sovereign nation-states of
this planet. This shall become a community of principle coherent
with the policies of the articles of this draft memorandum. If
any force should endeavor to destroy that community of principle,
or any member of that community of sovereign nations, the United
States will be prepared to defend that community and its members
by means of warfare, should other means prove insufficient. With
respect to the Soviet Union, the government of the United States
offers the Soviet Union cooperation with itself in service of
these principles, and desires that the Soviet Union might enter
fully into participation within that community of principle….
“Under these conditions, provided that all nations share in
development of the frontiers of scientific research, in
laboratories, and in educational institutions, all nations will
be made capable of assimilating efficiently the technological
by-product benefits of the military expenditures on systems
derived from application of ‘new physical principles.’
“To lend force to this policy, the powers agree to establish
new institutions of cooperation between themselves and other
nations in development of these new areas of scientific
breakthrough for application to exploration of space.
“To this purpose, the powers agree to establish at the
earliest possible time institutions for cooperation in scientific
exploration of space, and to also co-sponsor treaty-agreements
protecting national and multinational programs for colonization
of the Moon and Mars.
“At some early time, the powers shall enter into
deliberations, selecting dates for initial manned colonization of
the Moon and Mars, and the establishment of international space
stations on the Moon and in the orbits of Moon and Mars, stations
to be maintained by and in the common interest and use of space
parties of all nations.
“The powers jointly agree upon the adoption of two tasks as
the common interest of mankind, as well as the specific interest
of each of the two powers: 1) The establishment of full economic
equity respecting the conditions of individual life in all
nations of this planet during a period of not more than 50 years;
2) Man’s exploration and colonization of nearby space as the
continuing common objective and interest of mankind during and
beyond the completion of the first task. The adoption of these
two working-goals as the common task and respective interest in
common of the two powers and other cooperating nations,
constitutes the central point of reference for erosion of the
potential political and economic causes of warfare between the
powers.”
That was known as the “LaRouche Doctrine,” published March
30, 1984.  As you can see, what Lyndon LaRouche outlined in that
document was the basis for exactly what we’re calling now a new
international economic and strategic architecture.  In fact, the
one requires the other.  You cannot have a new strategic
architecture without resolving what Lyndon LaRouche characterized
as the root causes behind the conflict between these nations; the
persisting inequalities between nations.  And you cannot have the
kind of cooperation needed for the common, mutual economic
development and the application of these groundbreaking new
physical principles and the technologies that are derived from
those, without the establishment of a new international economic
order.  Elsewhere in that document, Mr. LaRouche described
exactly how such an economic order must take place; with fixed
exchange rates between currencies, massive credits — both
domestically within countries for the upgrading of the
technological and infrastructure platforms within those nations
— but also, international credit treaty agreements in the form
of what he originally described in 1971 as the International
Development Bank, or the IDB.
As you can see, and I think any astute reader of that
document now, almost 35 years later, that document laid the basis
for what we now see as the so-called “win-win” new economic
paradigm.  This idea of the common benefit of all; mutual
cooperation for joint development; the upgrading of the so-called
“developing” nations, which were still suffering under the
effects of colonialism and post-colonial policy.  So, when
President Xi Jinping of China speaks about “win-win” economic
development and a new community of nations with a shared destiny,
I think that the echoes couldn’t be more clear of what Lyndon
LaRouche himself was describing at that time in the middle of the
1980s, almost 35 years ago today.  When Xi Jinping offers the
United States to join this new “win-win” system, the Belt and
Road Initiative, which is already resolving these persisting
inequalities that the world has been suffering, such as in Africa
or Central and South America.  Or, when President Putin offers to
“sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and
relevant system of international security and sustainable
development for human civilization,” we should reflect on what
was laid in that document.  That LaRouche Doctrine now almost 35
years ago today, in the wake of that history-changing
announcement by President Ronald Reagan, at which he called a
spade a spade.  The world could no longer survive under the
dictatorship of Mutually Assured Destruction; that reign of
terror that President Kennedy characterized as the Sword of
Damocles hanging by the slenderest of threads over every man,
woman, and child on this planet, threatening nuclear
annihilation.  What Lyndon LaRouche characterized at that moment
as the “LaRouche Doctrine” is the principle behind the new
economic and new security architecture which must be adopted on
this planet today.  Not as a recipe, not taking everything
exactly as it was said, because clearly of course, the world has
changed; and we must apply the principles that lay at the root of
exactly what Lyndon LaRouche had in mind when he proposed the
Strategic Defense Initiative and when he proposed the subsequent
LaRouche Doctrine, and apply those to evolve necessarily to fit
the specific conditions of today.
One thing that Lyndon LaRouche alluded to explicitly in that
document, was the need for joint cooperation in the colonization
and exploration of space.  In fact, that is the form that the
idea of a revived SDI has actually been taken.  The proposal for
not an SDI, but what’s now called an SDE — the Strategic Defense
of Earth — to literally re-tool the strategic nuclear weapons
with these massive payloads that have been accumulated by the
United States, Russia, also other nations — China and India and
other nations.  To re-tool those nuclear weapons and also the
delivery systems, these high-power intercontinental ballistic
missiles, and also the new technologies that Russia has just
announced.  To re-tool these technologies and have what were
offensive weapons become defensive tools against asteroids and
other threats to planet Earth which we may encounter from outer
space.  While this was proposed under that name, the SDE, by
certain individuals inside Russia about five years ago,
coinciding with the 30th anniversary of the original SDI speech.
What this originally actually came out of, had its origins in the
late 1980s and the early 1990s with the scientist Dr. Edward
Teller.  Teller was actually one of the leading scientific
advisors of President Reagan in the 1980s around the SDI
initiative, but following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Dr.
Edward Teller travelled to Russia and visited some of the leading
science cities that had been involved in developing nuclear
weapons and their delivery systems.  He met with some of the
leading former Soviet scientists, the Russian scientists, and
proposed exactly this.  He proposed the idea of the United States
and Russia saying the Cold War is over; let’s now cease this
policy of aiming our nuclear missiles one against the other, and
let’s now aim them against the common threats that mankind as a
whole faces.  Especially with the latest news of an asteroid
which poses a credible threat — what’s called a “non-zero
threat” — to the Earth in the foreseeable future, which was
just discussed in the  media over the past week, this proposal is
all the more timely and all the more relevant today.
So, what I’d like is to just play an excerpt from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s international webcast that she delivered
yesterday.  She takes up exactly this idea, so here’s an excerpt
from Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think that the SDI proposal,
which was absolutely not what the media made out of it, calling
it “Star Wars,” and things like that, the SDI proposal of my
husband, Lyndon LaRouche was an absolutely farsighted vision of a
New Paradigm!  And if you read the relevant papers about it,
especially the proposed draft for a dialogue among the
superpowers, which was published one year later, which you can
find in the archives or in the newer {EIR}s. This was a vision
where both superpowers would develop together, new physical
principles which would make nuclear weapons obsolete.  And I
think what Putin announced on March 1st in terms of new physical
principles applied for new weapons systems, is absolutely is in
this tradition. And Putin also asked, now they have to sit down
and we have to negotiate and put together a new security
architecture, including Russia, the United States, China, and the
Europeans.
This was all envisioned by my husband in this famous SDI
proposal, and it was a very far-reaching to dissolve the blocs,
NATO and the Warsaw Pact,  to cooperate instead among sovereign
republics, which is exactly what the New Silk Road dynamic today
represents. And it was also the idea to use a science-driver in
the economy to use the increased productivity of the real economy
for a gigantic technology transfer to the developing sector, in
order to overcome their underdevelopment and poverty.
And this is what we’re seeing today, also, in the
collaboration between China, Russia, and the countries that are
participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
So I think, in a certain sense, part of this danger of peace
breaking out, that there is right now the very vivid tradition
and actualization of that tradition of the SDI, and I think we
should circulate this proposal by my husband again.  I think we
should enlarge it to become the SDE, the Strategic Defense of the
Earth, because it was just discovered that very soon, another big
asteroid is already taking course on the planet Earth. So we need
to move quickly to the common aims of mankind, and all countries
should cooperate and be a shared community for the one future of
humanity.
This is the New Paradigm which I think is so obvious.  I
mean, if you look at the long arc of history, we {have} to
overcome geopolitics and we have to move to a kind of cooperation
where we put all our forces together to solve those questions
which are a challenge to all of humanity — nuclear weapons,
poverty, asteroids — there are so many areas where we could
fruitfully cooperate — space exploration is one of them.  And I
think we are in a very fascinating moment in history, but we need
more active citizens.  So please contact us, work with us, and
let’s together make a better world.

OGDEN:  So, that was Helga LaRouche’s call to action, and I
think that’s a perfect concluding point for our webcast today, as
we observe this very auspicious date — March 23rd — the 35th
anniversary of President Reagan’s groundbreaking speech
announcing the Strategic Defense Initiative.  Let’s take that
kind of sense of victory and the optimism that indeed, ideas can
change the course of history, and consolidate this New Paradigm;
this new security architecture and new economic architecture for
the planet.  The opportunity is greater than it ever has been
before; but the need is ever more dire.
Thank you for joining me, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




Hvad er geopolitik? Anden del: Er du human,
eller Hume-an? Filosofien bag geopolitik.
LaRouche PAC’s Undervisningsserie 2018,
»Hvad er det Nye Paradigme?«
Lektion 3, 3. marts, 2018; pdf, dansk, og video

Så for Leibniz er mennesket ikke Gud, men det er i stand til skabende fornuft af den form, som Gud har begavet det med i universets udvikling. Så for Leibniz er mennesket skabende, som det også er for Cusanus. Denne kreativitet, og kun denne kreativitet, er det, som skænker mennesket fri vilje. Med andre ord, så er mennesket i stand til at gøre noget, eller ikke gøre noget; eller at gøre A eller B; der er fri vilje. Og det er det samme som kreativitet, mener jeg, det er rimelig indlysende. Men det er også kilden til moral. Så kreativitet, fri vilje og moral er i realiteten det samme, videnskabelige begreb. Af den grund, siger Leibniz, så er det, der er formålet med vores liv, eftersom vi har fået denne kreative evne, at få det, han faktisk kalder lykke (happiness), at udvikle stræben efter lykke. Han siger ikke ’liv, frihed og stræben efter nydelse’; han siger ikke ’liv, frihed og stræben efter at undgå smerte’; han siger, ’liv, frihed og stræben efter lykke’, som han undertiden også kalder ’felicity’ (det betyder også lykke).

Dette er altså det stik modsatte af Benthams idé om nydelse; det er lige så modsatrettet som Satan er til Gud.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

Billede: ‘Lysternes have’. Maleri af Hieronymus Bosch, 1403-15.




Hvad er geopolitik? Første del: Historie.
LaRouche PAC’s Undervisningsserie 2018,
»Hvad er det Nye Paradigme?«,
Lektion 2, 17. feb. 2018

Der var de fortsatte provokationer i Mellemøsten, provokationer i Asien, Koreakrigen, Vietnamkrigen – dette var geopolitik med det formål at bevare Det britiske Imperium. Og desværre, med mordet på Kennedy, blev USA en partner i det, man kunne kalde et »anglo-amerikansk geopolitisk imperium«.

Og hvad gik politikkerne ud på? Frihandel, neoliberal økonomi, nedskæringspolitik. Svækkelse af regeringer, svækkelse af ideen om national suverænitet og etablering af institutioner som den Europæiske Union, der ønsker ikkevalgte bureaukrater til at bestemme politikker for det, der plejede at være nationalstater.

Det så ud, som om alt dette kunne ændre sig i 1989, med den kommunistiske verdens fald, med det østtyske regimes kollaps og Berlinmurens fald. På dette tidspunkt intervenerede LaRouche-organisationen meget direkte, for et alternativ til geopolitik. Lyndon LaRouche var blevet fængslet af George Bush, med assistance fra den daværende vicestatsanklager i Boston, Robert Mueller. Men Helga Zepp-LaRouche anførte kampen for det, vi dengang kaldte den Produktive Trekant Paris-Berlin-Wien, og dernæst, så tidligt som i slutningen af 1990, det, der blev kaldt den »Nye Silkevej« eller den Eurasiske Landbro, som et middel til at bringe nationer sammen og overvinde disse kunstige opdelinger, skabt af Det britiske Imperium.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 




LaRouches fysisk-økonomiske målemetode,
Del II: Hvordan værdi defineres.
LaRouche PAC Videnskabsteams
undervisningsserie 2017 i økonomi:
Lektion 6. pdf og video.

Denne case study er også meget nyttig for at se på den omvendte proces og komme med et par meget vigtige konklusioner i dagens diskussion – og dette er noget, jeg aldrig har hørt hr. LaRouche ikke sige – og det er, at nulvækst, eller såkaldt bæredygtighed, iboende vil slå samfundet ihjel. Det er en fundamental naturlov; og i dette kapitel fastslår han denne pointe …

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 




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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet.  

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

(Hele Helgas tale kan ses på dansk her)

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

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

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

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

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

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




»Den Nye Silkevej er en ny model
for internationale relationer«
Hovedtale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche
på Schiller Institut konference,
25.-26. nov., 2017, Frankfurt, Tyskland:
»At opfylde menneskehedens drøm«

»Jeg mener, at den Nye Silkevej er et typisk eksempel på en idé, hvis tid er kommet; og når en idé på denne måde først er ved at blive en materialistisk virkelighed, bliver den til en fysisk kraft i universet. Jeg har personligt haft mulighed for at se udviklingen af denne idé, der på mange måder reelt set begyndte med dette store menneske – min ægtemand, Lyndon LaRouche; der, for mange årtier siden – for næsten et halvt århundrede siden – fik ideen om en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden. Dette blev dernæst mere manifest i 1970’erne, ’80erne og især i 1991, da Sovjetunionen opløstes, og hvor denne idé om at skabe en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden blev meget fremtrædende.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)




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

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

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

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

(Se hele Helgas video og tale i dansk oversættelse her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=22734)

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet)

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

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

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

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

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

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

GOVERNOR JIM JUSTICE

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

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




»Den Nye Silkevej er en ny
model for internationale
relationer«
Hovedtale af Helga Zepp-
LaRouche på Schiller Institut
konference, 25.-26. nov.,
2017, Frankfurt, Tyskland:
»At opfylde menneskehedens drøm«

Jeg mener, at den Nye Silkevej er et typisk eksempel på en idé, hvis tid er kommet; og når en idé på denne måde først er ved at blive en materialistisk virkelighed, bliver den til en fysisk kraft i universet. Jeg har personligt haft mulighed for at se udviklingen af denne idé, der på mange måder reelt set begyndte med dette store menneske – min ægtemand, Lyndon LaRouche; der, for mange årtier siden – for næsten et halvt århundrede siden – fik ideen om en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden. Dette blev dernæst mere manifest i 1970’erne, ’80erne og især i 1991, da Sovjetunionen opløstes, og hvor denne idé om at skabe en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden blev meget fremtrædende.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Målestokken for strategisk succes

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 14. nov., 2017 – I bemærkninger på Air Force One på vej hjem fra Filippinerne til USA efter sin 12 dage lange, historieskabende rejse til Asien, karakteriserede præsident Donald Trump rejsen som »enormt succesfuld«, og at de indgåede aftaler til en værdi af $300 mia. snart ville blive tredoblet.

