Stop den McCarthy-agtige heksejagt imod Kina og præsident Trump

Den 14. maj (EIRNS) – For et halvt år siden, i november 2019, offentliggjorde Executive Intelligence Review en polemisk 24-siders pjece med ovenstående overskrift. Den begyndte som følger:

 ”I en webcast den 10. maj 1997 drøftede Lyndon LaRouche det presserende behov for en firemagts-alliance mellem suveræne nationer for at gendanne økonomisk fornuft – ’imod den største magt på planeten, som er det britiske imperium, kaldet det britiske statssamfund (Commonwealth)’. Det er fjenden”.

 ”I den tale, leveret for 22 år siden, skitserede LaRouche en strategi for dagens krise.

 ”Og hvis, en skønne dag, eksempelvis en søndag formiddag, efter et weekendmøde, præsidenten for De Forenede Stater, Kinas præsident og et par andre mennesker skulle udtale:” Vi har i denne weekend konstateret, baseret på vores rådgivere og kendsgerningerne, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot. Og at vi, i kraft af vores ansvar som statsoverhoveder, vil sætte disse bankerotte institutioner under konkursbehandling i almenhedens interesse. Og det er i vores interesse at samarbejde som nationer om at gøre dette og undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet”. Resultatet er så, at en sådan meddelelse… betyder, at hele systemet, fra det øjeblik af, er blevet anbragt i guillotinen, og at hovedet ruller ned ad gaden (Alan Greenspans hoved måske). Det betyder, at vi på det tidspunkt har drivkraften til straks at opbygge et nyt finansielt og monetært system.”

 Indledningen til pjecen fortsatte: ”Dette nye finanssystem er nu mere presserende end nogensinde. Denne pjece er beregnet som modgift imod kampagnen for at forgifte forholdet mellem USA og Kina og sabotere et nyt system fra at blive til. Som LaRouche bemærkede, var det kun kombinationen af De Forenede Stater, Kina, Rusland og Indien, der ved at arbejde sammen, ville have gennemslagskraften til at få et nyt system på plads.”

 Hvad der var sandt for et halvt år siden, da EIR først offentliggjorde disse linjer, er dobbelt så sandt i dag. En endnu mere ondskabsfuld bølge af anti-kinesisk Mccarthyisme er blevet sluppet løs i de seneste dage og uger:

 

  • FBI har advaret alle amerikanske forskere, der samarbejder med kinesiske kolleger om at udvikle en vaccine mod coronavirus, om, at de kunne være en del af en kinesisk spionring, og blive anklaget i overensstemmelse hermed.

 

  • Udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo holdt en tølperagtig tale til de amerikanske guvernører for et par uger siden, hvor han truede dem til at stoppe med at indgå handels- og økonomiske aftaler med Kina.

 

  • FBI’s websted advarede mod enhver amerikansk deltagelse i Kinas ‘Tusind Talenter’-program for akademisk udveksling og sagde truende, at selvom medlemskab af Tusind Talenter-programmet ikke er teknisk ulovligt, har FBI-undersøgelser “afsløret, at deltagerne ofte tilskyndes til at overføre forskning de udfører i USA til Kina”.

 

  • Og den største McCarthy-agtige operation af dem alle, det igangværende kupforsøg imod præsident Donald Trump, eskalerede senest med en korrupt dommers afslag på at henlægge de falske anklager mod general Michael Flynn, selvom justitsministeriet meddelte, at det ville gøre det.

 

En fremtrædende ledende artikel i Kinas Global Times i går behandlede spørgsmålet lige på og hårdt: ”Såfremt denne neo-McCarthyisme skulle genopstå i USA, vil den signalere en start på en ny kold krig mellem Kina og USA … [Sådan ] opførsel vil til syvende og sidst give bagslag. Dette vil underminere Trumps perspektiv for genvalg …. Det udgør farlige trusler mod verdensfred og stabilitet.”

 Det strategiske formål med denne nye McCarthyisme er, som EIR advarede om i sin pjece november 2019, at “sabotere et nyt system fra at blive til.” Et sådant nyt system er tættere på i dag end nogensinde, da et planetarisk systemisk sammenbrud er undervejs; et sammenbrud der kombinerer en dødbringende global pandemi, et kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem, hungersnød “af bibelske proportioner”, og mere. Og i denne krise erkendes og høres LaRouche-bevægelsens stemme rundt om i verden, med dens unikke autoritative løsning på sammenbruddet, krisen, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går, herunder i en række af de store nationer, der ville være del af Lyndon LaRouches firemagts-alliance.

Denne stemme vil nu blive styrket med den kommende udgivelse af en programmatisk løsning på sammenbrudskrisen i sin helhed, “LaRouche-planen for at genåbne den amerikanske økonomi: Verden har brug for 1.5 milliarder nye, produktive jobs”.

 




Panel 3: “Kreativitet som den markant karakteristiske egenskab ved menneskelig kultur:
Behovet for en klassisk renæssance.
Schiller Instituttets internationale videokonference den 26. april 2020

Schiller Instituttets konference Panel 3: “Kreativitet som det karakteristiske træk ved den menneskelige kultur: Nødvendigheden af en klassisk renæssance”

 

Talere ved Panel 3, kl. 17 -20:15 – ordstyrer: Dennis Speed

Beethoven, “An die ferne Geliebte” (Op. 98,) John Sigerson, tenor, Margaret Greenspan, piano

Lyndon LaRouche: “Jeg har insisteret på, at musik er forståeligt”

Helga Zepp-LaRouche – grundlægger og præsident, Schiller Instituttet

William Warfield – ‘A Poetic Musical Offering’ (‘En poetisk musikalsk gave)

Eugene T. Simpson – Professor Emeritus i stemme og kor-litteratur, Rowan University of New Jersey; grundlæggende konservator af the Hall Johnson Collection “Hall Johnson og Dvorak-drømmen: Fra ‘spiritual’ til kunstsang”

Willis Patterson – bas-bariton, professor emeritus/dekan ved the University of Michigan School of Music, Theatre & Dance – “Tilstedeværelsen af det klassiske princip i folkemusik”

John Sigerson – musikchef for Schiller Instituttet, medforfatter af ‘A Manual on the Rudiments of Tuning and Registration’ – “Den fysiske kraft af klassisk poesi og musik”

Diane Sare – grundlægger og meddirektør, Schiller Instituttet NYC Kor; Leah DeGruchy, Schiller Instituttet: “Om brugen af kor i politik”

Konferencehilsener, Gregory Hopkins – grundlægger og kunstnerisk direktør, Harlem Opera Theater.

 

RAPPORT: Panel 3 af Schiller Instituttets Konference, 26. april, 2020

Panel 3 af Schiller Instituttets Konference, 26. april, 2020

Kreativitet som det karakteristiske træk ved menneskelig kultur: Nødvendigheden af en klassisk renæssance

Det tredje panel på Schiller Instituttets idéfyldte konference begyndte med en introduktion af Dennis Speed, der dedicerede panelet til Lyndon LaRouche (1922-2019) og William Warfield (1920-2002.) Dette blev efterfulgt af en fremførelse af Beethovens sangcyklus, “An die ferne Geliebte,” udført af tenor John Sigerson og pianist Margaret Greenspan.

Dernæst blev der vist et mægtigt videoklip med Lyndon LaRouche, der talte på en koncert på Howard University i 1990’erne. Han talte om det nødvendige forhold mellem klassisk videnskab og klassisk kunst, hvilket derfor betyder, at al kunst er forståelig og ikke kun magisk; og at det er universelt.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche drøftede Friedrich Schillers storslåede menneskesyn og hans anskuelse om at måden til at opnå genialitet er gennem æstetisk uddannelse. Hun diskuterede sit eget studium af Schiller som ung studerende, og den dybe indflydelse han havde på udformningen og styrken i hendes karakter og verdensanskuelse. Hun sagde, at man i dag kan få et indblik i den aktuelle kultur ved at se på, hvordan folk har reageret på nedlukningen i forbindelse med COVID-19. Mange mennesker er henfaldet til de værste former for hedonistiske impulser som en reaktion, og atter andre har vendt sig til klassisk musik i højere grad end før. Dette er typisk i Italien, hvor folk sang opera fra deres altaner, og det samme andre steder.

Zepp-LaRouche tog derefter publikum med gennem forskellige uddrag af Schillers ‘Æstetiske Breve’ for at demonstrere, hvorfor kunstneren selv skal være på højeste niveau, og at ens individuelle mål skal være i harmoni med de større menneskelige mål.

To digte blev derefter præsenteret gennem et videoklip af en koncert-recitation af William Warfield af Paul Laurence Dunbars “Prometheus” og “When Malindy Sings.” (Prometeus og Når Malindy Synger).

Dr. Eugene Thamon Simpson gennemgik i sin præsentation, “Hall Johnson og Dvorak-drømmen: Fra ‘spiritual’ til kunstsang,” nogle væsentlige historier om den afroamerikanske ‘spiritual’, herunder kampen for at få den smukke musik ind på den etablerede koncertscene. Han demonstrerede forholdet mellem den tyske kunstsang og den afroamerikanske ‘spiritual’. Mens ‘spirituals’ tidligt blev marginaliseret og endda latterliggjort, blev ‘spirituals’ ophøjet og befriet ved Antonin Dvoráks ankomst til De Forenede Stater og hans opdagelse af dem. Afgørende i den forbindelse var Harry Burleighs rolle og hans forhold til Dvorák. Simpson demonstrerede forskellen mellem de mere forenklede opsætninger af ‘spirituals’ af Harry Burleigh, og de mere udviklede opsætninger af Hall Johnson, der også skrev ”originale” ‘spirituals’ og kompositioner. Simpson gennemgik en interessant pædagogik om Hall Johnsons kompositoriske evner ved at bruge eksemplet “Am Meer” af Schubert og “Oh, Glory” af Hall Johnson, og hvordan Johnson brugte metoden for klassisk komposition til hans opsætninger.

John Sigerson præsenterede: “Den fysiske kraft af klassisk poesi og musik.” Han gik i polemik imod klassisk musik som blot værende en “beherskelse af stil”, i modsætning til et fysisk princip. Klassisk musik handler om musik med formål, i modsætning til bare øjeblikkelige effekter. Gennem en diskussion af Max Planck og Albert Einstein, sidestillede Sigerson ”agapē” med sult efter at opdage sandheden. Han sagde, at dette er et handlingsprincip, der findes både i klassisk musik og klassisk videnskab. Han udfordrede nuværende musikere til: ‘Ændre om nødvendigt din tro, hvis din tro forhindrer dig i at være en fysisk kraft for det gode i universet.’