Men, det er mere end dette.

I et par dusin amerikanske stater – fra Alaska til Vest Virginia og Montana – der har direkte fordel af mange af disse aftaler, er en følelse af lettelse og endda optimisme ved at vende tilbage i takt med, at udsigten til at komme ud af landets lange, økonomiske mareridt begynder at tage form i folks sind.

Men det er også mere end dette.

En kronik i dag i Kinas Global Times går endnu videre og proklamerer i sin overskrift, at »USA’s deltagelse i Bælte & Vej er uundgåelig« – et initiativ for en politik, der er markant knyttet til Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Artiklens forfatter, Wang Yiwei, direktør for Institut for Internationale Anliggender ved Renmin Universitet, skriver, at handelsaftalerne fra præsident Trumps rejse til Kina »vil gøre det muligt for USA bedre at lære om mulighederne og udsigterne for økonomisk samarbejde. På denne baggrund er tiden inde for USA til at genoverveje en tilslutning til Bælte & Vej Initiativet, der tilbyder større rum for samarbejde«. Forfatteren Wang anbefaler endda, at de to lande kunne arbejde sammen om infrastruktur, måske først i udviklede lande, som i USA’s Midtvesten, og at USA og Kina kunne oprette en »global infrastruktur-investeringsbank«.

Men, målestokken for strategisk succes er mere end selv dette.

Vi står, udtalte Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag, over for en situation med endnu større muligheder end situationen i 1989, hvor Berlinmurens fald åbnede for muligheden for, at menneskeheden kunne erstatte den bankerotte, transatlantiske, gamle orden med en politik for et Nyt Paradigme, som Lyndon LaRouche og hans bevægelse på det tidspunkt specificerede. Denne chance blev på tragisk vis forspildt, har fr. Zepp-LaRouche gentagne gange udtalt.

»Dengang havde vi kun vore ideer«, forklarede hun i dag, »men man havde ingen kræfter, de ville gennemføre dem. Men nu har vi verdens største land, der går i retning af at gennemføre det, allieret med 70 andre lande. Vi har hele udviklingen i Asien, der er totalt domineret af dette nye paradigme. Og denne kendsgerning er nu også ved at slå igennem i USA og Europa.«

Det, vi er oppe imod i denne kamp i dag, er Det britiske Imperiums liberale establishment og deres hjernevask af befolkningen gennem organisationer såsom Kongressen for Kulturel Frihed (CCF). »Vi angreb CCF i hele denne periode«, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche. »De formede hele efterkrigstidens kulturelle paradigme. Hele den venstre-liberale elite og dens aksiomer kom fra den kulturelle hjernevask, som udførtes af CCF, der blev finansieret af CIA og Udenrigsministeriet. Og hertil kom, at vi også havde Frankfurterskolen; dernæst havde vi 68’erne; og dernæst blev det ’Grønne’ paradigme gennemført. Så hvis man ser på blandingen af hele denne hjernevask, så har man eliten af neo-liberalt etablissement, som nu er ved at gå under, og som flipper ud over Trump og selvfølgelig over Kina og Rusland osv.

»Dette er et forkert livssyn, et forkert syn på verden«, fortsatte Zepp-LaRouche. »De er anti-videnskab, de er anti-klassisk kultur. Ud fra et historisk synspunkt vil de gå under, lige som Middelalderens skolastikkere, fordi de troede på noget, der ikke var i overensstemmelse med universets love.

Det er vigtigt at tænke over dette, for de er vore modstandere; det er, hvad der ligger bag tankegangen à la [USA’s særlige anklager Robert] Mueller, bortset fra et par andre ubehagelige, neo-konservative elementer, og så fremdeles. Grunden til, at de hader os, er på grund af det, Lyndon LaRouche har skrevet. De hader passioneret hans måde at tænke på.«

Zepp-LaRouche konkluderede: »Kampen i USA er helt uafgjort; den kan vindes. Men disse folk er der stadig, så vi må virkelig gå hårdt frem imod dem. Lyndon LaRouches tænkning er overlegen; vi bør ikke i ét eneste øjeblik falde under denne standard. Så lad os få udsigten til at vinde denne kamp, og denne krig.«

Dette, og intet andet, opfylder hele målestokken for strategisk succes.




Vi skaber ideerne bag den fremvoksende
nye æra for menneskeheden!

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 30. okt., 2017 – Kinas Kommunistiske Partis netop afsluttede 19. Nationalkongres har konsolideret ideen om, frem til midten af dette århundrede, at skabe et »smukt Kina« og en »smuk verden«, hvor regeringer vil blive styret af konceptet om at sørge for deres befolkningers voksende »lykke«.

Dette er en betagende udvikling af strategisk betydning, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i denne weekend, og som er gået fuldstændig hen over hovedet på det meste af USA’s og Europas befolkning – for slet ikke at tale om, at det er en fornyet erklæring »med kinesiske karaktertræk« af de centrale, filosofiske koncepter, omkring hvilke USA selv blev grundlagt. »Hvilken leder, fra hvilket land i Vesten, har en sådan vision i dag?« spurgte Zepp-LaRouche. Hvor længe siden er det, at en amerikansk statsmand har gjort et sådant perspektiv, med samt dets medfølgende begreb om mennesket, til emnet for national diskurs?

Og dog ville disse dybtgående ideer ikke være så fremmedartede for flertallet af amerikanere i dag, hvis ikke Lyndon LaRouche, sammen med mange af hans medarbejdere, uretmæssigt og på falske anklager var blevet jaget i fængsel og hen over tre årtier fremstillet som en udstødt person. Denne forbrydelse blev begået af den samme, britiskkørte bande af bøller, med Robert Mueller som et fremtrædende bandemedlem, og som gik videre til at dække over den saudisk-britiske rolle i 11. september-angrebet, og som nu forsøger at vælte Trump-regeringen og selve USA’s forfatning – et billede, der hinsides enhver rimelig tvivl er bevist i EIR’s Robert Mueller Specialrapport[1], der nu cirkuleres bredt i hele landet.

Briterne gjorde alt dette for at forsøge at bringe de ideer til tavshed, som Lyndon LaRouche på enestående vis har skabt hen over årtier, og som fastlægger grundlaget for at virkeliggøre et Nyt Paradigme for menneskeheden, der vil lægge Det britiske Imperium i graven én gang for alle. Det er de ideer, der nu tager form i Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, som ubønhørligt går fremad på alle kontinenter.

»Vi skaber ideerne«, erklærede Zepp-LaRouche som et faktum. Det, der nu vokser frem på verdensscenen, er et resultat af vores mobilisering, vores organisering og vores opdragelse hen over årtier – ikke alene omkring projekter og politikker, men også omkring Lyndon LaRouches banebrydende opdagelser, hans udarbejdelse af det centrale begreb om menneskets skabende identitet og det, der adskiller mennesket fra alle andre, kendte arter. Det ville være udbytterigt at studere disse skrifter i dag, både i Vest og Øst. I særdeleshed tilskyndede hun til læsning, eller genlæsning, af Lyndon LaRouches skrift fra 2004, »En dialog mellem eurasiske civilisationer: Jordens kommende 50 år«[2].

Åbningsbemærkningerne til denne rapport fra LaRouche, der figurerer som frontispice i bogversionen, lyder som følger:

»Kreativitet, som jeg her har identificeret det, er forskellen på dig og en abekat. Der er faktisk to egenskaber ved denne forskel. For det første, så kan et medlem af den menneskelige art øge hans eller hendes arts potentielle, relative befolkningstæthed gennem sin viljemæssige anvendelse af kreativitet, som ingen form for dyr kan gøre. For det andet, så afhænger samfundets fremskridt hen over successive generationer af, at disse generationer gen-vedtager, eller atter sætter i kraft, den skabende opdagelse af denne form for universelle, fysiske principper. Sammen kan disse to udtryk for kreativitet (som jeg definerer det) fastlægge grundlaget for det, vi kunne kalde naturlig, menneskelig moral, den form for forskel, der adskiller menneskelig moral fra aberigets kultur.«

Ti år tidligere, i 1993, da Lyndon LaRouche stadig var fængslet, skrev han en lang artikel, der udredte denne, hans enestående opdagelse, i en artikel med titlen, »Om LaRouches opdagelse«[3], hvis indledende afsnit lyder:

»Det centrale træk af mit originale bidrag til Leibniz’ videnskab om fysisk økonomi, er at give en metode til at adressere den årsagsmæssige sammenhæng mellem, på den ene side, enkeltpersoners bidrag til aksiomatisk revolutionerende fremskridt i videnskabelige og analoge former for viden, og, på den anden side, de heraf følgende forøgelser af den potentielle befolkningstæthed i de korresponderende samfund. I sin anvendelse i politisk økonomi, fokuserer min metode på analyse af den centrale rolle af den følgende tretrins rækkefølge: For det første, aksiomatisk revolutionerende former for videnskabelig og analog opdagelse; for det andet, de heraf følgende fremskridt i principper for maskinredskaber og analoge ting; sluttelig, de heraf følgende fremskridt i arbejdskraftens produktive evne.«

Nu er et godt tidspunkt for verden til fuldt og helt at opdage LaRouches opdagelse.

Foto: Xi Jinping: »Flere end 60 million mennesker er blevet løftet ud af fattigdom i løbet af de seneste fem år.«  (Xinhua / New China)

[1] Læs Mueller-dossieret her.

[2] EIR, 7. januar, 2005; artiklen er indeholdt i LaRouches bog, »Jordens kommende 50 år«, der kan købes fra Amazon.com (eller ved henvendelse til vores kontor, -red.)

Læs artiklen her.

[3] Læs artiklen her.




Lyndon LaRouche:
»En dialog mellem eurasiske civilisationer:
Jordens kommende 50 år« og
»Om LaRouches opdagelse«.
pdf; engelsk

»Kreativitet, som jeg her har identificeret det, er forskellen på dig og en abekat. Der er faktisk to egenskaber ved denne forskel. For det første, så kan et medlem af den menneskelige art øge hans eller hendes arts potentielle, relative befolkningstæthed gennem sin viljemæssige anvendelse af kreativitet, som ingen form for dyr kan gøre. For det andet, så afhænger samfundets fremskridt hen over successive generationer af, at disse generationer gen-vedtager, eller atter sætter i kraft, den skabende opdagelse af denne form for universelle, fysiske principper. Sammen kan disse to udtryk for kreativitet (som jeg definerer det) fastlægge grundlaget for det, vi kunne kalde naturlig, menneskelig moral, den form for forskel, der adskiller menneskelig moral fra aberigets kultur.«

 

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

»Det centrale træk af mit originale bidrag til Leibniz’ videnskab om fysisk økonomi, er at give en metode til at adresse den årsagsmæssige sammenhæng mellem, på den ene side, enkeltpersoners bidrag til aksiomatisk revolutionerende fremskridt i videnskabelige og analoge former for viden, og, på den anden side, de heraf følgende forøgelser af den potentielle befolkningstæthed i de korresponderende samfund. I sin anvendelse i politisk økonomi, fokuserer min metode på analyse af den centrale rolle af den følgende tretrins rækkefølge: For det første, aksiomatisk revolutionerende former for videnskabelig og analog opdagelse; for det andet, de heraf følgende fremskridt i principper for maskinredskaber og analoge ting; sluttelig, de heraf følgende fremskridt i arbejdskraftens produktive evne.«

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 




Fysisk kemi: Stadier i menneskets udvikling.
LaRouche PAC Videnskabsteams
Undervisningsserie 2017 i økonomi.
3. lektion

Jason Ross: En af de ting, jeg tænkte på, var, hvor utroligt meget, folk tager fejl, hvor meget, folk undervurderer, hvor meget politikerne tager fejl, hvor meget, økonomer tager fejl, hvor meget, folk i almindelighed tager fejl i grundlæggende spørgsmål om ikke alene økonomi og politik, men endda om menneskeheden: Hvad er det, der gør et individ til et menneske? Hvis man interviewer den såkaldte ’manden på gaden’ og blot spørger folk, hvad er det, der gør os forskellige fra dyrene? Den kendsgerning, at Renæssancens gennembrud besvarede disse spørgsmål på en måde, der førte til skabelsen af utroligt, videnskabeligt fremskridt, det største fremskridt i menneskelig civilisation, i menneskelig velfærd, i levestandard, som verden endnu havde set; den kendsgerning, at denne grundlæggende viden, der gjorde dette gennembrud muligt, er næsten totalt fraværende i dag, er virkelig forbløffende.

I sit økonomiske arbejde husker jeg, at hr. LaRouche engang sagde, at noget af det, der gav ham en fordel, var, på en måde i sammenligning med andre, at de fleste økonomer rådgiver dig om økonomi ligesom en person, der fortæller dig, at du skal tage dine bukser over dit hoved, som det første skridt til at få dem på dine ben. Man begynder i den forkerte retning lige fra begyndelsen.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




LaRouches fysisk-økonomiske målemetode, Del I:
Arbejdskraftens produktive evne vs. jobs.
LaRouche PAC Videnskabsteams
undervisningsserie 2017 i økonomi. 2. Lektion

Hvordan kommer vi ud af denne krise? Som vi har diskuteret, så finder der et massivt program for vækst sted i hele verden, under anførelse af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, og med et åbent tilbud til USA om at gå med i denne proces. Det kan sikre en storstilet genopbygning af USA i samarbejde med andre nationer ved at tilslutte sig dette Bælte & Vej Initiativ. Det er den politiske handling, der ligger på bordet. Men det, vi ønsker at behandle i denne undervisningsrække; det, vi gerne vil diskutere, er de underliggende, videnskabelige principper, der ligger til grund for det, som faktisk vil skabe vækst og udvikling. Hvad er det for underliggende principper, der er årsag til, at Kinas aktuelle Bælte & Vej Initiativ rent faktisk fungerer og i vid udstrækning er succesfuldt? Hvad er videnskaben bag; hvad er det, der faktisk får dette til at fungere, i modsætning til andre programmer, som ikke fungerede? Dette går tilbage til spørgsmålene om, hvad virkelig økonomi er.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Robert Mueller er en umoralsk, juridisk morder:
Han vil gøre sit job, hvis I giver ham lov.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
29. sept., 2017.

Vært Matthew Ogden: God aften; det er den 29. september, 2017. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg William Wertz fra Executive Intelligence Review. Vi vil diskutere den netop udkomne specialundersøgelses-rapport; dossieret med titlen, »Robert Mueller Is an Amoral Legal Assassin; He Will Do His Job if You Let Him!«

Fig. 1

Jeg viser rapportens forsidebillede her på skærmen [Fig. 1]. Som I ser, så er rapporten nu tilgængelig; den er allerede blevet cirkuleret i over et døgn. Den er allerede i hænderne på folk i hele USA, og man kan se den her: lpac.co/ytdos (LPAC’s hjemmeside; EIR-rapporten findes som pdf på vores hjemmeside).

Rapporten er delt op i tre afsnit og følger tråden af personen Robert Mueller igennem tre af de mest berygtede forbrydelser i de seneste 30 år. For det første, de falske anklager og retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche – LaRouche-sagen; for det andet, det aggressive bedrag af det amerikanske folk mht. sandheden om begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, som dernæst blev brugt til at lancere en række krige for regimeskifte; og for det tredje, det igangværende kup imod den siddende amerikanske præsident, mens vi taler. Og I vil se, forhåbentlig i løbet af denne udsendelse – og vi opfordrer jer til at læse hele dossieret – at tråden til Robert Mueller kan spores hele vejen igennem disse afgørende, historiske vendepunkter. Hvis man trækker i denne tråd, vil hele dette apparat, hele denne operation, blive optrævlet.

Will Wertz er her i dag for at fremlægge nogle af rapportens punkter i en overordnet gennemgang, og for at guide jer gennem rapportens indhold og komme med nogle refleksioner over hvert af disse tre, afgørende knudepunkter, som detaljeret dækkes i rapporten. Og, forhåbentlig også for at lokke jer og tilskynde jer til at læse og studere denne rapport i detaljer. Jeg vil lade Will gå i gang, og vi vil vise noget materiale på skærmen undervejs, men vi vil gennemgå noget af indholdet fra rapporten.

William Wertz: Tak. Matt. Skønheden i denne rapport – som er noget, der omgående må handles på for at redde denne republik og præsidentskabet og bevæge verden ind i et Nyt Paradigme, som det defineres af den kinesiske politik for Ét Bælte, én Vej, og som er blevet vedtaget af mange lande i hele verden, inklusive Rusland, og som USA er blevet inviteret til at tilslutte sig – er, at den identificerer dette angreb på præsident Trump og det amerikanske præsidentskab over en længere tidsperiode; og hvor det fundamentale spørgsmål er, om verden fortsat skal være domineret af et bankerot, finansielt imperiesystem, der kontrolleres af briterne, eller om vi i stedet bevæger os ind i et Nyt Paradigme, baseret på princippet om fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det fundamentale spørgsmål. Dette er noget, som Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for i årtier. Tilbage i 1971, den 15. august, fremlagde han meget klart de alternativer, der ligger foran menneskeheden, og foran dette land, med Nixon, der annoncerede første fase, anden fase, af nedtagningen af Bretton Woods-systemet, som Roosevelt havde indsat efter Anden Verdenskrig. Han (LaRouche) sagde dengang, at vi har et alternativt valg; alternativet er at satse på en politik for økonomisk udvikling på global skala, eller også vil vi blive konfronteret med et forsøg på at gennemtvinge en fascistisk, økonomisk politik i Schachts tradition, som ville resultere i massive dødstal over hele verden. Med ’Schachts tradition’ refererer jeg til Hjalmar Schacht, finansminister under Adolf Hitler, der kom til magten med hjælp fra sådanne folk som John Foster Dulles og briterne.

Det, LaRouche gjorde i 1970’erne efter denne vurdering, var, at han fremlagde mange absolut afgørende udviklingsprogrammer. I 1975 var han fortaler for skabelsen af en International Udviklingsbank. Senere krævede han oprettelsen af en Nationalbank i USA efter samme principper som Alexander Hamiltons Første Nationalbank. Han præsenterede udviklingsprogrammer for områderne i Stillehavsbækkenet og det Indiske Oceans bækken. Han præsenterede et program ved navn Operation Juárez, for Mexicos udvikling, som en model for Nord-Syd-relationer gennem udveksling af mexicansk olie til gengæld for amerikansk teknologi. Senere præsenterede han programmer for den Eurasiske Landbro i samarbejde med sin hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, og som senere udvikledes til Verdenslandbroen. Briterne var totalt modstandere af denne politik – totalt. Vi vil få at se, at dette har været en kamp under hele perioden 1970’erne og 1980’erne og under hele 11. september-perioden, og frem til det aktuelle angreb på Trumps præsidentskab. Det har været en kamp mellem Det britiske Imperium, som har interveneret i USA for at forhindre, at USA gik i denne retning, som Lyndon LaRouche har forsøgt at styre USA i; og som LaRouche er på randen til at styre USA i, i dag, og som er årsagen til, at briterne er så bange!

Tilbage i 1980’erne spillede Lyndon LaRouche en afgørende rolle i udformningen af den tiltrædende Reagan-administration. LaRouche var ophavsmand til det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, som Reagan senere annoncerede i marts måned, 1983. LaRouche var også modstander mod briterne i krigen om Malvinas-øerne (som briterne kalder Falklandsøerne), og han krævede en gennemførelse af Monroe-doktrinen imod briternes kolonipolitik dér. Som et resultat mødtes LaRouche og hans hustru i 1982 med Indira Gandhi; han og hans hustru mødte Indira Gandhi i april 1982 for at diskutere udviklingen af det indiske subkontinent og Stillehavsbækkenet. I maj 1982 mødtes han med José López Portillo (Mexico) for at diskutere Operation Juárez. Som respons på dette sendte Henry Kissinger, i august 1982, et brev til FBI-direktør William Webster med krav om en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche på en anklage om angivelig chikane af Kissinger for at være britisk agent. Der blev ligeledes sendt et brev den 27. august 1982 fra den britiske regering til FBI; som krævede en efterforskning af Lyndon LaRouche og hans organisation. Den 24. september 1982 skrev FBI, i skikkelse af chef for kontraefterretning, James Noland, et svar til briterne.

Matthew Ogden: Vi har faktisk en FOIA-udgivelse (FOIA: Freedom of Information Act) af dette FBI-memo, som vi viser på skærmen [Fig. 2]. I kan selv se det følgende citat, som Will vil læse.

Fig. 2

Will Wertz: Der står, og det er altså fra James Noland til den britiske regering: »Vi vil gerne gentage vores konklusion om, at, alt imens mange af NCLC’s chikane-aktiviteter« – NCLC var Lyndon LaRouches organisation – »og de temaer, som NCLC’s publikationer promoverer, såsom EIR [Executive Intelligence Review] ofte er favorable over for sovjetisk misinformation og propagandainteresser, så er der ingen direkte beviser for, at russerne dirigerer eller finansierer LaRouche eller hans organisation. Det er imidlertid helt igennem sandsynligt, at russerne (sovjet-russerne) har udviklet eller vil udvikle kilder internt i NCLC, der befinder sig i en position, hvor de kan indskyde sovjet-inspirerede anskuelser i NCLC’s aktiviteter og publikationer. Det er sandsynligt, at russerne vil forsøge at drage fordel af eller udnytte NCLC-meninger, der er paralleller til eller fremmer sovjetiske, udenrigspolitiske mål.«

Minder dette jer om interventionen på vegne af Storbritanniens Government Communications Headquarters – GCHQ – eller på vegne af MI6’s Christopher Steele, for at forsøge at få en efterforskning af USA’s præsident Donald Trump, for angiveligt ’aftalt spil’ med russerne?

Alligevel skete der det, at præsidentens Udenrigspolitiske Råds Styrelse den 12. januar, 1983, krævede en efterforskning fra FBI’s side. Robert Mueller kommer ind i billedet i 1982. Han blev en del af USA’s justitsminister William Welds stab i Boston i 1982. Efter valgene i 1984 lancerede Weld en efterforskning af LaRouche; og i 1986 efterfulgte Mueller Weld, da Weld af George Bush – det var faktisk Ronald Reagan, der var præsident, men under indflydelse af George Bush, senior – blev udnævnt til at lede Justitsministeriets Kriminal-afdeling. Mueller bragte dernæst en vis John Markham ind for at udføre retsforfølgelsen af Lyndon LaRouche, der begyndte i Boston. Efter en razzia den 6. oktober, 1986 i Leesburg, Virginia, mod LaRouches hovedkvarter, hvor der var en trussel om, og en faktisk plan for, at forsøge at iscenesætte mordet på Lyndon LaRouche. Dette forsøg blev forpurret, men retsforfølgelsen forsatte i de sene 1980’ere.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

This prosecution was typical of Mueller’s corruption.  For
instance, in Boston itself, the prosecution ended in a mistrial
after government misconduct had been brought to light.  The jury,
when they polled themselves afterwards, having only heard the
complete prosecution case, unanimously said that they would have
voted for acquittal.  The judge in that case made the following
statement:  He said that the government had “engaged in
systematic and institutional prosecutorial misconduct”; this is
Robert Mueller.  The case was then shifted to Virginia, and what
they did there was that they had a judge in the so-called “Rocket
Docket” who made it impossible for the defendants to raise the
fact that the government had illegally put companies associated
with LaRouche into involuntary bankruptcy.  That was a very
significant factor in undermining the defense in that case.
After the case had resulted in convictions, the bankruptcy judge,
Martin Bostetter, ruled that the bankruptcy was a “constructive
fraud on the court.”
Ramsey Clark was the attorney for Lyndon LaRouche in the
appeal.

OGDEN:  Let’s put this quote on the screen, too; we have
Ramsey Clark’s quote [Fig. 3].

WERTZ:  What Ramsey Clark said was that “The LaRouche case
represents a broader range of deliberate cunning and systemic
misconduct over a longer period of time using the power of the
Federal government, than any other prosecution by the U.S.
Government in my time and to my knowledge.”  Later in another
spin-off case in New York State, New York State Supreme Court
Justice Stephen G. Crane said, “The actions of the Federal
prosecutors raise an inference of a conspiracy to lay low these
defendants at any cost.”  This is not just one judge.  We’re
talking about at least two judges, a bankruptcy judge, and the
former Attorney General of the United States Ramsey Clark, who
effectively denounced this so-called honest Robert Mueller for
conducting one of the most incredible corrupt prosecutions in
U.S. history.
If we look forward to the 9/11 period, Lyndon LaRouche
wrongly imprisoned by this apparatus which was launched by the
British and carried forward by the Bush administration.  Bush was
President at the time of the trial and the sentencing.  LaRouche
was out of prison and continued his fight for a policy of
economic development; calling for a New Bretton Woods system to
replace the system which had been abandoned by Nixon in 1971.  He
was working, as he had in the earlier period, on negotiating in
the early 1980s with the Soviets for the National Security
Council of the United States under Reagan for the SDI.  He
continued those discussions with the Russians, this time around a
New Bretton Woods conception under President Clinton.  Clinton
himself, before the impeachment proceedings were launched against
him, called for a new financial architecture at a speech before
the CFR [Council on Foreign Relations] in New York, along the
lines of what LaRouche had advocated.
LaRouche was also at the end of the 1990s, he was warning
about the campaign to create an Arc of Crisis around Russia — no
longer the Soviet Union, but Russia.  He produced a video called
“Storm Over Asia” in which he developed precisely how this
operation was being run against Russia.  Then in January of 2001,
he warned that there could be some sort of terrorist action in
the United States such as a Reichstag Fire [which brought Hitler
into power], which could be engineered under the Bush
administration.  That’s precisely what occurred on September 11,
2001.
Again, what do we have here?  Mueller assumed office as FBI
Director on September 4, 2001, just days before 9/11.  What he
did from that point on, was to carry out what Senator Bob Graham,
who headed up the Congressional investigation of 9/11, has
described as “aggressive deception.”

OGDEN:  Here’s a clip from a press conference that Bob
Graham did a little bit over a year ago at the National Press
Club, where he discusses the role that the FBI played in
stonewalling the Congressional investigation into 9/11; both in
terms of the details regarding San Diego — that’s what was
contained in the 28 pages — but also in an even bigger case of
cover-up, the details of the cell that was located in Sarasota,
Florida.  So you’ll hear Bob Graham talk about what he called
“beyond a cover-up, but an aggressive deception campaign against
the American people.”

SEN. BOB GRAHAM

:  It appeared as if the FBI was
moving from a cover-up which I considered to be a passive
withholding of information, to aggressive deception in the case
of Sarasota — which is one of several examples.  They rewrote
the narrative; they said we’ve finished the investigation, and we
have found no connections.  When in their own files, written by
their own special agent who was from the Tampa office,
incidentally, they had contrary information.  They then, and have
continued, to withhold that information, other than the 80,000
pages from the public.  I consider to justify the categorization
of being aggressive deception.

OGDEN:  Then later in the same press conference, which you
can watch in full there — it’s lpac.co/graham-press-conference.
But later in the same press conference, he talked about how the
Deputy Director of the FBI actually detained him and his wife at
Dulles Airport, and warned them to stop pursuing the truth about
what was contained in these documents about the Saudi connections
to 9/11.  So, here’s a short clip where he talks about that
warning from the FBI to him and his wife.