Dr. Willis Pattersons tale om “Tilstedeværelsen af det klassiske princip i folkemusik” var en bevægende diskussion om folkesangens forbedrende indvirkning på ens sjæl, om hvordan den er en kilde til trøst, og om den grelle kendsgerning, at det er mere produktivt end at have flere krige. Han henviste til sin egen transformation og styrke ved at studere folkemusik og ‘spirituals’, på samme måde som Zepp LaRouche havde talt om sin undersøgelse af Schiller for at styrke sin egen karakter. Dr. Patterson afsluttede sin præsentation med at henvise til Schiller og spille en optagelse af sig selv (bas-bariton) som solist i Beethovens ‘Ode til Joy’ fra 9. symfoni.

Teng Jimeng, professor i amerikanske studier ved Universitetet for Udenlandske Studier i Beijing, henviste til præsident Xi Jinpings breve om dyd og kunst, og forklarede at dette er en del af den æstetiske uddannelse i Kina sammen med altruisme og patriotisme. Teng diskuterede konfucianisme og kinesernes forpligtelse til at sætte de ældre først og hjælpe verden, og dem der lider.

 Diane Sare og Leah DeGruchy behandlede: “Om brugen af kor i politik.” Sare begyndte med at udfordre lytteren til at sikre, at denne krise aldrig sker igen, og spurgte hvorfor vi tillod disse kriser at opstå, inklusive det seneste COVID-19-udbrud, da vi vidste, at det var på vej. Hun spurgte, hvorfor er vi så hurtige til at bebrejde andre og så tøvende med at se på os selv? Degruchy tog dette op ved en meget effektiv diskussion af Shakespeares “Købmanden i Venedig”, om korets rolle i tragedien. Degruchy reciterede Portias berømte tale: “Kvaliteten af nåde er ikke anstrengt”. Sare fokuserede derefter diskussionen på nødvendigheden af selvtransformation. Hun citerede Beethovens “Missa Solemnis”, der, som hun påpegede, helt flettes sammen koret og solisterne, og hun citerede Bachs Passions-messer, som værker, der effektivt opløfter publikum til et bedre forhold til skaberen.

En entusiastisk hilsen til konferencen kom fra dirigent og tenor Gregory Hopkins. Han fortalte om sit mangeårige samarbejde med Schiller Instituttet, indbefattet turen som han foretog til Europa i 1990’erne med Schiller Instituttet. Han fortalte, hvordan det lige nu er en meget vanskelig tid for musikere, så mange af dem har mistet deres job, sundhedsforsikring og midler til at klare sig igennem. Men ifølge kineserne kan “en krise” være en “mulighed”, og det er gennem stor kunst, at vi kan blive inspireret. Som [en] ‘spiritual’ siger: “Jeg er så glad for, at problemer ikke varer ved for altid …”

 En meget intens spørgerunde fulgte præsentationerne, hvilket bedst kan værdsættes på video. Vigtigst af alt, opfordrede Zepp LaRouche alle der lyttede og alle talerne til at slutte sig til hende i en verdensomspændende renæssancebevægelse. Hun opfordrede også Dr. Willis Patterson, Dr. Simpson og Dr. Jimeng til at tale mere dybtgående, da de alle diskuterede princippet om ”altruisme” i musik/kultur.

 

The Physical Power of Classical Poetry and Music

by John Sigerson

As I reflected on this Year of Beethoven, and on how to seize its opportunity, I recalled a debate of sorts that I had in 1972 or 1973, shortly after I had joined up with Lyndon LaRouche after attending a series of classes devoted to two topics: Classical music on the one side, and, on the other side, the only economics I had found which addressed my obsession with economic progress, especially in Africa—two subjects which my college teachers had insisted were completely unrelated.

I was talking at that time with a Columbia student of music composition whom I was attempting to recruit to the idea that the world would be a better place if composers would take up the challenge that Beethoven had thrown down in his late works, especially his late string quartets. “Can you compose works like Beethoven did?” I asked him. “Yeah, sure I could, no problem,” he replied with a little swagger. “Well, then,” I pressed, “why don’t you just do so?” To which he breezily answered, “Because I don’t choose to do so!” and quickly scuttled away.

And that’s still the problem today.

This challenge, not only to transmit Beethoven’s ideas through honest performance, but to reach beyond Beethoven, has haunted human civilization ever since the composer’s death in March of 1827. A very few, such as Schumann and Brahms, have accepted the challenge, while so many others, such as Wagner and the Romantics, Stravinsky and the Modernists, not to mention the purveyors of mass popular entertainment, have “chosen not to do so.”

How can we take up this challenge today? Certainly the study, singing, and playing of great Classical works is essential for our survival. Yet we cannot fall into the trap which so many artists do, of believing that mastering the style of Classical music does justice to the composer, or to us. Great Classical music has never been a matter of style, but rather of an unquenchable yearning to transmit universal Platonic ideas, universal principles, concerning the true nature of mankind, that which distinguishes him from all other creatures known to us so far, on our journey through universal space-time.

Lyndon LaRouche threw us a lifeline for grappling with this challenge, when he characterized the Classical Lied, the Classical art-song, as the “Rosetta Stone” of music. He said that the singing of poetry is a never-failing source of inspiration to the composing mind. All great Classical poetry, from the Vedic hymns, to Homer, to Dante, to Shakespeare, Schiller, Shelley, and Poe, is sung poetry; and conversely, all great music, whether performed by singers, by instruments, or combinations of both, must be sung—and sung with beauty, and grace—if it is to have its intended effect to uplift and transform performers and audience alike.

Poetry, like music, is never a matter of style, but a matter of purpose. Particularly in troubled times, composers have taken up the songs and poems of unknown bards of the people, so-called folk songs, as a means of enriching and ennobling popular culture, by raising these songs of life and love to the highest level of moral and artistic perfection. The elevation of the African-American Spiritual, as discussed by my colleagues here, is a unique, precious example in American culture. Similarly, during the 19th century, the folk songs of many European cultures were brought to a high level of perfection by Beethoven himself, and especially by Johannes Brahms and Antonín Dvorák. In China, which has a rich trove of songs of the people, I believe that composers have yet to accomplish this to the same level as, say, Brahms, yet I’m confident that if China is not destroyed in a nuclear holocaust so desperately hoped for by the Old Paradigm dinosaurs, this will not be long in coming.

And yet, in our Western culture today, the resonance of these songs of life and love among the broad masses of our population, has been fading away under the onslaught of the brutal, bestial, rigid, largely sex-driven “pop” culture, to such an extent that if you ask a young American today if they know a simple folk song they have sung from childhood, more likely than not they will remain silent, looking at you in perplexity.

So, can true Classical composition, on the order of a Bach, Beethoven, and Brahms be revived in the face of this brutalization of our people’s culture, where the resonances of history have been supplanted by the futile quest for the here and now? I believe it can, but only if poets and composers agree to submit themselves to a struggle, not just to create beautiful melodies or clever musical juxtapositions, but to deliberately shape the intended physical effect of their own creations.

In a second I’m going to illustrate what I mean by this, with the example of two fine musicians, Max Planck and Albert Einstein.

But first, what do I mean by “physical”? Well, I mean it in the same way that Lyndon LaRouche discusses physical economy. Anyone familiar with LaRouche’s discussions and writings, must realize that by physical, he’s not referring to things, whether these be pieces of plant and equipment, or human beings, but rather to validated universal physical principles which man can discover, by means of creative acts, for the benefit of mankind’s future existence, and for the increased happiness of the universe itself.

The musicians Planck and Einstein, of course, also happened to be gifted theoretical physicists. As the fruit of their struggle, they discovered the quantized nature of electromagnetic energy—a discovery which led directly into our still very partial mastery of nuclear power. And please pardon me if I skip over many technical details, crucial though they may be.

Max Planck grew up in Germany during the latter half of the 19th century. When he announced to his friends that he was going to become a physicist instead of a pianist and composer, some of his associates told him that he was wasting his time, because all of the basic laws of discrete matter, on the one side, and of perfectly continuous electromagnetic energy on the other, had already been discovered.

Nevertheless, a problem that continued to confound physicists was the so-called black-body problem. The challenge was to pin down the distribution of power and frequencies of substances, especially metals, which, when they become hotter, emit light at various frequencies, first in the lower red frequencies, as you see when piece of metal begins to glow red, and then, as the temperature increases, going toward white. The so-called black body was a device for testing this with great precision.

The practical problem was that no one had been able to work out a formula for the distribution of the frequencies. This had become a matter of some urgency for industrial production, since the fabrication of reliable light bulbs required such a calculation, and indeed the electric firm Siemens funded an entire institution in Berlin devoted to solving this problem.

After seeing many others fail, Planck decided to take this up, and succeeded in working out an equation that seemed to account for the exact distribution of energy. However—and this is the crucial feature of his integrity—he remained dissatisfied with his own equation, and he even refused to present it to his colleagues, because he had not yet discovered its physical significance. What caused it to work that way, and no other way? he asked. Thus, he was confronted with the same kind of challenge confronting Johannes Kepler, who studied Ptolemy’s planetary epicycles, and the circular orbits of Copernicus and Tycho Brahe, and concluded that, however accurate their models might seem to be, they could not possibly be valid, because they merely described a natural phenomenon without any concern about discovering its physical cause.

Planck embarked upon a voyage which ended up challenging his own gripping, axiomatic belief in the existence of perfect continuity in nature. For, how could light, for example, be anything but a continuous wave? How could God’s creation be merely the sum of a myriad of little parts? In this, Planck was constantly at odds with morally compromised reductionists such as Ludwig Boltzmann and Ernst Mach, who argued that scientists should abandon all effort to actually understand the causality of complex phenomena such as the behavior of gases, and should be satisfied with a mere statistical likelihood that a given phenomenon be this way, and not another way.

But after trying all sorts of black-body thought-experiments, and failing to find a cause, Planck, in what he himself described as “an act of desperation,” reached into Boltzmann’s work and hypothesized a model which involved a myriad of little bouncing springs from within the black body, emitting light at frequencies all of which were whole-number increments of an extremely tiny constant value—what only later became known as the Planck quantum of action. Planck had discovered a true physical cause, even though it was squarely at odds with his own most cherished axiom of continuity.

But the story does not end there! Planck had grasped a new principle, but only incompletely. Clinging to his conviction that light itself was continuous, he thought that it was only the light’s interaction with the tiny discrete receptors in the black body which was causing his quantized effect. His paper announcing his discovery then fell into the hands of a younger third-class patent official in Switzerland named Albert Einstein, who said, in effect: “Wait a minute! What if the light itself is quantized? And what if the wave nature of light can in fact be ultimately reconciled with its quantized nature, according to a higher principle?