GRAHAM

:  The question is raised, “Why are you doing
this?  Fifteen years later, what difference does this make?  Get
a life.”  I was told that by the Deputy Director of the FBI.
FEMALE REPORTER:  Just one follow-up.  You were pretty much
harassed by the FBI when you tried to go further in your
inquiries.  Since you went public, have you heard of anybody else
who had that kind of treatment from the FBI?
GRAHAM:  No.  This was a situation which occurred in 2011 as
all this information about Sarasota was starting to come out.  My
wife and I flew up from Miami to Dulles to have Thanksgiving with
our daughter who lives in Great Falls.  We were met at the
airport by two FBI agents.  They said that an official of the FBI
wants to talk with you about the Sarasota situation. Well, I was
encouraged; feeling that maybe some of the questions that we’d
been asking were now going to be answered.  So, we drove with the
two agents to the office at Dulles which the FBI has.  My wife
was put in one room, and she was given as entertainment the FBI
training manual.  If you want to know some arcane aspects of FBI
training, she’s fully prepared.  I was taken into another room,
with the Deputy Director of the FBI, a young female FBI agent,
and a middle-aged lawyer from the Department of Justice.
Essentially, the message was, we’ve done this complete
investigation; everything that’s known is known, and you need to
get a life.  I pointed out what he didn’t know was that I had
actually read two of the investigative reports by their agent,
which contradicted what they had said publicly and what he had
just said to me privately.  He said, “Oh, you don’t understand.
One, that wasn’t a very good agent.”  Well, the idea that has
there been an investigation by the FBI in its history that was as
important to the American people as full knowledge as 9/11?  And
the very fact that they would say they had sent as an
investigation into what I think was an important component of the
total picture, someone that they declare to be less than a fully
capable person was itself revelatory.  And then he proceeded to
say, “And we have other information that puts what you read in
context.  And you will see that in fact what we have said is
true.”  So, I said “Fine.  Could I see the information that will
put it into context?”  And he pointed to the young female agent,
and directed her to assemble the files.  We arranged a time to
meet at the FBI office for the District of Columbia.
So, a few days later, I showed up for our meeting, prepared
to read these files.  The Deputy Director was there, and he said
the meeting is cancelled and we’re not going to reschedule.  And,
since I knew who the agent was who had been described as less
than competent; and I had called him to try to have a telephone
conversation, and he said “I know you’ve been calling Agent ‘X’.
Stop calling him, because I’ve told him to not take your calls.”
That was the last of any official character meeting that I had
with the FBI. [END VIDEO]

OGDEN:  There are more details concerning Mueller’s direct
involvement in this kind of stonewalling around the Congressional
inquiry into 9/11; telling Bob Graham and his other investigators
not to fly out to interview one of the known personalities in San
Diego.  They disobeyed those orders and did it anyhow.  But just
parenthetically, immediately after this press conference that Bob
Graham did in Washington D.C. at the National Press Club, a fight
erupted around the so-called JASTA bill — Justice Against
Sponsors of Terrorism — which would allow the 9/11 families to
sue Saudi Arabia for their role in financing and coordinating the
9/11 attacks.

CNN coverage.

Yesterday just happens to be the one-year anniversary of the major victory — you can see on the screen
here [Fig. 4] — of the Senate override of Obama’s veto of this
JASTA bill, which was absolutely dramatic.  This was a rally in
front of the White House [Fig. 5] of 9/11 families and activists,
asking the Congress to override Obama’s veto; and then next [Fig. 6], this is an article in one of the Capitol Hill newspapers.
“Senate Poised To Override Obama Veto.”  Then this is the final picture [Fig. 7], this was actually in the cloakroom immediately after the Senate cast their votes.  The cloakroom of the U.S. Senate.  I had the pleasure to actually be there in the gallery with the 9/11 families when the U.S. Senate overrode Obama’s veto of the JASTA bill.  That was the CNN coverage.  This was obviously a major victory, parenthetically.  But it’s part of the story, and the role that Bob Graham had to play in going directly head-to-head with the FBI and others in the Executive Branch who were trying to cover up and protect the Saudis in the 9/11 case.

WERTZ:  Now, there are, along with the statement from James
Noland that I read earlier, in response to the British
government’s request back in 1982 for an investigation of Lyndon
LaRouche, there were two other attachments which were
declassified.  The one basically was an attack upon LaRouche for
having opposed in what they called the Falkland Islands, but
which is the Malvinas Islands.  LaRouche did that from the
standpoint of the Monroe Doctrine.  The second was they objected
to the LaRouche Movement revealing that the policy of the British
was to promote the Muslim Brotherhood.  If we look at the period
after 9/11, in which Robert Mueller is carrying out this
“aggressive deception” as Senator Graham puts it, to cover up the
role of the Saudis.  When you’re talking about the Saudis, you’re
talking about a satrap of the British; that’s what you’re talking
about in this situation.
What follows 9/11?  Regime-change wars.  What follows 9/11
immediately is Tony Blair’s sexed up dossier claiming that Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction; which, as it turns out,
he did not have.  And which the British undoubtedly knew he did
not have.  Once again, British intervention.  And after the
invasion of Iraq, you had the effective creation of ISIS; you had
then under Obama, continued regime-change policies under the name
of the Arab Spring, which was just a policy of bringing the
Muslim Brotherhood to power in such locations as Tunisia, Egypt,
Libya, and Syria.  As Lyndon LaRouche said after the
assassination of Qaddafi, the reason they assassinated him was
that they were in a hurry to move into Syria, as part of what he
had earlier described as the “Storm Over Asia”; an effort to
encircle Russia and to ensure that a New Paradigm does not
emerge.
A critical point in this narrative really is in the period
of 2013-14.  I should just say, Mueller stepped aside as FBI
Director on September 4, 2013; and as you know, he was replaced
by James Comey.  James Comey, it should be remembered, was the
Deputy Attorney General under Mueller from December 2003 until
August 2005.
In the year 2013, President Xi of China went to Kazakhstan,
and he announced the Chinese commitment to the Silk Road; a
policy which had been advocated for a significant period of time
by Lyndon LaRouche and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, who is well
known today as the Silk Road Lady.  The Chinese have an immediate
appreciation of the role that she has played in advocating this
policy.
In the next year, you have the Ukraine coup — February
2014; orchestrated by Obama and by the British and the French,
among others.  But the basic idea here was, again, encirclement
of Russia, in this case with a bunch of Nazis, which is what the
Maidan consisted of.
On July 16, 2014, as the dossier that Barbara Boyd has
authored on Mueller indicates, you had the BRICS organization
meeting in Brazil, and what they formed was the New Development
Bank.  Remember, LaRouche had called for an International
Development Bank, back in 1975: This whole policy that LaRouche
had advocated over these decades, at that point was in the
process of coming into existence, and it was at point,
particularly following the coup in Ukraine, that the operation
against associates of Trump’s began, that is, even before he
announced for President.  We now know, that contrary to the lies
of James Comey and [then Director of National Intelligence] James
Clapper, there was wiretapping of associates of President Trump.
We know for a fact that the dossier indicates that Paul Manafort,
who became Trump’s campaign manager when he announced for
President, was wiretapped beginning in the year 2014; and this
continued through 2016.  It was discontinued for a certain period
of time, and then resumed into 2017 before Obama left office,
including a time period in which it was known that Manafort, even
though he was no longer campaign manager, was speaking to
President Trump.  Manafort had a residence in the Trump Tower all
of this time.
Why was he targetted, initially?  Well, because he had
provided advisory services to the Yanukovych government [in
Ukraine] — this was a duly elected government, which was
overthrown unconstitutionally in 2014, by Nazis.  So, of course,
that becomes grounds for investigating somebody whose client was
overthrown by a bunch of Nazis, by the Obama administration!
The investigation begins there.
Also, in 2014, Michael Flynn was fired by Obama — why?
Because he had opposed the Obama Arab Spring policy, which gave
rise to ISIS, Michael Flynn said at the time.  So you can imagine
that it is perhaps the case that surveillance of Michael Flynn
began at that time as well.
Now, what the dossier on Mueller goes through is that
Mueller should be removed as Special Counsel, and there should be
an actual Special Counsel who investigates the crimes which
Mueller aggressively deceiving the American people about, in his
investigation of President Trump.  And I would also point out,
think of the statements by various judges about the corrupt
investigation and witch hunt directed at Lyndon LaRouche — well,
on June 15, 2017, Trump wrote:  “You are witnessing the single
greatest witch hunt in American political history.”  And I would
say that, the precursor for this was the unprecedented witch hunt
against Lyndon LaRouche, but that President Trump is effectively
getting the same treatment as Lyndon LaRouche did then, from the
same sources, from the British.
Now, there are seven areas, that should be investigated — ,

OGDEN:  We can put this on the screen here.  We have the
list of the seven actual crimes.

WERTZ:  First, instigation of a coup against the United
States by a foreign power.
So, although the charge is that President Trump, or his
associates, colluded with the Russians, the fact of the matter
is, that all the evidence shows that this entire operation has
been concocted by the British, and been carried out by stooges in
the intelligence community under President Obama; who was
particularly happy every time he visited Buckingham Palace.
Now what do we have as evidence?  Well, the {Guardian}
reports that as early as 2015, shortly after he announced for
President, that the British began to surveille Trump and his
associates.  And according to the public account — and this
cannot be taken at face value; this investigation of Trump may
have started earlier.  The communications between the British and
[then CIA Director] Brennan or others in the U.S. intelligence
community, could have occurred before 2016. The report in the
{Guardian} says that sometime in the summer, Hannigan of the
Government Communications Headquarters,  the GCHQ, which is the
equivalent of our NSA, spoke with Brennan about allegations that
Trump was being influenced by the Russians or working with the
Russians.
But the point is, it was the GCHQ which was directly
involved — according to public accounts in the {Guardian}, in
prompting Brennan to create a six-intelligence agency taskforce
to investigate Trump, {during} the Presidential campaign!
And I think the only other case of this kind of thing, was
what happened to Lyndon LaRouche, because Lyndon LaRouche was
running for President, back in 1988, and the investigation of him
was launched while he was a Presidential candidate in the United
States, and — really, actually, an indictment during the
Presidential campaign, which is completely unprecedented.
Additionally, you have the Christopher Steele dossier:
Christopher Steele is allegedly an “ex” MI6 agent.  He headed up
the MI6 Russian desk in Moscow, until 2009.  In 2009, he left
that position and formed Orbis Business at the same time period
Fusion GPS, a U.S. company which was involved in commissioning
Steele’s dossier, was also created.  And these two companies were
working together since at least 2010 when they signed a
confidentiality agreement between them as a shield for revealing
what was actually going on.
So you have the circulation of the Christopher Steele
dossier — and they didn’t just produce this for Hillary Clinton.
They were briefing the press!  They were giving direct briefings
to the press; they were giving it to John McCain who then gave it
to Comey, and so forth.  They were actively circulating this
unverified, so-called “intelligence” against Donald Trump, who
was a candidate for President, then became President.
And it’s very important to understand that Christopher
Steele, it’s public record that he worked with the FBI’s Eurasian
Organized Crime Unit in New York City, from at least 2010. The
former head of the FBI’s Eurasian Organized Crime Unit in New
York City is none other than Andrew McCabe; who for a while,
after Comey was fired, was Acting Director of the FBI, and is
still Deputy Director of the FBI.  And it’s believed that McCabe
was the person who was working closely with Christopher Steele.
It came to light, for instance, that the FBI actually offered to
pay Steele $50,000 to continue with his research, although the
FBI’s been stonewalling on the details on that.
So what you have here is completely a British operation
directed at Trump and his associates; and I’ll get to this in
terms of the wiretapping.
And it’s also believed that the Christopher Steele dossier
provided the roadmap for the FBI’s investigation, and also may
have been used for getting ,” FISA [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court] surveillance authorization directed at people
such as Manafort.
Second crime is false reporting of a crime: And that’s
precisely what has occurred in the case of the allegation that
the Russians hacked Podesta and the DNC. It has been documented
thoroughly by numerous sources that this was a leak by an
insider, and not a hack by the Russians.  The most definitive
proof of this is the memorandum put forward by the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).  And these are
top-notch former NSA, former CIA agents such as William Binney
and Ray McGovern.  They prove forensically that it could not have
been a hack over the internet; it had to be a leak onto some sort
of memory device, because of the speed involved [in the data
transfer].
This has been submitted to Mueller; he’s done nothing on it.
It’s been submitted to the President with the idea that he should
ask Pompeo of the CIA to get to the bottom of this.  We don’t
know if anything’s been done along these lines.
They also show that at least the Guccifer 2.0 claimed
hacking, attributed falsely to the Russians, when in fact there
was cutting and pasting to put the Russian language on the
alleged hack trail.  This is something which the CIA has the
capability to do under Brennan; it’s called the Marble Framework.
Assange of WikiLeaks has denied that this came from the Russian
government.  He recently met with Congressman Dana Rohrabacher,
and said that he was willing to provide testimony which would
definitely establish that this was not a hack and that it was not
given to him by the Russians.  Rohrabacher (R-CA) has been trying
to meet with Trump in order to present this evidence, but it’s
been blocked, according to him, by the staff at the White House.
Craig Murray, a U.K. former ambassador to Uzbekistan, has
said it was a leak and he knows it personally, because he met
with a person that he said was the leaker.
Seymour Hersh was taped in a discussion, without his knowing
he was being recorded, and he indicated that he had sources who
indicated that Seth Rich,  a DNC computer technician, may have
been the person who carried out the leak.
So all of this information is not being taken into account,
in continuing with the narrative that this was a Russian hack,
and you’re supposed to believe that.
Then you have the third crime, which is an attempt at
entrapment of Donald Trump, Jr., Manafort, and Jared Kushner,
among others, in a Trump Tower meeting.  The British hand is all
over this: The person who set up the meeting and sent the emails
to Donald Trump, Jr., which misrepresented the purpose of the
meeting, was one Ron Goldstone, a British national.  It should
also be pointed out that one William Browder, who testified
before Congress, in this case against Fusion GPS, because they
were lobbying against the Magnitsky Act, which was the subject of
the discussion at the Trump Tower.  This was a person who
renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1989 and became a British
citizen.
So again, what we’re dealing with here is a complete British
operation. It’s just transparent that that’s the case.  But this
was a deliberate attempt to try to set up a situation which would
involve the Trump immediate circles, in attempting to get
information on Hillary Clinton allegedly coming from the
Russians.
Fourth area: Felonious leaks of intelligence by the Obama
administration.  This has to do with the unmasking, which was
completely out of control, or I guess you could say it was under
very directed control by the Obama administration officials.  For
instance, it’s been revealed that Samantha Power, the Obama UN
ambassador, requested 260 unmaskings of U.S. citizens in the
course of 2016.  And she even tried to get even more unmaskings
before the inauguration of Donald Trump.  What reason does she
have to be asking for such intelligence, from the standpoint of
being at the UN?
Obama National Security Advisor Susan Rice, it is known
asked for many unmaskings, in this case, her National Security
Council records were transferred to the Obama library, so that
justice could be obstructed, because records at the library are
sealed for a number of years.
This is a deliberate policy of targetting U.S. citizens,
particularly Trump associated by the Obama administration, and
those are two such cases.
You have also the attempted J. Edgar Hoover-style sexual
blackmail of Trump, by Comey:  This is the fifth area that should
be investigated.  Comey met with Trump in Trump Tower on Jan. 6,
2017; he met with him alone.  Other people had come to the
meeting, but he asked them to leave and then met with Trump
alone, and presented him with an aspect of the Steele dossier
which claimed that he had been involved in sexual perversions in
a hotel in Moscow.  Trump has reportedly asked for an immediate
investigation of this fraudulent dossier, which Comey refused to
do.
But this is the kind of thing that J. Edgar Hoover did to
many, to Martin Luther King, Jr., and to many others, as a means
of terrorizing and controlling people to go along with a policy
desired by J. Edgar Hoover’s controllers, which is also the case
with respect to Comey.
A sixth area for investigation is the wiretapping of Trump
associates, and then the lying by Comey and Clapper to the U.S.
Congress. Clapper in particular was asked, was there a FISA
ordered surveillance of Trump or his associates?  He said no.
“Would you know about it if it had occurred?”  “Yes, I would,”
and he left a loophole and said: Well, there may have been some
other jurisdiction was carrying out a wiretap that I don’t know
about.
But this is what he said, and he definitively said there was
no FISA Court wiretap, and yet, that’s precisely what came out:
That Manafort, the campaign manager of Trump, was wiretapped and
he had a resident at Trump Tower, and this is precisely what
Trump had tweeted on March 4th, 2017:  “Terrible! Just found out
that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the
victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!”  So that has to be
investigated.
And then the final thing in the dossier, is the attempted
entrapment of the President by Comey himself, into an obstruction
of justice charge:  So you have the head of the FBI who is acting
virtually as somebody who goes to a meeting with wires on, and
goes back to his controllers at the FBI to consult after each
visit with Trump.  And then writes memos, which he illegally
leaked to the press, and he actually said:  “I thought that might
prompt the appointment of a special counsel.”  So he had the
intention of getting a special counsel against Trump, on the
grounds  — one would be to claim that Trump asked him not to
pursue an investigation of Michael Flynn; of course Trump didn’t
do that, as indicated.  He merely said, “I would hope that he
wouldn’t be prosecuted.”  And of course, as has been pointed out,
the President has the right to actually pardon somebody.  So, as
Alan Dershowitz, the civil rights attorney, and Democrat, has
said he had every right to say what he did.
And the other aspect is to say that somehow Trump was
obstructing justice by firing Comey!  So the attempt was set up
to get Mueller to be able to carry out this kind of an
investigation against Trump.
Using methods of entrapment, lying throughout, what you had
is a witch hunt against a President of the United States.  It’s
not the first time that the British have been involved in this,
and their stooges in the United States, but this is really
unprecedented, with the exception of the witch hunt which was
carried out earlier against Lyndon LaRouche.
And it’s time that this be stopped! And that’s the whole
point of this dossier.
The dossier should be seen as a political weapon in the
hands of the American citizenry.  The issue here is what Benjamin
Franklin said after the Constitutional Convention adopted a
Constitution.  We have a republic, the question is, can you keep
it?  And the responsibility rests on the American citizen to use
this dossier to actually force the issue in the country right
now, to stop this British coup.
Robert Mueller’s full name, as the dossier indicates, is
Robert Swan Mueller III.  Our intention is to make this operation
being carried out by Mueller right now, to be his final swan
song.