As they say, the rest is history. And since then, to the day he died, Einstein never abandoned his quest for that higher principle, resisting all efforts of Machians such as Werner Heisenberg, to reduce quantum physics to a statistical game which only “seems to work,” but which does not choose to investigate causes. As Einstein famously retorted to these demented fellows: “God doesn’t play dice.”

But back to music and poetry! I’d like to quote from another fine musician, namely Lyndon LaRouche. In January 1993, I, my wife Renée, and Mindy Pechenuk visited Lyndon in prison in Rochester, Minnesota, for a number of hours, where we discussed all matters musical, against the sometimes raucous background of the prison visiting-room. From the transcribed recording, which we plan to publish someday, let me read you the following, to give you a glimpse of LaRouche’s thinking:

“The equivalences of music are not ordinal, they’re not quantitative—they’re not qualitative, for example. They are in an analysis situs form. And the key to this, is two things.

“First of all, the musical domain is a quantized field. Notes exist. And space is Keplerian. Because you have the notes, they exist in certain locations, there are certain harmonics that exist, they’re ordered. And no matter what notes you’re playing, the next one is going to be there. You can change your sequence as much as you please, but the next one is going to be there. It’s all predetermined for you. And this is not alterable. And an approximation of the note, only to the extent that you’re not cheating, is the note. The note that is sung or performed is not the note. It’s the best approximation of the note. The tone is absolute; and the performer merely approximates that. And if they don’t approximate that rather well, we get unhappy; we get disturbed. But it’s analysis situs.

“The key thing is note, number one. Registration, second. And registration comes in many different varieties. It comes in aspects of instrumental colors of all kinds, or the generic term color is sometimes used. But you have many kinds of colors. You can create instruments; they have colors which are not human voice-colors. But they become a dimensionality of color. And it’s precise, it’s determined. You make a string of such-and-such a type, such-and-such a type, it’s stuck. You’ve got a color. You can modify it, but it’s there; it’s going to haunt you. And you won’t get away from it. You have to jump to another string to get to a different part of your color.”

And now, I hope you will bear with me when I cite this passage from Einstein’s Introduction to Planck’s 1932 book Where Is Science Going?:

“… The supreme task of the physicist is the discovery of the most general elementary laws from which the world-picture can be deduced logically. But there is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance, and this Einfühlung is developed through experience….

[Einfühlung roughly means “empathy,” which is also happens to be Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s best English approximation of Schiller’s term Empfindung. Einstein continues:]

“In every important advance, the physicist finds that the fundamental laws are simplified more and more as experimental research advances. He is astonished to notice how sublime order emerges from what appeared to be chaos. And this cannot be traced back to the workings of his own mind, but is due to a quality that is inherent in the world of perception. Leibniz well expressed this quality by calling it a pre-established harmony.

“Physicists sometimes reproach the philosophers who busy themselves with theories of knowledge, claiming that the latter do not appreciate this fact fully. And I think that this was at the basis of the controversy waged a few years ago between Ernst Mach and Max Planck. Planck probably felt that Mach did not fully appreciate the physicist’s longing for perception of this pre-established harmony. This longing has been the inexhaustible source of that patience and persistence with which we have seen Planck devoting himself to the most ordinary questions arising in connection with physical science, when he might have been tempted into other ways which led to more attractive results.

“I have often heard that his colleagues are in the habit of tracing this attitude to his extraordinary personal gifts of energy and discipline. I believe they are wrong. The state of mind which furnishes the driving power here resembles that of the devotee or the lover. The long-sustained effort is not inspired by any set plan or purpose. Its inspiration arises from a hunger of the soul.

“I am sure Max Planck would laugh at my childish way of poking around with the lantern of Diogenes. Well! why should I tell of his greatness? It needs no paltry confirmation of mine. His work has given one of the most powerful of all impulses to the progress of science. His ideas will be effective as long as physical science lasts.”

So, what is the lesson to be learned here? By way of this, I throw out the following challenge to poets and composers today, especially young poets and young composers, who may also be working in a scientific field:

You poets and composers: You know who you are! (Because if you have to ask, you probably aren’t one, or at least not yet.) Take up the challenge set forth before you, not just by Planck and Einstein, but by Lyndon LaRouche, and by the speakers at this conference, to dedicate your life to changing your own axioms if need be, even your most cherished ones, if you find that those axioms are preventing you from discovering a means of crafting your compositions to become a physical cause in the universe. Are you, for example, certain that what you have created will, in fact, inspire action resulting in increases in the rate of growth of humanity’s relative potential population density? Or put more simply, along with Friedrich Schiller: Will your audience become better people as a result of experiencing your work?

That is the true content of that “hunger of the soul” in Einstein’s words, or, in the words of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Love. Be not satisfied with merely pretty, pleasant, childish things. Put yourselves through this necessary struggle, and all mankind will be forever thankful.

Or as Percy Bysshe Shelley sang to his skylark:

… We look before and after,

And pine for what is not:

Our sincerest laughter

With some pain is fraught;

Our sweetest songs are those that tell of saddest thought.

Yet if we could scorn

Hate, and pride, and fear;

If we were things born

Not to shed a tear,

I know not how thy joy we ever should come near.

Better than all measures

Of delightful sound,

Better than all treasures

That in books are found,

Thy skill to poet were, thou scorner of the ground!

Teach me half the gladness

That thy brain must know,

Such harmonious madness

From my lips would flow

The world should listen then, as I am listening now.

Thank you.

PANEL 3: TENG JIMENG, Professor of American Studies, Beijing Foreign Studies University

TENG JIMENG: First of all, thank you very much to the Schiller Institute to invite me to speak at this very great conference and to join the distinguished panel of this very great conference. I think this is a very timely conference, especially under the general background of the coronavirus which is now running rampant worldwide.

I would begin, for example, with a presentation given by President Xi back in 2008 when he was responding to a letter to eight professors teaching traditional Chinese aesthetics at this very university called the Central Academy of Fine Arts. In that letter, President Xi mentioned several notions. Two of the notions I’d like to quote here. The first one being  and . In Chinese  means virtue, and  meaning art. So, both  and  are supposed to be an integral of the Chinese traditional aesthetic education. The second notion I’d like to quote here is patriotism and also altruism; both altruism and patriotism are supposed to be the central tenets of Confucius teaching or Confucius learning. In China, this aesthetic education has been so very deeply rooted in the curriculum in high schools, in primary schools, and also in universities. Virtue has always been part of official training here in China; training officials with virtue. Once again, virtue means the skill set, the ability to communicate, compassion, and also the love of one’s people, public spirit mostly. And  meaning art, the art, for example, to communicate, the art to convey the message, the message of the redeemed, the message of the ruler. In this sense,  has played a very large role in communicating and connecting the people in the family, the community, and even people beyond the border.

The second notion, as I always cite it in my teaching, which is altruism. China has been strongly committed to this very notion of altruism. Back in the 1960s, for example, China has been even exporting food to the outside world — for example, to Africa, and committing medical teams to Africa, helping with malaria and building railroads in Africa. In fact, it was railroads in a sense which were built by China in the 1970s and the late 1960s. China actually at the time was suffering its greatest famine, the worst famine actually in its own history. So, when Chinese government has always been in a sense committed to this very principle, this Confucian principle of saving lives; saving children, saving the critically ill elderly patients in ICUs. Look at all these elderly patients being saved, and sent back home healthily out of their critical conditions previously.

These two great notions have been deeply rooted in the psyche of the Chinese people. And like a famous scholar I admire by the name of Tu Weiming, who has been teaching Confucianism worldwide. He actually quoted a lot of Confucianism, this very central value in Confucianism — the public spirit, the devotion to work for the public community, and also the people beyond the borders and out there in the cosmic community. To this very extent, I think that China shall continue to be committed to helping the world, and helping the people around the world on this planet, now suffering this very pandemic.

And lastly, let me just quote the great philosopher Confucius that “All roads that lead to prosperity are the road that we must follow. The road that leads to all under Heaven.” So, all under Heaven, in a sense, is the philosophy of Confucianism, now translated into contemporary Chinese politics. As President Xi has also in a sense said that we need to work together for the community of a shared future of all mankind. Thank you very much.




Englands centralbank går i panik; Wall Street eksploderer: Vil Trump lytte til Lyndon LaRouches vise ord?

Den 12. marts (EIRNS) – Præsident Trump talte til nationen onsdag aften, efter at denne rapport var færdiggjort. Om han valgte at bruge præsidentskabets beføjelser, som udtænkt af Amerikas grundlæggere, og indeholdt i efterkrigstidens Lov for Forsvarsproduktion (Defense Production Act) eller ej, for at kunne omgå den korrupte og impotente Kongres og erklære en national undtagelsestilstand, til at igangsætte en politik for en massiv udvidelse af infrastruktur og industri, kunne være afgørende for landets og verdens skæbne. De sidste 50 års ødelæggelse af det offentlige sundhedssystem, både i USA og i Europa, er nu blotlagt for hele verden, efter som Vestens førende nationer, derunder Tyskland, Italien, Frankrig og USA, ingen kapacitet har til at imødegå de ekstraordinære sundhedskrav, til det der langt om længe er blevet klassificeret som en pandemi af Verdenssundhedsorganisationen (WHO).

Og det er nu overmådeligt klart for alle undtagen de blinde, at hele den industrielle kapacitet – specielt den grundlæggende infrastruktur som opretholder denne – er så faldefærdig, at selv en genopbygning af den industrielle kapacitet vil kræve en umådelig indgriben fra staten, i samme størrelsesorden som da Franklin Roosevelt greb ind i 1933. Til at begynde med kan det panikslagne kollaps af ”markederne – Dow Jones faldt mere end 5% i dag, og 20% i hele ugen – kun løses på en måde: den øjeblikkelige genindførelse af Glass-Steagall (bankopdeling) for at gøre en ende på spekulationshysteriet. Dernæst må præsidenten insistere på sin magt som præsident og frifinde Lyndon LaRouche, således at den fulde vægt af hans Fire Love kan gennemføres.

Med dette må lederne af verdens største nationer – som nødvendigvis inkluderer Rusland, Kina, Indien og USA – slutte sig sammen for at oprette et Nyt Bretton Woods-system baseret på disse Fire Love, for at befri hele verden fra det bankerotte britiske imperiale monetaristiske system, kontrolleret af Wall Street og City of London.