OGDEN:  As we saw on the screen there, the question that was
asked at the conclusion of this final section of the dossier is
the following: “{Have our intelligence agencies, actually
instigated an Active Measures counterintelligence program
illegally and against a sitting President?}” [emphasis in
original]
So that’s the question and as the dossier states a little
bit later on:  It’s very clear that there has been a foreign
government that has intervened to attempt to sway the U.S.
electoral process and the U.S. democratic process, and that that
foreign government is the British government.  And so if you
follow the thread of Robert Mueller, not just in the attacks
right now against President Donald Trump, but if you follow it
back to the aggressive cover-up of the events of 9/11, and even
the prosecution and witch hunt against Lyndon LaRouche in the
1980s, you’ll see if you pull that thread it will unravel a much,
much larger apparatus, and it will reveal a lot more.
This dossier follows that thread very clearly through these
three crucial inflection points in our nation’s recent history
and the call to action is obviously to access this dossier which
we’re making available and to circulate it as widely as possible.
Will, you made the point that the context for all of this is
much more significant than maybe even all of the mechanisms by
which these crimes have been carried out.  The context is what
reveals and uncovers the true motivation behind this entire
process, and I think if you take the connections between this
dossier, which choose 1982 as a crucial year to examine what
Lyndon LaRouche’s activities were at that time — meeting with
López Portillo, meeting with Indira Gandhi, proposing the
Strategic Defense Initiative, and authoring {Operation Juárez},
and if you trace that forward to the announcement in 2013 by Xi
Jinping of the new Silk Road, the Eurasian World Land-Bridge, and
the new international financial institution of development that
that represents, that’s the unifier for this entire period of
history.
And despite the attempts, over and over, and over again, to
derail that locomotive of world history, we’ve reached the point
where that is the prevailing dynamic on the planet. And the
attempts to try to sabotage that and undermine it continue to
fail.  And so, this is the latest attempt in that, but to look at
what the motivation is — maybe you can just say a little bit
more about what that context is.

WERTZ:  I think the point is, in defeating this British
operation which Mueller is spearheading at this point, we create
the conditions under which President Trump can move to join with
Russia, China, India in the development of the One Belt, One Road
policy.  This is crucial in terms of reversing the destructions
over the recent decades of our industrial capacity in the United
States; it’s crucial in terms of developing world peace, solving
crises such as Korea, solving crises such as the terrorist
onslaught in the Middle East and Northern Africa in particular.
That collaboration is crucial.  Trump has signalled that he wants
to move with such collaboration.
And this is a longstanding fight to bring humanity together,
operating on a common destiny of humanity, what John Quincy Adams
called a “community of principle among a family of sovereign
nation-states.”
The British Empire, as the Venetian Empire before it, has
been opposed to that.  It has operated under the geopolitical of
dividing nations among themselves, creating warfare such as we’ve
seen repeatedly over the last more than a hundred years, with two
world wars, and perpetual warfare ever since.
And so we’re in a situation, where, as Lyndon LaRouche
recently said, “Victory is within our reach,” and you have to
understand this broad arc of history in order to have an
appreciation of what’s occurring in so-called contemporary
affairs.  It’s not what meets the eye:  it’s this broader
question — we’ve got a financial crisis in the world.  The
system is overbloated and ripe for collapse; the problems of 2008
were never solved.  And we have a solution before us which is New
Paradigm:  Peace based upon economic development, cooperation
among nations for the purpose of promoting, as our Constitution
says, the General Welfare, not just of our own population, but of
the population of the entire planet.
And I think that’s the issue between the British Empire
policy of geopolitics, versus the policy of a community of
principle among nation-states, which is a U.S. policy; the policy
expressed by President Xi of China of a “win-win” policy, as
opposed to a zero-sum game — this is what’s at stake right now.
I think the American citizen, as this dossier concludes, has to
take responsibility, circulate this dossier!  We’re going to be
producing a leaflet and maybe multiple leaflets that you can get
from our site and then circulate throughout the country, to bring
people’s attention to this dossier.  We’re not in a position to
produce a large number of these in hard copy, but we do have an
electronic version which will be available on the LaRouche PAC
site.
And by doing this, we can create the conditions under which
not only is the presence of the United States defended against
this coup attempt, and it’s very much like the Maidan in Ukraine
that’s being attempted right now; what’s being done to Trump is
almost precisely modeled on the Maidan that brought about the
coup in Ukraine.  But more broadly than that, by defending the
Presidency was the chance of bringing about a different geometry
on the globe as a whole, and creating the conditions under which
we can move towards what the actual mission of mankind is:, which
is not only to develop this planet Earth, but also to assert
dominion over the Galaxy and eventually the Universe.

OGDEN:  Well, thank you, and let me put on the screen, one
more time, the cover page of this dossier, so you can get a look
at it, and we’ll have the link here on the screen.  You can
access this dossier at lpac.co/ytdos. And again, the title:
“Robert Mueller Is An Amoral Legal Assassin:  He Will Do His Job
If You Let Him.”
You’ll find this report fascinating:  You’ll learn a lot
about history, the history of this country over the last 30, 35
years that you did not know, I guarantee you.  And you’ll learn a
lot about what’s going on right now.  There’s much, much more
than what meets the eye.
Thank you for joining me, Will.  And thank you for tuning
in, and we encourage you, read the dossier and circulate it as
widely as you can.  And stay tuned to larouchepac.com




EIR-dossier: »Robert Mueller er
en umoralsk, juridisk lejemorder
– Han vil gøre sit job, hvis I giver ham lov«.
Dansk indledning. Hele artiklen som pdf.

Af Barbara Boyd.

Indledning:

Robert Swan Mueller III – den særlige anklager, der har fået til opgave at bringe USA’s præsident til fald – er, som hans navn antyder, et produkt af elitens privatskoler og universiteter. I de nationale nyhedsmedier roses han på ensartet og nøgtern vis som ubestikkelige, fair, »ærlige Bob«, »skolemester Bobby med tre pinde«. Vi vil vise, at dette image er et skamløst falsk PR-nummer fra Washington, D.C., der er skabt for de godtroende.

I virkeligheden er Robert Swan Mueller så korrupt, man kan være, og bøjer og drejer loven efter behov for at tjene deres mål, som tildeler ham opgaver. Magten hos anklagerfunktionen og institutionerne, han tjener, dikterer, hvad der er retten for ham, snarere end den fordomsfrie forfølgelse af retfærdighed, som loven bestemmer for hans kald. I, hvad han selv kalder et afgørende øjeblik, brød han rækkerne efter college for at tjene som marinesoldat i Vietnamkrigen. Herefter ønskede han aldrig at gøre noget som helst andet end at retsforfølge. Hans udnævnelse til særlig anklager udgør toppen af en lang karriere, hvor han har set sig selv som en streng og villig kriger, en pligtopfyldende marinesoldat, der handler på vegne af en hvilken som helst ond plan, hans overordnede præsenterer ham for, og bruger hvilke midler som helst, der synes nødvendige for at udføre planen.

I de seneste uger har aktivister fra LaRouche-bevægelsen gentagne gange fået at vide af borgere, de møder: »Det ser ud, som om præsident Trump nu får ’LaRouche-behandlingen’«. De to mænd kunne ikke være mere forskellige, mht. position eller kulturelle og intellektuelle præstationer. LaRouche er et verdenshistorisk geni af samme støbning som Leibniz. Men, begge mænd har rørt ved det, der viste sig at være den ’tredje skinne’ (den farlige, el-førende skinne i f.eks. undergrundbanen) i amerikansk politik, siden Franklin Roosevelts død. De udgjorde en trussel mod det angloamerikanske, britiske imperiesystem efter krigen. LaRouche udgjorde en sådan trussel direkte, konsekvent og eksplicit ved navn. Trump udgør en sådan trussel implicit, ved at afvise evindelig krigsførelse og søge bedre relationer med Rusland, kræve gennemførelse af Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, støtte det, han henviser til som det Amerikanske System for politisk økonomi og ved at love massiv infrastrukturudvikling og en moderne platform for varefremstilling, for produktive jobs.

I begge tilfælde krævede briterne, som vi vil få at se, deres skalp, baseret på den opfattede trussel mod dem, med, som det mest specifikke eksempel på denne trussel, ønsket om en samarbejdsrelation med Rusland og en afslutning af den »unipolære« ramme for relationer mellem nationer. I begge tilfælde udløste de kontrollerede medier en uafbrudt spærreild af hæslig, slibrig og ærekrænkende dækning, dag efter dag, for at skabe betingelserne for en folkelig opbakning til en retsforfølgelse for kriminel aktivitet. Alt imens der er mange andre aktører i disse ’Kabuki-danse’ (tilnærmelsesvis, spil for galleriet) – kompromitterede og terroriserede politikere og dommere, og et efterretningssamfund, der fungerer som gendarmer for vores Orwellske politistat – så var det stumpe instrument, der blev valgt til angrebet, Robert Mueller. Undervejs, mellem disse to opgaver, spillede Robert Mueller en enormt betydningsfuld rolle i mørklægningen af den saudisk/britiske rolle i mordene på næsten 3.000 amerikanere den 11. september, 2001, og det totalt ødelæggende udsalg af USA’s Forfatning, der fulgte i kølvandet på terrorangrebet – en rolle, der, hvis den blev grundigt efterforsket, udgør forhindring af retfærdighedens gang, blandt andre forbrydelser.

Dette dossier vil tage jer igennem Muellers karriere, baseret på det, der er umiddelbart og offentligt tilgængeligt. Det efterlader et spor af ureglementeret anklagervirksomhed, inklusive det, som tidligere senator Bob Graham kalder »aggressivt bedrag« af den amerikanske Kongres og offentlighed, med hensyn til begivenhederne den 11. september, 2001, og inkluderer en betydelig rolle i overvågningsstaten efter 11. september, som har udtaget og ødelagt det fjerde forfatningstillæg og resten af vor Forfatnings Lov om Frihedsrettigheder. De af jer, der arbejder inden for vor moderne Leviatan, kan utvivlsomt pege på andre ureglementerede aktiviteter, og vi opfordrer jer til at læsse på – vær så venlige at afsløre det. Intet mindre end dette er, hvad I skylder jeres ed over for USA’s Forfatning.

Læs hele EIR’s dossier:

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Evighedens samtidighed kommer for at fejre
Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag

English: See below

Kun få mennesker opnår at blive 95 år – så når de gør, er der grund til at fejre dem. Men endnu færre er de, der har brugt deres tildelte år, mange eller få, til at ændre historiens gang, sådan, som Lyn har gjort, og til at inspirere så mange til at handle for også selv at ændre historiens gang. Under festen lørdag, den 9. sept. i Tyskland, i en vindyrkers restaurant i Münster-Sarmsheim an der Nahe, blev der derfor bragt gaver i form af udtryk for menneskelig kreativitet til en mand, der har kæmpet så hårdt, og så længe, for at bringe princippet om menneskelig kreativitet ind i økonomi, ind i politik, ind i kunst og videnskab, til gamle og unge, og i hele verden. Fra poesi til drama; fra Lieder, operaarier og til korværker.

Nogle af Lyns bedste venner fra evighedens samtidighed var særlige gæsteoptrædende for at gøre festivitassen større: Bach, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms og Verdi, og, åh ja, også Schiller. Fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom et originalt digt på tysk, og fra nogle af de tilstedeværende medlemmer af LaRouches politiske bevægelse kom der musikalske kompositioner og arrangementer. Kunstneriske værker på tysk, engelsk, italiensk og dansk; værker på kinesisk, koreansk og afrikanske sprog.

Takkeord blev givet til en mand, der har ændret alle vore liv – der har givet os retning, formål og missioner på vegne af hele menneskeheden. Som rent politisk har kæmpet med sit intellekt, som boksere kæmper med næverne, og således anført vejen.

Deltagerne var rejst fra hele Tyskland, fra Frankrig, Italien, Sverige, Danmark, USA og Rusland. Gid vi alle kunne have været til stede.

Men mange af dem, der ikke kunne være til stede, havde skrevet bidrag til et Festschrift, som blev overbragt Lyn af hans hustru og nærmeste medarbejder, Helga. Efter glassene med sekt var blevet hævet til Lyns ære, blev hun lokket til at recitere digtet, hun havde skrevet til sin kæreste mand, og som er det første bidrag i Festskriftet.

Det første musikalske indslag kom fra John Sigerson og Margaret Greenspan, der opførte An die ferne Geliebte (Til den fjerne elskede), og som Lyn virkelig nød. Det skabte en god atmosfære for resten af aftenen. (De var rejst fra USA for at synge og spille for Lyn, foruden også at have givet to koncerter i forbindelse med den aktuelle BüSo-valgkampagne, som køres af den tyske gren af LaRouche-bevægelsen.)

Dernæst fortsatte programmet efter kaffe og kage. Elliot Greenspan, en leder i Lyns Manhattan-projekt, præsenterede Lyn for flere minder fra dette projekt: et billede af aktivisterne, en original tegning af Leibniz med Verdenslandbroen som baggrund, en kalender med billeder af Manhattan-projektets aktiviteter, og et digt, skrevet af et af medlemmerne dér; og han spurgte Lyn, om, da han initierede projektet, havde forudset, at New York City ville producere den næste præsident, Trump. Lyn svarede, at vi ikke ved, hvor langt, Trump vil drive det. Vi har brug for ham nu, men, hvis han mislykkes, er det hans fejl, og det vil være beklageligt, men jeg tror, han kan vinde. Elliot responderede, at vi ikke blot har tænkt os at sidde og vente på at se, hvad der sker. Du sagde, Lyn, at du var for gammel til at opstille til præsident; men ikke for gammel til at forme præsidentskabet. Du gav os Hamilton-princippet og kor-princippet. Gav os, og eksemplificerede, princippet om det menneskelige intellekt, princippet om flanken og Schillers idé om patrioten og verdensborgeren. På vegne af især de amerikanske aktivister, er vi for altid taknemlige og forpligtet over for denne mission. Man kunne måske sige, at Trump er blevet vores Manhattan-projekt, eller, hvis man virkelig ønsker at gøre Amerika stort igen, »Vind med Lyn«. (Her indskød Lyn, mens han selv blev æret, en tanke om at ære de ofre og redningsfolk, der døde i Manhattan den 11. september, 2001.)

Dernæst fulgte Feride Gillesberg, som, akkompagneret af Werner Hartmann, sang en kinesisk folkesang. Hun opførte dernæst sammen med Michelle Rasmussen førsteopførelsen af en sang, som Michelle havde komponeret til digtet, »Kender du den store bog?«, af Hans Christian Andersen. Dette digt beskriver den store bog som værende naturen og det store univers, som mennesket kan læse og udlede visdom af.

Dernæst talte Kasia. Hun havde spurgt flere personer fra evighedens samtid om denne ballademager, Lyndon LaRouche, og hun reciterede deres erklæringer om, hvad egenskaben ved geni er, som sin gave til et nutidsgeni: Man kan kende et ægte geni på mængden af modstand, han får (Jonathan Swift og Einstein); på, hvordan én, der beundres af andre, selv ved, hvor langt væk, han er fra sit mål (Beethoven); menneskets tre moralske egenskaber er visdom, medfølelse og mod (Konfucius); jo mere, vi ved om Guds skaberværker, desto mere erkender vi dem for at være fremragende og i overensstemmelse med vore ønsker (Leibniz); og sluttelig, at længslen efter frihed og menneskets rettigheder er plantet af Gud i alle hjerter (Benjamin Franklin) og du, Lyn, har altid handlet som denne filosof.

Leena Malkki-Guignard fra Sverige fremførte en smuk opførsel af Schubert fra Schwanengesang, Frühlingsbotschaft og Ständchen. Hun takkede Lyn for hans inspiration. Disse to sange var to af de første, hun nogensinde opførte. Hun sang desuden en sang af Haydn, Fidelity.

Wiesbaden-koret, dirigeret af Werner Hartmann, sang et smukt arrangement af ham selv af den koreanske folkesang, Arirang, hvilket bragte en inderlig stemning af forening (idet sangen er en slags nationalhymne for begge Korea’er). Dernæst Berlin/Dresden-koret, der blev dirigeret af Benjamin Lylloff, og som sang tre folkesange, In stiller Nacht, Erlaube mir og All’ mein Gedanken af Johannes Brahms. De afsluttede med Nkosi sikelel’ iAfrika, i Benjamins arrangement. Dette var en glad afslutning på første del af de kulturelle indslag.

Efter buffeten begyndte anden del med en scene fra Schillers skuespil Don Carlos mellem Kong Philip og Elisabeth, spillet af Hans-Peter Müller og Christa Kaiser.

Odile spillede en gigue af Bach på Violin. Det er altid en fornøjelse at høre hende spille.

Under anden del af programmet begyndte Jacques Cheminade (leder af Solidarité & Progrès; det franske parti, der udtrykker LaRouche-bevægelsens ideer) at holde en tale i denne ærefulde anledning. Men den ærede mand, hvis liv er karakteriseret af aktivitet, og ikke passivitet, begyndte at respondere til hver idé, og det, der fulgte, blev transformeret fra en monolog til en dialog, til alles, inklusive Jacques, fryd.

Dialogen frem og tilbage begyndte med, at Jacques erklærede, at Lyns og Helgas vision nu er ved at blive til virkelighed. Under diskussionen sagde Lyn, at hans helligelse, hans livsværk var den faste beslutning om, at mennesket må handle på universet for at løse problemer, og at han en kriger for forsvaret af menneskeheden som menneskehed.

Jacques sagde, at vi fejrer et øjeblik i den fremskridende evighedens samtidighed. Du har givet os en pilgrimsfærd for fremtidens sag – på grund af det, du og Helga har gjort, har vi en chance for at blive en del af fremtiden.

Diskussion inkluderede et enormt angreb mod stupiditeten i de nuværende tyske og franske systemer, og den amerikanske befolkning. Lyn spurgte, om menneskeheden kan forstå, hvad der er galt med den. Det er den eneste måde at løse problemerne på.

Det eneste, der er vigtigt, er opdagelser i universet og om det er sandt eller falsk. Se på det store arbejde, Kina gør. Hvis man forstår, hvad sandheden kunne være, har man en chance.

Jacques konkluderede ved at sige, at fremtidens sange endnu ikke har ord, men at de sange, der er præsenteret her i aften, beviser, at vi har potentialet til at etablere relationer i hele verden. Hvis man kan gøre det, kan man frembringe civilisationens frelse.

Løsningen er at udvikle evnen til at rejse ud i rummet. Jacques sagde, at det var hans rumprogram, der fik den franske elite til at ønske at smide ham ud i rummet. Lyn svarede: Tag det som en mulighed!

Dernæst fulgte Ema Reuter, der meget bevægende fremførte Schuberts Der Wanderer med Benjamin på klaver. Dernæst fulgte kvartetten fra Fidelio, »Mir ist’s so wunderbar«, med Feride som Marzeline, Leena som Leonore, Tom som Rocco og John som Jacquino, og Benjamin på klaver.

Tom Gillesberg fra Danmark sagde, at han håbede om fem år, i anledning af Lyns 100-års fødselsdag, at kunne holde en tale om åbningen af LaRouche Universiteter i mange lande (der var mere herom i hans bidrag til Lyns Festskrift). Vi befinder os i en tid, hvor nødvendighed og mulighed mødes. Lyn svarede ved at sige, at man må gøre det for at opnå sejr. Bringe kræfter i Italien og andre lande sammen om et fælles mål. Det vil gøre det. Det er absolut nødvendigt. Eller, vi mister alt. Man kan ikke have enkeltstående kontorer. Man må satse fuldt og helt. Satse for at vinde, og vinde for menneskeheden.

Herefter sang Leena igen, og hun fremførte Desdemonas sang om Grædepilen og Ave Maria fra Verdis Othello. Dette var en bevægende afslutning på en lang aften, hvor John sammen med Margaret glad sang Das Wandern af Schubert.

Og således blev Lyns 95-års fødselsdag fejret, sammen med nogle af hans mange venner og medarbejdere, både de nulevende og fra fortiden, med opløftende musik og ord, og god mad og vin. Og, ikke at forglemme, den lille hund Holly (Helgas hund), der også var til stede for at lykønske Lyn!

(Den engelske EIR-artikel kan ses her: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2017/2017_30-39/2017-38/pdf/36-39_4438.pdf)

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche og hans hustru, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, på Lyns 95-års fødselsdag.

 Bilag: H.C. Andersens digt: »Kjender du den store bog?«:

Sang ved de skandinaviske Naturforskeres sidste møde den 9de Juli 1840.

Kjender Du den store Bog,
Hvor hvert Blad et Aar omfatter,
Bogen, som til Skrifttegn tog
Skoven, Havet, Skjønheds-Datter,
Edderkoppens fine Spind,
Kloderne i Himmel-Rummet!

Hvo i Bogen trænger ind,
Han Guds stemme har fornummet!

Bogen er Naturens Bog,
Den hver Tanke slutter inde,
Der den Vise Viisdom tog,
Der vi Skjaldens Sange finde;
Som man denne Bog forstaaer,
Har man Rang i Aandens Rige,
Ganske fatte den, det gaaer
Uden for os Dødelige!

Udtal hver da hvad han fandt,
Udtal det paa Mængdens Veie,
Og alt Skjønt og Godt og Sandt
Skal da blive Verdens Eie.
Nordens Sønner, eens i Aand
Og med fælles Sprog og Minder,
Musen Eder Haand i Haand
Granskende om Bogen finder.

Samled´ er de Brødre tre,
Granskende i Guddoms-Værket;
Gran og Birk og Bøg vi see,
Malet staae i Skjoldemærket,
Nordens Stjerne oventil,
Ens det er i Hjerte-Grunden;
Aanden Norden samle vil,
Broder er af Broder funden.

Kilde: H.C. Andersens “Samlede Skrifter” Tolvte Bind.1879.

Oversigt over H.C. Andersen digte – Hans Christian Andersen poems.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Med Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag
har vi den velsignelse at høre de vise ord fra
den Meget vise gamle mand iblandt os. 
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
15. sept., 2017

Vært Matthew Ogden: Aftenens udsendelse er noget speciel. Mange af jer ved, at hr. Lyndon LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag blev fejret for en uge siden, den 8. sept.; 95 år, en moden alder. Jeg lægger et billede op på skærmen af hr. LaRouche ved sin fødselsdagsfest den følgende dag. Det var en meget glædelig fest. Mange af de hilsner, der kom fra hele verden, var varme lykønskninger og hyldest fra mennesker, der har kendt hr. LaRouche, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche, og som respekterer hans bidrag til at ændre verdenshistoriens gang hen over disse mange og produktive 95 år. Nogle af disse hilsner er blevet samlet i et Festskrift; heriblandt hilsner fra meget fremtrædende politiske ledere fra USA – valgte repræsentanter og tidligere valgte repræsentanter. Richard Black fra Virginia, tidligere kongresmedlem Lacy Clay, tidligere justitsminister Ramsey Clark har sendt de varmeste hilsner. Tidligere senator Mike Gravel, der ligeledes har været præsidentkandidat og er berømt for Pentagon Papirerne. Der var dr. Hal Cooper, en ingeniør, der har arbejdet meget hårdt på visionen om Verdenslandbroen og har deltaget i nogle af de seneste begivenheder i New York City. Mark Sweazey, der er en leder af UAW (United Automobile Workers) fra Ohio, der har arbejdet med hr. LaRouche for at stoppe nedlukningen af automobilindustrien. Carol Smith, en aktivist fra Kentucky. Ron og Denna Wierczorek, meget kendte aktivister fra South Dakota, borgere i dette land. Så er der kunstnere – Maestro Anthony Morss fra New York City, en fremtrædende dirigent; Alan Leathers, en sanger fra Washington, D.C. Dernæst, politiske, videnskabelige og militære ledere fra hele verden. Latinamerika – fra Argentina, Bolivia, Brasilien, Colombia, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru. Der kom hilsner andre steder fra; fra hele Asien, inklusive flere hilsner fra Kina og Rusland. Folk fra Australien, Malaysia, Filippinerne, Thailand. Vi havde en rapport herfra for nylig; hr. Pakdee Tanapura, der arrangerede det meget succesfulde møde om Kra-kanalen, der netop fandt sted i mandags. Fra Spanien, og endda fra Yemen fra hr. Fouad al-Ghaffari, der er præsident for BRIKS’ Ungdomskabinet. Vi håber at kunne udsende et interview med ham i løbet af de næste par dages aktivisme, han vil gennemføre i Yemen for at stoppe saudiernes folkemordskrig mod det yemenitiske folk.

Men, som I ser, så er det kun et lille udvalg af de mange varme hilsner, der er kommet fra hele verden og hele USA i denne glædelige anledning af hr. LaRouches 95-års fødselsdag.