I dag appellerede Helga Zepp-LaRouche til præsident Trump og NATO om at stoppe de vanvittige militærøvelser, Europe-Defender 2020 – de største NATO-øvelser siden Den kolde Krig, hvor store antal af tropper og udstyr åbent bevæges hen til den russiske grænse. Udover vanviddet, set fra et strategisk standpunkt – at true med krig mellem verdens to største atommagter – er det ligeså afsindigt at bevæge store antal af soldater gennem Europa, imens coronavirusset truer med massedød, hvis den ikke inddæmmes.

Det er et vigtigt historisk øjeblik. Til vores fordel, som mennesker, erkender befolkningen i stigende grad, at de ”gængse regler” ikke længere gælder. Mange ser tilbage og spørger: ”Hvem har fortalt sandheden alle disse år, mens regeringerne og medierne og Wall Street løj for os?” Hvis de institutionelle ledere fortsætter med at være blinde over for nødvendigheden af en revolutionær forandring, for en tilbagevenden til det ”Amerikanske Systems” tiltag med øremærkede kreditter, og for at lade præsident Trump udføre hans intention om at genoprette fredelige forhold til Rusland og Kina, så må vi mobilisere borgerne til at kræve præcis denne politik.




Den europæiske Renæssance er vores forbillede for at tage fat på nutidens eksistentielle kriser
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp Larouche d. 4 marts 2020

I en omfattende gennemgang af de sammenløbende kriser, der konfronterer menneskeheden i dag, konkluderede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at hvad der kræves, frem for panik og fortvivlelse, er en rolig overvejelse af de handlinger, som kan løfte menneskeheden ud af det neoliberale, geopolitiske tankesæt, ind i den kreative sindstilstand, der gjorde det muligt for menneskeheden at kravle ud af det 14. århundredes mørke tidsalder. Hun understregede, at kriserne der truer os i dag er resultatet af ikke at have lyttet til Lyndon LaRouche lige siden hans forudsigelse d. 15. August, 1971. Som et eksempel, refererede hun til coronavirusset som den slags trussel, forudset af Lyn i 1970’erne, der ledte ham til at etablere en arbejdsgruppe rettet mod et biologisk holocaust.

Ved hvert degenererende tilbageskridt i kvaliteten af lederskab – der i dag udstilles i monetarismen og den grønne ideologi, som dominerer den politiske diskussion i Europa og i det demokratiske partis kamp for at nominere en præsidentkandidat – fremlagde LaRouche et klart og veldefineret alternativ. I dag kan dette sammenfattes ved behovet for at indføre hans firemagtsaftale, som grundlaget for et nyt Bretton Woods-system, og hans Fire Love, baseret på betingelserne for at genoprette niveauet af fysisk økonomisk produktion, nødvendigt for at overvinde kriserne.

Hun konkluderede ved at minde seerne om Boccaccios rolle i at bevidstgøre den mørke tidsalders fordærvelse, hvilket inspirerede dem der igangsatte Renæssancen, specielt Dante og Cusanus. Det var ved at forkaste datidens dominerende aristoteliske filosofi, og erstatte denne med Platon, at moderne europæisk civilisation blev født. Der er ingen af de problemer, som i dag konfronterer os, der ikke kan løses ved at tage skabelsen af den europæiske renæssance som forbillede, baseret på en tilbagevenden til den klassiske tænkemetode.

THE EUROPEAN RENAISSANCE IS OUR MODEL TO ADDRESS TODAY’S EXISTENTIAL CRISES

Schiller Institute webcast with Helga Zepp-LaRouche

HARLEY SCHLANGER: Hello, I’m Harley Schlanger from the Schiller Institute. Welcome to our webcast for today, March 4, 2020, with our founder and chairman Helga Zepp-LaRouche. The obvious starting point is the issue that’s on virtually everybody’s mind — the spread of the coronavirus. People are trying to figure out how to deal with it, governments are in action. There’s a lot of panicking being spread by some people, and then there’s also a lot of disinformation. I think given the record we have, based on Lyndon LaRouche’s forecasting going back to 1971, what you have to say on this, Helga, is very significant for people. So, why don’t we start with what the recent status of this is, and how are nations addressing it?

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think it is a very serious threat. There are several renowned virologists and experts who say it is, de facto, a pandemic already. Now, I will qualify that in a second. For those people who think this is too much, or that this will cause panic, I think when you have a situation like that, it is extremely important to take a calm assessment of the situation and then move towards taking the actions necessary to combat the threat and do the kinds of things which will hopefully succeed.

Now the reason why this coronavirus is a very dangerous pandemic is it has characteristics which are more serious than previous pandemics, and it coincides with a financial system which was already bankrupt before the idea of the coronavirus appeared. Naturally, the effects both in the real economic situation and the real economy, as well as on the financial system, in all likelihood will trigger a collapse of this system. So, rather than only looking at the health aspect of the coronavirus, it is the absolute urgent moment and necessity to also move determinedly to reform the international monetary system which is bankrupt; to replace it with a new credit system which we should discuss in a second. And then use that crisis to bring about the changes in the strategic situation which will help to solve a whole bunch of other problems. President Trump reflected this in his way by saying it is an irony of the situation that because of the coronavirus crisis, forces are coming together which would normally never do so.

So, having said that, I think we should first look at the coronavirus itself. It is now officially spread to 70 countries, and it is not possible to reconstruct the origin, and who infected whom. But it has spread to what is called asymmetric transmission or community transmission, and that is now also affecting countries which do not have such a good health system as China or even the European or US have, which have big flaws in their health system already. So the danger is that all of this can continue to spread much faster. And I think there is also a vast under-reporting, because in many countries, the kind of testing which was done rigorously in China has not even started; including the United States where the first test kits were flawed and did not work, which shows you one dimension of a broken-down health system. So, it is now regarded that several countries are really hotspots. China still even so because of the energetic methods used by the Chinese government. It is spreading now more quickly in other countries other than China, and it is also in South Korea, Iran, and Italy. But the situation is serious enough that major international events are being shut down. In Germany, they shut down the Leipzig Book Fair which was supposed to open shortly, the Kraft International Conference in Munich, and even the Hanover Fair has been postponed by three months. Similarly, in France, the Louvre has been closed, and they don’t convene indoor events anymore with large crowds. That shows you that there is actually a serious concern.

I must say, however, that the reaction both in the United States and in Europe was delayed. I think measures should have been taken much clearer. I think the [German] Health Minister Spahn in earlier periods said the virus will not come to Germany; which is a rather absurd assumption. Naturally, the collapse of the health system which we have talked about many times before, is now really coming home to roost. So, the situation is that already last December, the European umbrella trade union for health workers and nurses put out an urgent complaint that because of the cuts and austerity and liberalization in the last decade — especially after the 2008 crisis — there was a severe health crisis. Not enough staff; pay for nurses and health workers has been cut in several countries; and resources have been cut down, and hospitals have been closed. That is now leading to a very critical situation.

If you look at China, which has 4.3 hospital beds per 1000 citizens, in the United States, it’s only 2.5 beds per 1000 people. So, you can actually see that China has been in a much better situation to deal with it, and they took measures that have been characterized by the World Health Organization in such a way that they said that China has established a new standard in how to deal with such epidemics and pandemics. China now has offered help to the affected countries; they have offered help to the EU, but also Iran and other countries being hit very hard. Offering their expertise from the last several months, but also masks, protective gear, and I think the European Union and others would be well-advised to take the advice and the help offered by the Chinese. This is extremely important because a lot of time has already been lost, and now it is time for the kind of international cooperation which overcomes prejudice and geopolitical stupidity. I think this is now something which should really occur immediately.

SCHLANGER: When you speak of delay, I think back to the fact that in 1971, your late husband, Lyndon LaRouche, spoke about how, if we go with the policy of neo-liberalism which came through with globalization, austerity, and so on, that mankind would be confronted with biological holocausts. This warning was made very clearly, and yet, under the neo-liberal doctrine, the healthcare system, as well as the industrial system, manufacturing, food security; all of this has been torn down. So, besides the emergency measures, we really do need this radical transformation of the monetary financial system, don’t we?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Let me stress one thing. Many of our viewers are quite aware of the fact that the name of my late husband has been slandered by many forces. But if you look at the present situation, I think it is a question of honesty to recognize that every one of his prognoses has come true. And the reason why he was so “controversial” is because he went against the powers that be, against the people who wanted to go for the complete deregulation of the markets, of the increase of the power of speculative interests in Wall Street and the City of London. When he made this historic prognosis on the 15th of August, 1971, when he said that when Nixon decoupled the dollar from the gold standard, he abandoned the fixed exchange rates, and actually destroyed the Bretton Woods system by doing so. Lyndon LaRouche said, if you continue on this trend, it will inevitably lead to a new depression, to the danger of a new fascism, or there will be a replacement by a completely new economic world order. Then he proceeded every step of the way to warn about the consequences of the extreme monetarism which had been introduced and had been escalated by warning that you cannot continuously lower the living standard of entire continents — as it was done to the developing sector in Africa and Latin America and many of the Asian countries — without causing old epidemics and new diseases to emerge. And that that was the big danger. At the end of the 1970s, beginning of the 1980s, we created something which was called the Biological Task Force, which was exactly studying the danger of the outbreaks of such new diseases. We also proposed the remedies; namely, to go into a crash program for optical biophysics, for the study of life sciences, to find cures for these new diseases. Obviously, this was not done, because it was not seen a profitable by the pharmaceutical industry and the banking interests behind them.

So, now we are at the situation where all the predictions of Lyndon LaRouche have come to the point of absolute boundary condition. This financial system is absolutely bankrupt; we have to dramatically reverse the monetary system and change it into a credit system. This is why I have issued a call for the immediate implementation of the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche. I will just briefly summarize again what they are. There has to be an immediate end to the casino economy. That means you have to have the introduction of a global Glass-Steagall banking separation in exactly the same way as Franklin D Roosevelt proposed and implemented it in 1933. Then you need new credit mechanisms; you need to bring back the issuing of credit into the sovereign power of governments, away from private interests. Which means you have to have a national bank in every country to issue credit for productive investments. Then you have to implement a New Bretton Woods system by connecting these national banks in every country which must go back to a fixed exchange rate system. They must then have long-term agreements for investments in very well-defined infrastructure projects, in industrial investments, in an increase of productivity of the economy with a special emphasis on such frontier areas as fusion, bio-optics, bio-physics, space cooperation. And we need an urgent implementation of the World Land-Bridge report, which we published several years ago; which is the idea to turn the New Silk Road into a World Land-Bridge by bringing economic development to all regions affected by crises right now. That would include: Southwest Asia, because of the refugee crisis; Africa, because of the corona crisis, but also the locust crisis, the migrant crisis.