I aften vil vi faktisk gå nogle år tilbage i tiden. Vi vil gå fem år tilbage til hr. LaRouches 90-års fødselsdag. Ved denne lejlighed holdt hr. LaRouche en tale, der nu er blevet temmelig berømt, og hvori han kræver afslutningen af partisystemet; men han fremlægger også programmet for USA’s økonomiske genrejsning og en helt ny vision for det, der må sker mht. internationale relationer og dette lands politik.

Der er sket meget siden dengang, for fem år siden. Det synes næsten at være en evighed siden, mht. verdenshistoriens forløb. Hvis man tænker på, hvad der er sket, så blev denne tale, som vi skal ske et klip fra, holdt før kineserne vedtog den Nye Silkevej som deres officielle politik – Bælte & Vej Initiativet; før overfloden af nye udviklingsbanker, der kom fra BRIKS-landene – den Ny Udviklingsbank og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank; før alle disse udviklinger fandt sted i udlandet. Og selvfølgelig, før det skelsættende valg i 2016 her i USA.

Hvis man ser på, hvad der er sket i USA, i betragtning af, at denne tale, som vi skal se et klip fra, blev holdt under præsidentvalgkampen i 2012 mellem Barack Obama og Mitt Romney. Men det er næsten fænomenalt, hvor forudvidende, hr. LaRouche var, mht. det, der ville finde sted i USA; noget, som ingen andre så komme og sikkert ikke troede på, da de hørte hr. LaRouches ord dengang. Begge de såkaldte politiske partier i dette forrige præsidentvalg ophørte med at eksistere i deres tidligere form. Der er intet genkendeligt Demokratisk Parti, eller Republikansk Parti. Der er måske nogle af de samme personer, men ikke de såkaldte establishment-partier, vi havde før 2016, før oprøret i det Demokratiske Parti, der formede sig omkring Bernie Sanders, og dernæst oprøret i det Republikanske Parti omkring Donald Trump; før begge disse ting indtraf, fremlagde hr. LaRouche det, han kaldte afslutningen af establishment-partisystemet, der var i færd med at ødelægge selve USA’s sjæl.

Vi har set dette fortsætte i 2016-valget, meget klart. Der var meget mere, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Se f.eks. på den brede støtte til Glass/Steagall; noget, vi skal høre hr. LaRouche tale om i denne tale fra for fem år siden. Se på den brede støtte til infrastruktur, til produktive jobs; se på den brede opposition til konfrontationen med Rusland, der ville føre til Tredje Verdenskrig. Det er, hvad Hillary Clintons kampagne repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Dette er, hvad det etablerede Republikanske Partis forskellige kampagner repræsenterede i det amerikanske folks øjne. Der var meget mere på det tidspunkt, der forenede det amerikanske folk end splittede det. Det var i realiteten LaRouche-programmet.

Går vi frem til nutiden og ser, hvad der er sket i USA i de seneste par uger, ser vi igen, at det amerikanske folk forenes. Se, hvad der skete i Houston omkring Harvey; den form for uselviskhed og næstekærlighed, som folk viste ved at gå ud for at redde og beskytte folk mod denne naturkatastrofe. Dette kendte ikke til skel; der var ingen partilinjer. Der var ikke noget, »Er du et flertal, er du et mindretal? Er du Republikaner, er du Demokrat? Er du konservativ, er du liberal?« Alle var amerikanere. Den samme stemning skete i Florida i kølvandet på orkanen Irma dér. Vi ser nu, at det endda smitter i politik i Washington. I en meget spirende form, men USA’s præsident har nu virkelig fornærmet establishment-personerne i det Republikanske Parti – Mitch McConnell og Paul Ryan og deres lige – ved at række ud til det Demokratiske Parti for at gennemføre et genrejsningsprogram for Houston og begynde at arbejde på noget af den politik, der burde have været politik fra Dag Ét. Dette skulle have været hans første 100 dage i embedet: Infrastruktur; produktive jobs. Dette begynder nu endelig at vise sig i en spirende form; og det er vores ansvar at forsætte med at lede.

Men jeg vil afspille dette uddrag af hr. LaRouches bemærkninger.

(Se hele LaRouche 90-års tale her (dansk): »Evnen til at gøre det gode – Mennesket har en særlig opgave i universet«)

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

I think you’ll find it fascinating

reflecting on what has happened in the past five years between

Mr. LaRouche’s 90th birthday and Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday.

In fact, what is the power of ideas to shape history?  What do we

have to expect in the days, weeks, months, and years to come?

This is the vision that leadership, that statesman-like

leadership that you’re about to hear from Mr. LaRouche.  This is

how history is formed.

 

[BEGIN VIDEO]

LYNDON LaRouche: … The problem is, {the party system}.

Now, George Washington, President George Washington and

others, at the founding of our republic, as an independent

republic, tried to {prevent} the formation of {a party system}.

And I think, the time has come, to eliminate {the party system}.

[applause]  At this time, it’s the only way, formally, through

the legal process, that we could eliminate the possibility of

these two kinds of Presidents.

What’s wrong?  Why should we have {party systems}?  We have

a Constitution, which is defined;  the Constitution is fine, if

it’s carried through, as intended; it is our system.  But why do

we have to have parties intervening in between the process of

selecting Presidential leadership in national government?  Why do

we do that?  What screwball invented this kind of nonsense?

Because that’s what happened:  People become partisan, and say,

“which party wins is going to determine the fate of the nation!”

No party has that kind of right!  There can not be a party,

that has the right, to oversee and control the destiny of the

nation!  You can have a President, there’s nothing wrong with

that.  But you can’t have a President as the President of a

party.  Or, you can not have a conniving, between two

Presidential teams, or two party teams, which connive by special

agreement among themselves, to create the composition of a

national government!  These things are obscenities, which leaders

of our nation, beginning from the George Washington

Administration, recognized as evils!  And the idea of going to a

European kind of government, which is inherently corrupt — by

its very nature, not necessarily by the {intention} of the

people, or the intention of the politicians, {they just don’t

know any better!}

And the only way this can be done, is, if we infect the

population, with the realization, {we do not want a party

system!}  We have state governments, don’t we?  Under our

Constitution.  We have local governments, within state

governments, under our Constitution.  We have bodies which the

nation creates, to perform functions of the Federal government,

the military and the rest of  it. {So we don’t need parties!}

They don’t do any damned good!

I mean, it’s like Franklin Roosevelt:  If Franklin Roosevelt

had just been the President and didn’t have to deal with these

damned parties, we would haven’t the mess we got into.  What we

need, we need to have {not} a contention, over which {party} is

going to win, when the party was {not] inherent in the conception

of nation.  What we need is a Federal Republic, with its state

composition and other local compositions playing their role.

{We don’t need this party system} which is a system of

inherently corruption.  What we need, is the election, due

process election, of a composition of government.  And we don’t

want people diverting the attention of the population, from the

issues of the nation, over the issues of partisanship! {That’s}

where the problem lies!

When you rely on parties, as such, you set up a kind of

controversy, or competition, for power, between or among party

systems.  These party systems then {excite the passions} of the

foolish voters, who now are concerned about voting for the

{party, first}, and the {nation, second!}  When it must be the

{nation, first,} and the not the party.

The voluntary part of the system, that’s fine; the citizen

has a right, to make formations, to make agreements among

themselves, and to cast their votes accordingly, and to discuss

these matters accordingly.  But we don’t want the top-down rule

of a party system, which is controlled by the money sent to them,

by financial interests which control the money which gives one

party advantage over the other!  You want the bare citizen, as a

citizen, to have an equal right, and independence of this party

system.

This has been said, again and again, in the course of the

history of the United States!  That people with insight, realize

the essence of the corruption in the United States, is based in

and derived from the use of the party system.  And you see it

right now:  You have, the nation is now mortgaged, for the

selection of its government, its national government, is

mortgaged to the {party system!}  Everything is stopped, except

which party is going to win!  And one is almost as bad as the

other.

And why should we be spending our time, selecting a

government, of two parties, neither of which is fit to be our

government!  Why don’t we have a national government selected in

the way that George Washington, for example, President George

Washington, had intended?  We would not {have} that mess!  And

the citizen would be called upon, not to decide who’s butt he

wants to kiss, but rather what the issues are and programs that

this citizen wishes to express.  We want to engage the citizen in

the dialogue!  We don’t want to take the competition {between}

groups of citizens.  {We want the citizen to force the reality,

that he or she is voting for the government.}  And what the

citizens do in voting for a government, will determine the fate

of the nation.

We want to {confront} the citizen, with the responsibility

of {his} being accountable, or her being accountable, for the

responsibility of what government is, and what it becomes.  We

have to {force} responsibility upon the individual citizen, as a

citizen, not as a sucker, playing into some kind of game.  And

this has been understood for a long time, by the best thinkers of

the United States, that it is the party system, as typified by

the Andrew Jackson Presidency, one of the most corrupt

Presidencies in our history.  And the corruption that was done,

to the United States, by the election of Andrew Jackson, and the

people who controlled him,  which were British bankers; so,

Andrew Jackson was a tool of British imperial bankers:  They

owned him.  They ran him.  And it was because of the party

system, that this could happen.

And we got the same thing today:  You’re shacked up with a

couple of clowns — Dummo and the Crook, and the Insane Crook.

Now, the only thing we can do, or the only thing I can do,

on this thing right now, apart from telling you about this

wonderful information, is to awaken you to realize what we’re

really up against, to recognize what the real problems are.  If

you’re thinking about looking at this mess out there, from the

standpoint of Democratic or Republican, you’re not thinking!

Because you’re not thinking in terms of the essential interest.

Because what you’re doing, whatever you do, you are imprisoned to

pledging your support, to a party!  Not to the nation.  Yes, you

say, “to the nation,” but it’s the party that controls you.  And

that is how Andrew Jackson destroyed the United States, was with

the party system! That’s what doomed Franklin Roosevelt. Franklin

Roosevelt would never have had this clown, Truman, stuck on him,

except for the party system business.  And that’s where our

problem lies.

And we have to make that clear.  Because we know what the

state of mind is?  What’s the state of mind of the voter?  He’s

playing football, not politics!  He’s playing a version of

football, baseball, whatever — gambling!  Racketeering,

whatever!  And his mind, his passion, is associated with winning

this, for this party, this team, this that, that and so forth —

{not for the nation!}  The objective of our system of government

must be to {force the citizen, as a citizen, to think through

what the national interest is!}  And we don’t do it.  We say,

“Which party are you going to support?”  Well, what’s the party

going to do? “Well, I think it’s a good party,” in other words,

they don’t know what the hell they’re doing — and they’re

passion is involved in being sure they won’t do it. And that’s

where we stand. And that’s the thing we’ve got to think about.

And you’ve got to destroy the self-confidence of those

damned fools, who think that the “party vote,” the vote for the

party {should determine the decision of the nation.}  That is a

false and fraudulent conception, and it’s about time we called a

halt to it.  And right now, would be a very good time.  All

right.  [applause]

Now, what’re we going to do?  Let’s lay out, here, we have

our organization.  We have a conception of how to organize this

nation, how to deal with the great crisis, the financial crisis,

the economic crises, which occur in this nation; and which occur,

also, similarly, in other nations, which I think would tend, at

this time, to look with a friendly eye at what I might propose

here, right now.

All right: First of all, the world is bankrupt.  The

trans-Atlantic region is {totally, hopelessly bankrupt!} Every

part of Western and Central Europe is totally bankrupt!  It’s

{incurably} bankrupt, under its present system.  Nothing be done

to save it in its present form.  There’s no way you can bail it

out!  There’s no way you can take it out of this — except one

way:  Glass-Steagall.

Now, of late, you will have observed that Glass-Steagall has

become increasingly popular, in England, in the continent of

Europe, and other notable places!  So what does Glass-Steagall

do?  Well, essentially it says that the system of government

we’re running under right now, is hopelessly corrupt; so, let’s

shut it down!  Let’s shut down all the bail out.  We’re not going

to pay it!  We jes’ ain’t gonna pay it!  [applause]

So what’re we going to do?  Well, we’re going to have a

grand old time:  We’re going to go to a straight credit system,

which is Glass-Steagall, immediately!  Now, that means, that all

those other guys, the gamblers, Wall Street types and so forth,

are going to find themselves sitting — well:  They have all

these claims.  All these values.  They own all this property, in

terms of title.  But we say, the point is here, with

Glass-Steagall, that you can run your kind of banking system if

you want to  —  under penalties of law, of course! But you don’t

have any right to come to the Federal government, to demand that

the Federal government bail them out, if they happen to go

bankrupt.

Now, I can tell you, as you probably have suspected, that

practically every part of the whole system in the United States,

today, {is already hopelessly, incurably bankrupt!}  And there’s

only one way we can escape from this bankruptcy:  You want to

have some money to live on?  There’s one thing you got to do:

Glass-Steagall!  And that will open the… it won’t solve the

problem, but it will open the gates, to permit the problem to be

solved.

If you take, and say, all these things that are not and

don’t conform to Glass-Steagall, all these things must be

cancelled.  That means these banks can still have their banking

system, as long as they don’t go bankrupt.  We’re not going to

shut them down arbitrarily, we’re just letting them out on their

own, and saying, “this is not our business.  The Federal

government is not responsible for this.”

All right, now that will reduce the debt of the United

States, {tremendously!}  It would have a similar effect in

nations of Europe!  The French banks would not be pleased with

  1. They would probably say some very nasty things about me,

but… things like that.

But the point is, the world now knows, and increasingly in

Europe, and starting in England and other countries in Europe

itself, there’s an understanding that Glass-Steagall is a

necessary alternative.  And these guys are having a terrible

time, in fighting off the Glass-Steagall popularity.  But that

will do it.

The problem is, because we waited so long, since we

cancelled Glass-Steagall, we waited too long, and they ran up a

hyperinflationary debt, which is really beyond even dreaming.  So

therefore, the result is, if we go with Glass-Steagall, we’re

going to have relatively little money, under our Federal system;

because we wasted it by throwing it into the garbage pail, and we

can’t get it back.  So therefore,  we’re going to have to go to

another measure.  Now, I said, national banking.  Now, why

national banking?  Because, unless you create a banking system,

under the U.S. government, under protection and regulation of the

U.S. government, you can’t do anything much with the economy.

We have very little industry left in the United States, it’s

been systematically destroyed.  Especially since the last three

terms of the Presidency.  We have been running a garbage pail;

and therefore, we have no means, by ordinary means, to save the

economy.  We don’t have jobs.  Now, as most of you know, under

NAWAPA, we would create, quickly, {4 million or more jobs} —

real jobs! Really productive jobs.  We would create, at least,

immediately, a couple million more highly skilled categories of

jobs.  We would start the process of a general recovery of the

United States — but oh!  Wait a minute!  Got one more problem.

Where’s the money going to come from, that we’re going to loan,

for NAWAPA, and loan for other high-technology jobs, and certain

other kinds of skilled jobs?  The Federal government is going to

have to {create credit}, which will be run through national

banking system, so that under national banking and Federal

government approval, we can conduit credit into creating these

jobs.

Let’s take the practical question of the food supply in the

United States right now:  As you probably know, food is about to

be cancelled, and the Obama Administration is doing everything

possible to destroy it.  Because they’re doing everything to

destroy food, for fuels.

So therefore, what’re we going to do?  Well, what we’re

going to do, is by giving the Federal credit, into, say, the

NAWAPA system, we’re going to create a flow of credit, into the

various phases of this process, which will immediately charge

NAWAPA, in particular, and other things that go with NAWAPA.  We

have also, we have the lost auto industry, the whole Detroit

system, for example, and we’re going to put that back into work!

So, we’re going to create, instantly, that is, by Federal decree

— instantly create sufficient growth, not only to get rid of

this hopeless debt, which never was really a legitimate debt, at

all, and we’re going to restart the economy, by taking people,

when you have very few people who are actually involved in

productive jobs, they’re not involved in producing things;

they’re mostly employed in various kinds of services, which are

not particularly productive, and do not lend any productive value

to the U.S. economy.  They’re simply pass-outs, under one guise

or the other.

So in this case, we are launching a recovery of the U.S.

economy, by supply the credit, as we did in the beginning of the

development of our economy, after we won our Revolution, we’re

going back to that system of recovery to get things moving, and

it’s going to start immediately.  And the easiest way for us to

do this, is NAWAPA.  NAWAPA is a project, which is relevant,

because it’s focused on {water management}.  And the problem we

have in the United States today, is a water management problem!

In the Central States, we don’t have rain!  We don’t the means to

grow crops.  And we don’t have people who are employed, in

actually productive forms of employment!  Physically productive

forms of employment.

The difference is, with this kind of reform, of three steps:

NAWAPA as a driver, an incentive driver, which will save the

organization of production in the Central and Western States of

the United States!  The going back into the area of the so-called

Detroit area, with several million jobs, immediately, will have a

similar effect.  Which means that we then can use a credit

system, managed under Federal control, as we’ve used credit

systems, like Franklin Roosevelt did in the past, and use that

kind of credit system under a Glass-Steagall type government

system, and we can start the regrowth of the U.S. economy.

We also have, as a byproduct of this:  If we as the United

States {do} this, you will find that the nations of Eurasia, will

join us.  You will find that nations of Europe, who are now being

destroyed by their own system, will now go back into functioning,

and we will use international credit, which is an extension of

the national banking concept, instead of speculation, in order to

restart the economy.  And that can be done.

So there is a practical solution, a {sane} practical

solution, as opposed to the other kind, for this problem we have

as a nation. How far are we from getting it, is the question?

Well, that depends.  It depends how desperate people are,

and how much their desperation is moderated by the sense of

attachment to a solution.  Our job is to present the solutions.

You know, society is actually led, when it’s led, by a tiny

minority of the human race.  We have not, because of our

underdevelopment, we have not built up nation systems, which are

actually rationally, and truly represent {the will of human

beings.} What we approach is the conditional will of human

beings, by providing them with promises, which we hopefully can

keep, and that they will be satisfied by trusting us, by the

means of the measures we offer to them, as suggestions.  A very

tiny minority, of the human population in all nations, actually

has any comprehension, any qualifications for comprehension of

how an economy runs or how it should be run. We have to bring

them to us, to our ideas, our conceptions, based on the fact that

they need precisely the solutions that we present.  It may not

exactly what they would dream for, but it’s what we could

deliver!  And if people understand that that’s what the game is,

they’ll accept it, at least in large part.

It’s what they can believe that we can deliver.  And it’s

our saying that we can deliver this, but we {can’t do that, yet}.

And if you promise everything, they’re not going to trust you,

and for good reason.  If you give specific promises, that {will

work}, and make sense, and can be explained to the people, it’ll

work!  And if they don’t accept it, that’s their fault!

But our responsibility, which is limited — we don’t run the

world; we don’t have powers to supervise the world as a whole. We

can only argue!  We can only argue as an intelligentsia, that we

have done some thinking that the other people have not yet caught

onto, or didn’t know about.  And we can tell them, what [we} can

do!  What {we} understand, what {will} work for them; and say,

“We’re going to have to work harder, and better, in order to

fulfill the kind of promises we wish to deliver.”  And say, we

need their cooperation in doing that.

We’ve got to give them a sense, that whatever we’re

promising them, we’re committed to delivering, and that our

promise of delivery has been made credible to them.  And that

experience, as in the case of the Franklin Roosevelt recovery in

the United States during the 1930s, the same program, the same

policy that Franklin Roosevelt used in reviving the U.S. economy.

But we have to tell these guys, “Stop being the kind of

idiot, who believes in the party system!  That’s number one.

Number two, don’t believe in Obama, get him out of there, and

make sure he’s removed quickly.”  And we’re going to have to

figure out what we’re going to do about this Republican.

[laughter]  Because that’s a real weak point, there.

However, I believe this:  If we can establish a functional

Presidency of the United States as was done in establishing the

United States  under George Washington’s Presidency, if we have a

President, and we use our system of government, our

constitutional system of government, we can solve this problem.

Not the way people would like, by “wish factory” or something,

but by the fact, we can point the direction, and it’s up to the

people to follow the direction, and choose to follow the

direction.

{But we must do what is not done right now}:  The problem

with government now, is that the U.S. government and its

functions, are chiefly one, big, damned lie!  They promise things

that do not exist, or will not exist, and make rules which make

no sense, and are willing to get into wars, by which civilization

and mankind in general, could be destroyed.  And we have to use

that argument and that bill of particulars, as a method of

convincing them, this has to be done.

And the key thing is this, to come back to the theme I

started with:  Space.  It’s obvious, there’s a limited timeframe

within which mankind can continue to live safely under the system

of the Sun, the current Sun system.  The Sun has a limited —

some people say 2 billion years; some would say, well, long

before 2 billion years, the Sun is going to act up, and life is

going to be {most unpleasant} on this planet!

So, we as mankind, have to address this question.  And it’s

obvious that to address this question, we have to give new

attention, to space, the questions of space.  We have to find

ways of intervening in the space system, or the solar space

system and so forth, and this is possible.  But we must turn to

that direction, to think, “well, we can’t stand around, following

a fixed recipe, like a kitchen cookbook recipe, forever.  We have

to  anticipate the problems which face mankind in the future, we

have to search for solutions to those problems, and we’ve got to

convince people.

And the big thing you have to do, is this:  Most people in

the United States today, behave stupidly, and this, of course, is

helped by the educational system, it’s helped by the terrible

conditions of life of children, as well as adolescents, and there

are many things that have to be done.  And our job is, as a

minority in society, and with other minorities in society which

{wish}  to find and initiate true solutions for these problems,

we have to get out, and convince people, and educate them.

And in particular, get them immediately to understand, that

these two Presidencies that they’ve stuck out there for voting,

ain’t shucks! And we’ve got to do something about that, and the

best way, is to go out and say that these guys aren’t fit to run

anything, and give some indications of what we’re thinking.

It can work.  It can work because the situation of all

humanity, on this planet right now, is almost a hopeless one. The

war danger, the thermonuclear war which is hanging over us right

now, is threat number one.  The shortage of food in the United

States, for people, citizens of the United States, is another.

The conditions of health care, are another.  All of these

conditions are intolerable!  {And nobody’s doing a damned thing

about it, from the standpoint of government on down!}  I don’t

hear of any big riots coming out of the Congress, against the

lack of such needed reforms!  They’re going by… the party

system. And I think we have to just treat the party system, as

the kind of fraud that it has always been!

We should have a system of representative government, in

which the citizens can use those other citizens who are the most

qualified, and the most committed, to provide leadership, to

provide the ideas and the leadership which is needed for the

rest.  If you can’t be something, inspire it in somebody else.

Thank you.  [ovation]  [END VIDEO]

 

OGDEN:  So as you can see, this is a speech which remains

very timely in terms of its urgent political importance, and we

would encourage you to watch the speech in its entirety; we’ll

make that available for you.

But if you just thinking about what you’ve just heard, the

economic program, the prescience of what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks

there were, five years ago, our country still finds itself in a

state of dire economic emergency, perhaps even having gotten

worse in the last five years;  and that program is still urgent

in terms of its implementation.

But what {has} changed is, indeed, the party structure as we

thought we knew it at that time, has ceased to exist, in terms of

the two establishment parties — what was the Democratic Party

and what was the Republican Party.  And this is a change,

perhaps, in par with what we saw in the middle of the 19th

century when the two established parties at that time nearly

ceased to exist:  This was a turmoil out of which, perhaps the

greatest President of our entire history, Abraham Lincoln,

emerged.

But our responsibility, and what we have to recognize, is

that the importance of Mr. LaRouche’s leadership and the

importance of the leadership of that small minority which he was

discussing, is perhaps more important now, because of this very

reality, than ever before.  As you just heard Mr. LaRouche

describe, in a very eloquent way, our job is to present the

solution, because society is actually led, by a very tiny

minority of intellectual leaders, and society as a whole invests

their trust in those whom they are confident have their best

interests in mind, and have the unique understanding of what must

be done; a very tiny minority has any qualified understanding of

how an economy actually must be run, and can deliver on that

understanding, which is the crucial ingredient.  That’s where

leadership comes from, that’s what makes leadership qualified,

and that’s what serves as the actual qualified leadership in a

republic such as ours.

Now, speaking of a republic, as my colleague Benjamin

Deniston noted in his {Festschrift} contribution to Mr.

LaRouche’s 95th birthday: “When age is measured, not merely in

years, but in wisdom and in creativity, and especially in

contributions to the progress of society, we can truly say,

taking due note of Plato’s famous {Timaeus} dialogue, we are

truly blessed with Mr. LaRouche’s 95th birthday, to have an old

man among us, a {very} old man among us.”

So we wish Mr. LaRouche a very happy 95th birthday, and we

wish him many more.

Thank you very much for tuning in to this special broadcast

tonight, and we encourage you to watch that address in its

entirety. Thank you and good night.




Lyndon LaRouches forudsigelser er nu gået i opfyldelse

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 14. sept., 2017 – Det faktum, at præsident Trump er begyndt at arbejde med top-Demokrater i Kongressen, siden orkanerne Harvey og Irma, for i fællesskab at opnå de presserende nødvendige resultater for det amerikanske folk, har overrasket mange – men ikke os. Lyndon LaRouche forudsagde, i anledning af sin 90-års fødselsdag, for blot fem år siden, at »topartisystemet«, som var en vederstyggelighed for vor Forfatnings grundlæggere, var i færd med at blive fjernet. En række hidtil usete begivenheder, som har været totalt uventet af andre, men som i princippet blev forudsagt af LaRouche, har bragt os tættere på dette resultat i dag, end nogen andre havde forventet, selv på så sent et tidspunkt som for blot et par uger siden!

Et umiddelbart resultat af denne forandring er, at det må hjælpe i kampen for Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, med start i genindførelsen af den oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov, under omstændigheder, hvor præsidentens kampagne for embedet lovede at genindføre loven, alt imens også mange Demokrater offentligt er gået ind for det. Og det sker på et tidspunkt, hvor selv Storbritanniens ekstremt liberale Adam Smith Institute, som vi bemærkede i går, advarer om en nært forestående nedsmeltning af finanssystemet. Sagen kunne ikke haste mere.

Men briterne har ikke tænkt sig at opgive at sænke dette præsidentskab, ligesom de heller aldrig opgav at sænke Franklin Roosevelt. Vi må fortsætte vores kampagne for VIPS-rapporten, der afslører svindelnummeret med Russiagate. Langs retningslinjerne af de kampagner, der blev drøftet på EIR’s Manhattan-konference den 9. sept., bør VIPS-rapporten læses ind i Kongressens optegnelser (Congressional Record). Præsident Trump bør tvinge sin CIA-direktør, Mike Pompeo, til at fremstille den relevante, sandfærdige dokumentation.

En smuk illustration af betydningen af den indre konsekvens af Lyndon LaRouches Fire Nye Love fra juni 2014, kom frem under en højtideligholdelse den 12. sept. i det oversvømmelseshærgede Houston, og som medlem af LaRouche PAC Policy Committee, Kesha Rogers, rapporterer om i dag. Som hun skriver, så samledes en overraskende stor flok, 1000 mennesker, på Rice Universitet for at fejre præsident Kennedys berømte »Månetale« præcis 55 år tidligere, og for at høre Apollo 13-astronaut Fred Haise. Blandt andre sigende bemærkninger, genkaldte oberst Haise, hvordan Apollo-programmet havde genopfundet sig selv efter det tragiske tab af tre Apollo 1-astronauter i en brand i rumfartøjet på jorden i 1967. Jeg ville tilføje her, at deres genlancering af sig selv var så succesfuld, at, i alle de efterfølgende rummissioner, mistede man ikke ét eneste menneskeliv frem til katastrofen med rumfærgen Challenger i 1986.

I deres monografi om »Apollotraditionen« sagde Seamans og Mueller, to Apollo-topadministratorer, at det program, der blev gennemført efter Apollo 1-tragedien, krævede, at alle i programmet – omkring 30-40.000 mennesker – gentagne gange afkrævedes at genopfinde sig selv, som nye, bedre og mere kapable mennesker, inden for rammerne af et tværfagligt team.

For at sige dette på en anden måde – de var, i det mindste i en periode, i stand til at besejre middelmådighed. Middelmådighed dræber. Heri finder traditionen efter John Kennedy, Apollo-traditionen, sin plads inden for Lyndon LaRouches Fire Nye Love.

Foto: Helga og Lyndon LaRouche, ved sidstnævntes 95-års fødselsdag, september, 2017.