But the key message of all of this is, there is a solution. This solution could be implemented extremely quickly. As a matter of fact, we have also proposed that a summit should take place among the four most important powers of the world — Russia, China, India, and the United States. Not at the exclusion of other countries, but these four most important and powerful countries much come together to implement these Four Laws. That such a summit is already in the works is on a very good track. I made this first proposal on January 3rd, following the assassination of General Soleimani in Iran. A few days after that, President Putin came up with a different but similar proposal, suggesting that the five permanent members of the UN Security Council should have an immediate summit to address the basic questions facing all of humanity. In the meantime, China and France have agreed, and today, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov reported that also President Trump said he is very interested to participate in such a summit. So, that is the framework which could solve these problems very quickly. I would appeal to all people, rather than becoming anxious, becoming despaired, help us rather to bring these solutions about. I think this is the key characteristic of our organization — the Schiller Institute, the LaRouche movement — that we are fighting for actual solutions. The only solution which would function in such an extraordinary crisis, is to abandon the system which caused all of these crises, and replace it with a system which is in the interest of all nations. And move to a New Paradigm of international cooperation. So, that is eminently feasible if the political will can be mobilized. That’s why I am asking you to contact us and work together with us to create the international support for these ideas.

SCHLANGER: Now in that context, we see the crazy response of the European Union and the Federal Reserve to the crisis. Assuming that you can somehow deal with the coronavirus crisis by flooding more money into the system. The Federal Reserve dropping the interest rates and so on. That’s the continuation of the neo-liberal system; that’s what we have to change, isn’t it? That kind of thinking?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, exactly! That really shows you that there is an absolute disconnect of the present neo-liberal establishments on both sides of the Atlantic. A complete disconnect of the causes of the crisis, and what is actually needed to remedy it. I have not seen any reflection of any of the leading liberal representatives in Europe or in the United States in the Democratic Party, for that matter, nor the neo-cons in the Republican Party, who would sit back and say, “Wait a second, why is our system not functioning? Why do we have a financial crisis? Why do we have the outbreak of pandemics?” I think that unwillingness of the liberal establishment is a very good reason for ordinary citizens to really mobilize and force a change, because as it looks right now, it will not come from these elites.

SCHLANGER: I think that’s why we’re seeing a global insurgency precisely against these elites. We just saw in the United States, besides the craziness of the Federal Reserve, the election underway. The Democratic Party looks as though the establishment has decided they’re at least for the moment, going to rally around Joe Biden, who if you look at him, this is Mr. Establishment. The Obama-Clinton Democratic Party. What are your thoughts after Super Tuesday? I know it’s important. Bloomberg just announced today that he’s dropping out; $500 million for a handful of delegates. Probably the worst businessman in world history.

What are your thoughts now after Super Tuesday?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think the DNC clearly wants to rig the election again; get Bernie Sanders out, who has his own massive problems without question. But to basically try to get all the other contenders to drop out and support Biden. This reflects the fact that they have absolutely not learned the lesson of 2016. They still don’t know why Hillary lost the election. As you say, Bloomberg probably paid for each vote he got $1000 to $2000 or $3000; I haven’t calculated it exactly, but it was a very expensive vote buying. So, he blew $500 million for advertisements; this is really the laughingstock, but I think a Biden candidacy would implement exactly what Bloomberg has been proposing, which is Green financing. It would be complete catastrophe.

I think we are now in a revolutionary situation, so forget about November 2020. The kinds of changes which the world urgently needs are a question of now. I think the immediacy of the situation is here. There were reports in the Italian financial press saying the only reason why there has not yet been a wide recognition that we are already in a pandemic, is because of the so-called “pandemic bonds”. This was a financial instrument developed by the World Bank after the Ebola crisis, where investors could invest in a pandemic bond, which was supposed to finance such emergencies but also yield a profit of 6.9% to 11%. And another date of maturity of these pandemic bonds is due to come on March 15th. That shows you the utter absurdity; to delay necessary measures, including informing the public in the necessary way, just to not risk the profit of some speculators. And it also shows you that the health sector is definitely not something which should be subject to financial speculators, but it should be absolutely the responsibility of sovereign governments to provide a health system for the common good of the people. I think this just shows you that the establishments at this point are incapable, unwilling to recognize the reason why the liberal system is not functioning. That means we will continue to have a very revolutionary moment. As the consequences of both the pandemic and the condition of the financial system will get clearer, I think the upheaval which we have seen in the health sector in all European countries, but also among the farmers, will just increase. And it will force the kind of solution with the Four Power, or maybe Five Power UN Security Council permanent five member agreement which we have been proposing and which now Russia has successfully put on the agenda.

So, I think that is the only thing to look at; don’t be confused. Don’t think the solution can be postponed until some date in November 2020, because the crisis is here and it requires an immediate solution.

SCHLANGER: This is to all of our viewers: This is why we have been emphasizing, “Join us now!” Don’t think you can vote in November to change something. By November, it may be too late.

On that, Helga, you’re talking about the unwillingness to change, the incapacity to change. We’re seeing a situation emerging now with Turkey, with the fighting going on in Idlib province, the possibility of a new wave of refugees into Europe. A lot of dangerous silliness coming out of the European Union. What’s going on with this situation?

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: The problem is that Turkey is using the refugee issue to blackmail the EU. But also, they have attacked Syrian forces in Idlib, and are backing terrorist elements. Obviously, it’s really amazing. Instead of attacking Turkey for intervening again in Syria, trying to escalate the longstanding war against the Assad government, the British First Secretary of State — Dominic Raab — came out in full support for Turkey. Then, this unfortunate German Defense Minister Annegret Kramp-Karranbauer [AKK] also threatened to increase the sanctions against Syria, and basically fully took the side of Turkey. Fortunately you have Russia in this situation, and Putin said very clearly that if Turkey enters Syrian air space and territory, it is at their own risk if they are being attacked. Russia obviously has a big role to play, Erdoğan will go to Moscow tomorrow, and he will meet on Thursday and Friday with President Putin. Obviously, if Putin and Trump would — they may be doing that already — but if they would agree on how to handle this crisis, then I think Erdoğan could somehow be contained. But what he is doing is, he is instrumentalizing these absolutely poor refugees. He has fed these 13-15,000 refugees the fake news that the border to Greece and Bulgaria would be open. Then, you had these horrendous pictures where tear gas is being used by the Greek police against these refugees. Then you have tear gas being used by the Turkish side, trying to drive these refugees over the border. These poor people, who have absolutely nothing to lose, because they are desperate; they are instrumentalized. They are absolutely in the middle of all of this, but obviously these pictures are supposed to force Europe to have another deal like the one which the EU concluded several years ago, paying 6 billion euros to Erdoğan so he would build these camps. There are all together 3 million Syrians in Turkey; there are many other people from Asia, from Afghanistan, from Iraq. Obviously, this is an untenable situation.

Turkey claims the EU did not pay the promised 6 billion euros — probably a lot of this money for NGOs and not giving to the Turkish government. This is all a completely disgraceful situation. And the situation between Turkey and Greece is super hot. There was just a delegation of the European Union — [EU President] Ursula von der Leyen, and [Charles] Michel, the head of the European Council, the head of the European Parliament [David] Sassoli, and the Prime Minister of Croatia [Andrej] Plenkovic — they all visited and gave a press conference together with Greek Prime Minister Mitsotakis, who basically said what is happening is that Turkey is absolutely making an asymmetric attack on the territory of Greece, and that this cannot be tolerated. So, these European Union guests had very little to say and very little to contribute, and it just shows you one more time the utter impotence of the EU. But it also shows that if you have the statements of AKK completely echoing what the British First Secretary of State is saying, you have clearly the EU falling into the Great Game of the British again; using the Middle East as the cockpit for the Great Game. One only can say, the only counter to that is what I said earlier: You need the Four Powers — the United States, Russia, China, and India — to work together to counter these machinations.

Otherwise, I think it should be obvious that the only way you can solve this problem of the refugees and the instability is, you have to have an economic development plan for the entire region. China offered several years ago to extend the New Silk Road from Iran to Iraq to Syria to Turkey to Egypt; to connect the New Silk Road via Turkey with Europe, and via Egypt with Africa. That is something which has to start, because you have to give hope to the people. You have to give the perspective of economic reconstruction of Syria, of Iraq, of Afghanistan. If you don’t have an economic perspective, there is no way this problem can be solved. I find it absolutely criminal that some politicians still are on the line that they will not give a penny for the reconstruction of Syria until Assad is chased out of his office. I think this just completely criminal. The people who are saying that are personally responsible for the lives lost, and I think they should be treated with contempt.

I think what is needed right now is an urgent, international solidarity to reconstruct Southwest Asia as one region. Iran is one of the countries which has poverty out of control; coronavirus infection. President Rouhani said that is not one single region that is not affected by the coronavirus. Even some members of the government are reported to be sick. The sanctions which are imposed on Iran are killing people. I think it should stop right away, because you need a comprehensive solution. China has offered to help with the infrastructure; Russia has offered to help to build up the energy in the region. Obviously, other countries can participate in building up industry, agriculture, bringing in lots of new freshwater sources with new technologies. All of that would be absolutely feasible, but it does require that the countries stop playing these geopolitical games.

If you are for ending geopolitics because you don’t want to have refugees, work with the Schiller Institute. Because we are the organization which is doing something; we are the organization which has solutions. That is why you should absolutely join us on the spot.

SCHLANGER: I’m just going to ask you one more question, because we’re going a little bit longer than usual. But it’s really crucial, given what you just said. In the midst of this confluence of crises, instead of panic and despair, you’re talking about solutions. I found it very interesting that Donald Trump, when he was in Davos, spoke about the Dome in Florence, which you and your husband have often referenced, as an example of the merger of beauty and science that’s the proper approach. We’ve been through, as a human race, a Dark Age before, when mankind has been lifted out of that with a new renaissance. You’ve been very outspoken about the need for this, so I think it would be very useful for you to just say something about that now.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes. Many of you probably know this extremely important book, the Decameron by Bocaccio. He described the consequences of the Black Death in the 14th Century on the population. When you read in this book, you can actually see the parallels to the present. The irrationality which naturally comes with pandemics; the misery; how people lose any kind of empathy because sickness overwhelms people. I don’t think we are quite at that point yet in Europe, but if you look at what is happening in Africa with the locust plague destroying the basis for survival for many people, we are quickly approaching such a situation like in the 14th Century. I have said many times, you need to study how did mankind come out of the 14th Century and create the beautiful Italian Renaissance? Because that is a lesson to be learned. I can only make it very short. It was that there were a group of humanists developing who took the ideas of Dante Alighieri, of Petrarca, of the school of Padua, and basically said we have to go back to the sources. We have to go back to the original great philosophers. That was the environment which allowed — among others — Nicholas of Cusa to bring the Greek Orthodox delegation to the Council of Ferrara and Florence. They brought the entire collected works of Plato. So, Nicholas of Cusa himself was one of the absolutely outstanding thinkers; I think he was probably the greatest thinker of the 15th Century, at least for European civilization. He introduced a new kind of thinking; the thinking of the coincidence of opposites — the Coincidencia Oppositorum — that you have to think of the higher level of unity where you can solve problems which are unsolvable on the level of Aristotelian contradictions. So, it was that new thinking which, in my view, also influenced the Peace of Westphalia, coming together with the thinking of Plato, which had been lost for 1700 years in Europe. Which then led to an explosion of a new image of man, a new optimism, a new role of science and technology, a new role of the common good being introduced for the first time in the question of the state.

So, the Italian Renaissance, which laid the foundation for 600 years of European civilization, which naturally the United States is also a part of, is a model. Because if you are in a crisis — and the West is in a crisis, because we have lost the roots, we have lost the connection to our great traditions. We have to go back to exactly like the Italians went back to the Greek period, so we have to back to the Greek period, the Italian Renaissance, to the German Classical period, and other great contributions in universal history, and revive the best traditions of what we had in the past. Which means we have to recognize that the liberal way, starting — and I know I’m upsetting now again a lot of people — starting with the Enlightenment, which really was an attack on the Renaissance, and go back to the humanist image of man. The idea that man is a unique species; that we are the only creative species on the planet and known in the universe so far; and that we have these great pieces of art. Of Classical composition, Classical music, of great poetry and drama, of great painting; just classical art in general. And that we have to somehow go back to the image of man associated with these highest expressions of human civilization.

I’m absolutely convinced that if we do that in this moment of the coronavirus crisis and other very severe challenges we are confronted with, I think we can have a revival. I think we can have a true renaissance of our identity based on these great traditions. Then maybe a great crisis can turn into a great chance. I always believe that Leibniz was absolutely correct that a great evil always means that mankind has the chance to create an even higher good, exactly because of this creative identity of man.

However, I have to say one thing. I am absolutely convinced also that this requires the full rehabilitation of my late husband; because his ideas laid the foundation for this movement and for the analysis from 50 years ago being correct all the way along the way. And having provided the solutions which we urgently need today. So, I think you should join our fight for the rehabilitation of Lyndon LaRouche, because I think his exoneration would have the same intellectual spark and effect like the re-introduction of Plato in the Italian Renaissance. By getting people on a completely different level of scientific and artistic thinking. And that’s why I’m asking you to support our effort to exonerate Lyndon LaRouche.

SCHLANGER: Helga, I don’t think you have to apologize for upsetting people. Anyone who is in a comfort zone right now, is obviously hiding in their own delusions. And you’re following in your husband’s footsteps by being the person who helps to break them out of that comfort zone.

So, thank you for that, and we’ll see you next week.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Yes, ’til next week.

 




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 5. marts 2020:
Fra coronavirus til finanskrak – løsningen er LaRouches 4 love

Lyd:

Resumé

Coronavirus COVID-19: Det afgørende er ikke antallet af tidligere smittede men antallet af nye smittede hver dag.

Det viser, at smittespredningen er under kontrol i Kina. Den er helt stoppet uden for Hubeiprovinsen og reduceret til 100-150 nye tilfælde per dag der.  Men COVID-19 spreder sig ukontrolleret i Sydkorea, Iran, Italien, m.fl. Nu er kinesere bange for at rejse til Europa, for ikke at blive smittet der.

Finanskrak: USA’s centralbank sænkede renten med ½ procentpoint i et forsøg at pumpe flere penge ind i systemet for at undgå et krak. Men krakket er i gang og et ”Lehmann Brothers-øjeblik” kan komme når som helst.

Topmøde: Trump siger også ja til et topmøde mellem de fem permanente medlemmer af FN’s sikkerhedsråd: USA, Rusland, Kina, Frankrig, Storbritannien. Helga Zepp-LaRouches foreslog den 3. januar et hastetopmøde mellem Trump, Putin og Xi Jinping, og Putin foreslog derefter et møde mellem de fem permanente  medlemmer.

Valget i USA: Efter Super Tuesday: Nu er det Bernie Sanders imod etablissementets kandidat Biden efter at de andre moderate kandidater trak sig og Bloomberg faldt igennem, trak sig og nu også vil støtte Biden.

Trumps svage punkt: økonomien, fordi han påstår, at økonomien har det strålende. Hvad sker der, hvis der kommer et finanskrak og stor nedtur inden valget? Trumps redning er, hvis han lytter til LaRouche-bevægelsen og vores løsning:

LaRouches fire økonomisk love:

  1. Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling
  2. Nationalbank og statlig kreditskabelse
  3. Investeringer som øger produktiviteten såsom store infrastrukturprojekter
  4. Videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt: fusionskraft, rumforskning.

Disse løsninger gælder ikke kun USA men også Danmark og alle andre lande.




Den, guderne vil tilintetgøre…

17. februar (EIRNS) – Fokuser ikke på et enkelt aspekt af de forskellige kriser, som menneskeheden står overfor, advarede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går. Denne fremgangsmåde vil føre til en fejlagtig fortolkning af, hvad der foregår i verden, og hvad der skal gøres ved det. Spørgsmålet er: Hvorfor truer COVID-19-virusepidemien med at blive til en global pandemi, hvis den ikke begrænses? Hvorfor kan det forpurrede forsøg på rigsretssag mod præsident Donald Trump blive et endnu mere ubehageligt åbenlyst statskup? Hvorfor kan angrebet af græshoppesværme, der fejer over Afrikas Horn, blive til en fuldstændig græshoppeplage, der ødelægger fødevareforsyningen for nationer, der tegner sig for næsten 2 milliarder af klodens 7,6 milliarder mennesker? Hvorfor er den aktuelle dekonstruktion af musik og kunst på vej til at omdanne menneskehedens kultur til en satanisk sekt? Og hvorfor sker alt dette på samme tid?

Svaret er, fortsatte Zepp-LaRouche, at “vi befinder os i en ekstraordinær tumultarisk forandring af en historisk periode, hvor de fleste mennesker absolut ikke er klar over, hvor gigantisk den transformation og det sammenbrud der foregår faktisk er”. Det såkaldte ‘Vesten’ er i opløsning, det transatlantiske finanssystem befinder sig i en sammenbrudskrise, og dets regerende etablissement, centreret i City of London, er parat til at påtvinge diktatur og fascistisk nedskæringspolitik for at forsøge at holde sig oven vande. De har vist deres fuldstændige manglende evne til så meget som at overveje, hvorfor deres liberale imperialistiske system kollapser, eller se på muligheden for at det er deres egen politik, der har ført til den nuværende katastrofe.

Denne inkompetence blev udstillet til fulde på den netop afsluttede sikkerhedskonference i München, hvor talsmænd for det gamle regime, såsom den amerikanske udenrigsminister Mike Pompeo og formand for Kongressen, Nancy Pelosi, forsøgte at forvandle det til et skydetelt imod Kina, netop på et tidspunkt, hvor dette land gør sit yderste for at begrænse COVID-19-virussen til fordel for hele verden.

USA og Europa skulle samarbejde med Kina og Rusland, ikke true og angribe dem, insisterede Zepp-LaRouche. Et topmøde med de fire magter, der er specificeret af Lyndon LaRouche – USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien – må arrangeres i de kommende uger for at håndtere den voksende kaskade af eksistentielle kriser, som planeten står overfor, og løse dem ved at sætte det døende Britiske Imperium ud af spillet og organisere et nyt paradigme til erstatning herfor. Det er en mission, der kun kan opnås ved at tage fat på Lyndon LaRouches politik og metode; LaRouche, hvis levende eftermæle af den grund må renses og mobiliseres.




Når skæbnen afhænger af en prognose

Den 12. februar (EIRNS) — Det er passende, at når vi markerer etårsdagen for Lyndon LaRouches bortgang den 12. februar, 2019, tager fat på hans begreber og metode for at evaluere den aktuelle strategiske situation og kortlægge vores fremtidige kurs. Den 7. september 2007 offentliggjorde LaRouche en artikel i magasinet Executive Intelligence Review med overskriften “Når Skæbnen afhænger af en prognose” (When Fate Hangs on a Forecast), der begyndte som følger:

                ”Det egentlige strategiske formål med, og funktion af, en kompetent økonomisk prognose er ikke at forsøge at forudsige hvad der vil ske, men at få det til at ske.

                ”Dagens emne er et omtvistet felt, hvortil jeg har udviklet visse enestående færdigheder, færdigheder inden for den gren af strategisk indsigt, der kaldes langtidsprognose. Dette indebærer ikke blot passivt at forudse hvad der sandsynligvis vil ske; det handler om at udforme en politik af den type som jeg præsenterer, med den hensigt at iværksætte bydende nødvendige handlinger, der muligvis kunne redde os fra en nuværende, fremstormende global finansiel katastrofe, en kommende katastrofe, der nu er gået ind i sin sidste fase.

                ”Det er ikke igennem ren sansning, at vi er i stand til at regne ud hvilken viljemæssig kraft der, skjult for vores blik, ligger mellem disse enkelte punkter på vores sansers skærmbillede. Det er gennem vores indvirkning på universet, at vi tvinger dets hemmeligheder til at manifestere sig, ikke kun som sanseindtryk, men som en højere, autoritativ manifestation i sindet, som må teste den usete tilstedeværelse og de formodede intentioner af hvad end viljemæssige kraft, der ligger bag den handling, som ellers muligvis blot ville forblive et sanseindtryk.”

                ”Disse usynlige kræfter må således tvinges til at afsløre sig selv. De må tvinges til at afsløre ikke alene den effektive tilstedeværelse, der er skjult bag de fodspor, vi kalder sanseindtryk. Vi må teste de formodede forsætlige intentioner fra disse kræfter, afprøve disse intentioner… hvilket ægte videnskab anerkender som universelle principper, da sådanne principper blev kendt som ‘dynamis’ af Pythagoræerne eller som ‘moderne dynamik’ af Nicholas Cusanus, Johannes Kepler, Gottfried Leibniz og Bernhard Riemann. Ud fra den viden, som kun kan tilegnes på denne måde, får vi de midler, hvormed manden og kvinden, formet i skaberens billede, er i stand til at handle mere eller mindre effektivt på en måde, der opfylder vores skæbne som dødelige; på den måde, der af Ham på enestående vis er tildelt os.

                ”På denne baggrund er det en kendsgerning, at jeg siden den tid, i 1953, hvor jeg lagde mig fast på Bernhard Riemanns metode indenfor fysisk geometri, ikke nogensinde har fejlet med en økonomisk prognose, som jeg har fremlagt; og kun undtagelsesvis har denne prognose antaget formen af, hvad der for nogle fejlagtigt kunne se ud som det der normalt betragtes som en simpel forudsigelse.”

                I dag, mere end 13 år senere, er den dominerende realitet der former planeten, i høj grad som LaRouche forudsagde: det bankerotte sammenbrud af det transatlantiske finanssystem, og den 50-år lange nedstigning til helvede af de fysiske økonomier i dets værtslande med deres ofre. Græshoppesværmene, der især plager store dele af Afrika og Sydvest- og Sydasien; fremkomsten af den nye coronavirus (2019-nCoV), der – hvis det ikke havde været for de heroiske foranstaltninger, som den kinesiske regering har taget – måske allerede havde fejet over alle kontinenter og de fleste nationer med utallige ofre til følge – disse er alle dødbringende problemer, der kan begrænses og overvindes med de forholdsregler, som blev foreslået af LaRouche for årtier siden. Videnskabelige lynprogrammer til udvikling af fusionsenergi og kolonisering af rummet samt optisk biofysik er og bliver de mest presserende behov i dag for at hæve den overordnede teknologiske platform for noosfæren, den menneskelige fysiske økonomi, til at klare sådanne kriser.

                Helga Zepp-LaRouche tog spørgsmålet om de forskellige indikationer på den kollapsende fysiske økonomi op i sine bemærkninger den 11. februar, hvor hun opfordrede til ”internationalt samarbejde med Kina” for at besejre virusset. Ideen om at dette er et ‘kinesisk virus’ er udtryk for den mest afskyelige racisme. Jeg er forbløffet over, at nogen ikke kan indse, at sygdomme ikke har nogen nationalitet. Vesten burde snarere hjælpe til og sende medicinske teams, tilbyde samarbejde og ellers gå sammen for at besejre sådanne nye problemer som græshoppesværmene i Afrika. Lige nu ville det være muligt at stoppe det, men hvis man ikke handler i tide, vil det udvikle sig til et enormt problem, som det vil være meget vanskeligere at slippe af med efter et år. Mange mennesker vil dø som et resultat af fødevaremangel, fordi disse græshopper har en tendens til bare at æde enhver afgrøde og efterlade ødelæggelser.”

                Zepp-LaRouche fortsatte: ”Der er et sammenbrud i Vesten… Hvad vi har brug for er en ny model for samarbejde, et nyt paradigme, hvor man stopper denne form for geopolitisk konfrontation, der kun kan føre til en katastrofe. Og til det har vi brug for ‘De fire Love’ fra Lyndon LaRouche. Vi er absolut nødt til at tænke på den menneskelige art ud fra et fremtidigt standpunkt.”

                Hun afsluttede med at opfordre folk til at drage fordel af, at dette er året for Beethoven, og at mange mennesker, som en følge heraf, lytter til Beethovens musik. Den dybe kulturelle krise vi står midt i er en del af det samlede forfald i hele den transatlantiske sektor, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, og det at lytte til klassisk musik, især Beethoven, “er den bedste måde at få folk til at opløfte deres sind. Vi har brug for en kulturel renæssance i Vesten.”




LyndonLaRouches mission, og jeres – på årsdagen for hans bortgang

12. februar 2020 — I dag er det etårsdagen for Lyndon H. LaRouches bortgang. Vi beder om, at man slutter sig til os i refleksion over hans liv og eftermæle, og til at man tager del i at færdiggøre det uafsluttede forehavende med at rense hans navn.

Mens han sad fængslet som politisk fange for 30 år siden, reflekterede LaRouche over den sande betydning af menneskeligt liv:

Snarere end at se det dødelige liv som en række erfaringer, ser man det som en helhed. Forestil dig at stå ansigt til ansigt med spørgsmålet om respekten for det dødelige liv og spørg: ‘var det liv nødvendigt for universets samlede plan og for menneskehedens eksistens; var det nødvendigt, at jeg blev født for at leve dette liv, summen af det samlede antal år mellem fødsel og død? Udrettede jeg noget, eller repræsenterede mit levned noget der var positivt til gavn for de nuværende generationer og underforstået for de kommende generationer efter mig? I så fald, burde jeg have vandret igennem dette liv med glæde, vel vidende at hvert øjeblik var dyrebart for hele menneskeheden, fordi det jeg gjorde ved at leve mit liv var noget, der var nødvendigt for hele menneskeheden… gavnligt for hele menneskeheden.’

I sin “Food for Peace”-tale (Mad for Fred) fra 1988, tager LaRouche det samme spørgsmål op. Klik her.

I en tale den 8. februar til minde om 250-årsdagen for Beethovens fødsel udfordrede Helga Zepp-LaRouche alle amerikanere til at færdiggøre det uafsluttede forehavende med at rense LaRouches navn. Jeg vil gerne tilskynde til, at Beethoven-året også skal være året for renselsen af Lyndon LaRouche … Det faktum, at det amerikanske folk og en stor del af verdens befolkning nægtes adgang til Lyns idéer på grund af en uretfærdig fængsling, som blev foretaget af det samme ‘apparat’, der stod bag kuppet mod Trump: Jeg mener, at hvad præsident Trump sagde for et par dage siden, om at man må sikre at hvad der overgik ham med ‘Russiagate’ og med kupforsøget aldrig må ske igen – ja, så er der en absolut holdbar måde, hvorved dette aldrig vil ske igen, og det er at give fuld oprejsning til Lyndon LaRouche … Så hvis min mands navn renses [for alle anklager], af hensyn til skønheden i hans ideer, vil varig frihed i USA, hvor USA vender tilbage til at være en republik, være absolut mulig.

Se LaRouches enke Helga Zepp-LaRouches 3-minute-lange video om at rense LaRouches navn:

Hvis du ikke har gjort det endnu, er det nu på tide at underskrive andragendet om LaRouches frifindelse. Hvis du allerede har underskrevet, bedes du hjælpe med at sprede opfordringen, og få andre til at underskrive.




Trump på det økonomiske forum i Davos: Med optimisme mod det “grønne” folkemord

Udgivet den 27. januar 2020 på Harley Schlangers blog på LaRouchePAC.com (www.harley.larouchepac.com)

Medens det amerikanske senat åbnede rigsretssagen mod Trump, holdt præsidenten selv i Davos en tale for den årlige forsamling af selvtilfredse eliter, milliardærer og mægtige, der regner sig selv som særligt udvalgte til at bestemme menneskehedens fremtidige kurs. Dette års konference havde i første række det formål at påtvinge regeringerne en “grøn” handlingsplan for at frelse verden fra de angiveligt menneskeskabte klimaforandringer. Ud over “kendte” grønne som den rasende teenager Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, Sir Nicholas Stern, Bill Gates og prins Charles, spillede desuden direktøren for Bank of England, Mark Carney, fremtidig ambassadør for FN for klimabeskyttelse og finans, en vigtig rolle.

Carney, der i den forløbne sommer pludseligt svang sig op til en nøglefigur for den grønne bevægelse, da han forkyndte, at bankerne skulle blokere for kreditter til alle de firmaer og institutioner, der ikke ville deltage i den grønne revolution – holdt hovedtalen. Han erklærede, at Bank of England sammen med de andre centralbanker fra nu af ville nægte kreditter til finansinstitutioner og foretagender, der ikke er CO2-neutrale – hvorved hanen ville blive drejet om for kreditter til de energikilder, der leverer størstedelen af verdens energi.

Støttet på en pseudovidenskab, der påstår, at CO2-udslippet er hovedårsagen til klimaforandringerne og at menneskeheden nærmer sig sin undergang, hvis ikke den øjeblikkeligt giver fuldstændigt afkald på fossile brændstoffer, vil Carney og hans forbundsfæller såsom chefen for kæmpefonden Blackrock, Larry Fink – der sammen med andre topbankfolk kræver et regimeskift inden for finansverdenen. Det skal ske med en kombination af skatter, økonomisk straf og statsstøtte for ueffektive, “gammeldags” teknologier, og ved at gennemføre “nul-planen” som del af en generel nedskæringspolitik.

Carney sagde i sin hovedtale i Davos, at fra nu af måtte man hele tiden stille spørgsmålet: “Hvad er Deres plan for at stoppe kulstofudledningen? Det kommer til at afgøre, hvor kapitalen flyder hen.” Bankerne vil spørge, “om De står på den rigtige eller den forkerte side”. Og han besluttede med at sige, at alt dette betød en grundlæggende omformning af finanssystemet”.

Carneys og Finks krav om et “regimeskift”, der kun, tillader investeringer i såkaldt vedvarende energi – altså tilbagevenden til en lav energistrømningsstæthed ligesom i tiden før renæssancen – er en opskrift på ødelæggelse af industrien og på folkemord. Men her hører man ingen form for selvkritiske ytringer, for dette er åbenbart den egentlige bagtanke med det hele!

For at give det hele endnu større eftertryk, forbindes dette med et radikalt politisk krav, som Finks gruppe af tidligere centralbankschefer fremsatte her i sommers på Federal Reserves møde i Jackson Hole (Wyoming): Centralbankerne skal overtage opsynet med statshusholdningerne for at sikre, at der skal tilflyde mere kredit til den grønne spekulationsboble, medens kreditter til den reelle økonomi indstilles. Dette er et frontalangreb på suveræne regeringers ret til at stille kreditter til rådighed for programmer, der øger produktionen af den reelle fysiske, økonomiske velstand, sådan som den er nødvendig for at forbedre befolkningens levestandard. I stedet for skal regeringerne blot tjene som et redskab til at betjene de bedragere, der profiterer af spekulationsboblen, medens de pålægger den brede befolkning nye, tyngende skyldsbyrder.

I Davos førte milliardærerne endnu en gang den forstyrrede teenager Greta Thunberg frem for at tilsværte alle dem, der ser kritisk på dette vrøvl. Thunberg sagde, at der ikke er nogen tid at spilde, inden otte år må der finde en fuldstændig omdrejning sted. “Vi vil ikke have, at disse ting skal finde sted i 2050, 2030 eller i 2021. Vi vil have, at de skal ske nu” sagde hun. Hun belærte de “voksne” i rummet: Vort hus brænder stadig. Jeres uvirksomhed forøger flammerne for hver time, der går.”

På spørgsmålet, om han var enig med Thunbergs drastiske tidsplan, svarede Carney bekræftende.

Trump talte et alvorsord til undergangsprofeterne. I disse omgivelsers almindelige enighed om en politik, der vil ødelægge de resterende produktive centre i verden, udløste Donald Trump bølger af hysteri, da han præsenterede en optimistisk fremtidsvision, der udgik fra betragtninger over den proces, der frembragte renæssancens kulturelle og videnskabelige landvindinger og dermed lagde grunden for den moderne civilisation. Han tog her omhyggeligt sigte på dem, der fører politik på grundlag af “klimahysteriet”.

“Dette er ikke tiden til pessimisme, dette er tiden til optimisme. Angst og tvivl er ikke gode tankeprocesser, for dette er tiden for store forhåbninger og glæde og optimisme og handling. Men for at gribe morgendagens muligheder, må vi tilbagevise de evige dommedagsprofeter og deres forudsigelser om Jordens undergang. De er arvtagerne til fortidens tåbelige spåmænd… og de ønsker, at det skal gå os dårligt, men det tillader vi ikke. De forudsagde, at der ville komme en overbefolkningskrise i 1960’erne, udbredt hungersnød i 1970’erne, og at olien ville slippe op i 1990’erne. Disse panikmagere kræver altid det samme; absolut magt for at beherske, forandre og overvåge hvert eneste aspekt af vore liv.”

Med denne spot over nutidens grønne “dommedagsprofeter”, der går ind for en moderne udgave af den malthusianske befolkningsreduktion, hentydede han (om ikke med navns nævnelse) til så grundlæggende værker som The Population Bomb af Paul Ehrlich og Grænser for Vækst af Dennis Meadows og Jay Forrester og deres kvaksalverkolleger i Romklubben(1972).

Hvad Trump ikke sagde, men hvad nogle af klimahysteriets forkæmpere formentligt godt vidste, var, hvad der var fælles for alle disse kræfter – ud over deres malthusianske had til menneskeheden – nemlig at Lyndon LaRouche i løbet af det sidste halve århundrede igen og igen kritiserede og gendrev deres ondsindede hensigter. I sin bog “Der er ingen grænser for vækst” fra 1983 påviste LaRouche at vor tids vækstfjendtlige fanatisme lige siden 1960erne fabrikeredes ved hjælp af fidusvidenskab og misvisende computerprogrammer. I vor tid fortsætter dette med FN’s klimapanels (IPCC) dommedagsprofetier, der baserer sig på den samme slags computermodeller, der igen og igen har vist sig at tage fejl.

Og endnu vigtigere: LaRouche satte den nødvendige modpol op imod disse bedragere, nemlig den sande videnskab om menneskets fremskridt. Således understregede han ofte, at vi bør kikke tilbage på renæssancens genier for at finde løsninger på nutidens kriser, og han henviste ganske særligt til Brunelleschis geniale bygning af kuplen på domkirken i Firenze, hvor de nødvendige arbejdsmetoder udvikledes under opførslen. I 1991 skrev LaRouche i en tid, hvor han var uskyldigt fængslet, i sin fængselscelle bogen “Kristendom og Økonomi”, der bærer et billede af kuplen på sit omslag.

Præsident Trump henviste i sin tale i Davos til netop den samme ting, som LaRouche benyttede som eksempel på optimisme om fremtiden.

“For århundreder siden, under Renæssancen, kikkede håndværkere og arbejdere op og byggede strukturer, der stadig berører menneskehjertet. Nogle af de bygninger, der stadig hører til blandt de største i verden, blev opført for århundreder siden. I Italien begyndte borgerne engang på et projekt, der skulle tage 140 år at opføre: Domkirken i Firenze. Et helt utroligt sted. Selv om teknologien til at fuldende projektet endnu ikke var fuldt udviklet, gik byens fædre alligevel i gang med det, i vished om at de en dag ville finde ud af det. Disse indbyggere i Firenze accepterede ingen grænser for deres store forventninger, og derfor blev den store kuppel til sidst opført.”

Trump fortsatte: “I Amerika forstår vi det, som pessimisterne ikke vil indse: at en voksende og levende markedsøkonomi, der koncentrerer sig om fremtiden, opløfter den menneskelige ånd og ansporer kreativiteten tilstrækkeligt meget til at klare alle udfordringer… De store videnskabelige gennembrud i det 20. århundrede – fra penicillin over hvedesorter med højt høstudbytte til moderne transportmidler og banebrydende vacciner – har højnet levestandarden og reddet livet for milliarder af mennesker i hele verden. Og vi arbejder videre på ting, som I vil høre nærmere om i nær fremtid, og som I, sådan som I sidder her nu i dag, ikke vil tro at vi har fundet svarene på… Men det sidste århundredes mirakler blegner i forhold til de ting, som nutidens unge fornyere vil udvikle, fordi de udretter ting, som ingen ville have anset for muligt. Vi fortsætter med at påskønne teknologi, og skyr den ikke. Når mennesker har friheden til at være opfindsomme, vil millioner af mennesker kunne leve længere, lykkeligere og sundere.”

Hvad ligger der bag denne afstandstagen?

Den optimisme, der præger Trumps tale i Davos, stemmer overens med hans engagement for et samarbejde med den russiske præsident Putin for at overkomme de strategiske kriser i verden og samarbejdet med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping om at overkomme spændingerne mellem de to førende økonomiske magter. Og det er ikke tilfældigt, at de, der udnytter klimahysteriet til at retfærdiggøre et “regimeskift” i finanssektoren, også forsvarer Londons imperialisme. De forsøger at sabotere Trumps forsøg på et fredeligt samarbejde med Rusland og Kina ved at ville fortsætte de “endeløse krige”, som Trump kæmpede mod i 2016, og som også vil være en væsentlig del af hans valgkamp i 2020.

Det er ingen overraskelse, at det er de samme grupperinger, som agerer gennem et forbund mellem de britiske og de amerikanske hemmelige tjenester i omkredsen af Bush og Obama, som også organiserer regimeskift-operationen imod præsident Trumps embede, sådan som det nu sker med det forsøg på afsættelse, der drives frem af USA’s senat og hviler på falske anklager, udklækkede af disse netværk. Truslen fra præsident Trump og hans sandsynlige genvalg mod den sammenbrydende verdensorden, som disse netværk fik gennemført efter den kolde krig, bliver endnu mere påtrængende, når Trump i sine taler griber tilbage til ideer, der hænger sammen med LaRouche. Længe før Trump blev et mål for deres netværk, fordømte og forfulgte de LaRouche. Men trods årelange fordømmelser og angreb vækker LaRouches ideer yderligere genklang, fordi de genspejler de højere principper, som inspirerede Amerikas grundlæggere under deres udarbejdelse af De forenede Staters forfatning.

Det fortløbende forsøg på at få afsat Trump er ikke andet end et angreb på disse principper, udført til tjeneste for disse eliter, der har forsamlet sig i Davos for at organisere den største befolkningsreduktion i verdenshistorien. Derfor reagerede de så hysterisk på Trumps tale, medens medierne fortav de ovennævnte kernepunkter og forkastede dem som eksempler på “blind optimisme”. Deres største frygt er, at de mennesker, der medvirker som borgere i udformningen af deres stat for at regeringens politik skal genspejle deres virkelige interesser, vil kunne afvise magthavernes farlige pessimisme, der går ud på at undertrykke deres indflydelse.

Anmærkning:

Videoen af Trumps tale i Davos, som begynder 9 minutter ind i videoen:




NYHEDSORIENTERING NOVEMBER-DECEMBER 2019:
For en ny era for menneskeheden
med LaRouches løsninger

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Præsident Donald Trump: Bring retfærdighed til Verden:
Frikend Lyndon LaRouche for anklager.

På Schiller Instituttets konference d. 16. -17. november 2019 i Bad Soden, Tyskland, under titlen “Menneskehedens fremtid som en kreativ art i Universet” (The Future of Humanity as a Creative Species in the Universe”) vedtog over 300 deltagere fra mere end 30 lande, repræsenterende alle seks kontinenter, følgende opfordring ved akklamation:

I enestående historiske øjeblikke kan en enkelt afgørende handling fremkalde retfærdighed for alle nationer igennem en hel æra. Den universelle frihedsdigter Friedrich Schiller fik i sit mesterværk ´Don Carlos’ figuren Marquis af Posa til at tilskynde kong Philip til at “blive en konge blandt en million konger” og bringe retfærdighed til Nederlandene og hele Europa.

Præsident Trump, tiden er inde til posthumt at frikende Lyndon H. LaRouche, som blev udsat for justitsmord og uretfærdigt fængslet fra 1989-1994. Dette er påkrævet for at yde retfærdighed over for mennesket såvel som for hans ideer. Der er i alle vore nationer, især for de kommende generationer, behov for uhindret tilgang til hans enestående opdagelser indenfor fysisk økonomi; til hans bidrag til klassisk kultur og fysisk videnskab; til hans politik for store infrastrukturprojekter og økonomisk udvikling – en tilgang, der forudsætter at der sættes en stopper for årtier med bagtalelser og dæmonisering med en fuldstændig renselse af hans navn.

De store, eksistentielle kriser, som vore nationer og Verden står overfor, og de unikke bidrag, som LaRouches ideer kan yde til disses løsning, tilskynder os til at opfordre til den hurtigst mulige frikendelse af Lyndon LaRouche for alle anklager.




Afsløring! Dem, der leder kuppet mod Trump, vil have krig med Rusland!
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp LaRouche 23. nov 2019

På trods af PR virksomhedernes heftige bestræbelser for det militære industrielle kompleks—også kendt som “massemedierne” – på at forhindre, at sandheden om hensigten bag regimeskiftet bliver kendt, kommer sandheden frem. Som Helga Zepp LaRouche specificerede i sin analyse af uroen og omvæltningerne der fejer hen over kloden, er sammenbruddet af det Gamle Paradigme, det der ligger bag de desperate handlinger udført af dem, der står bag farverevolutioner, samt oprør mod regeringer, fx i Chile, Ecuador, Colombia og Frankrig, hvor folk protesterer mod nedskæringer.

Zepp LaRouche hævder, at man ikke kan forstå absurditeten i anklagerne i “Russigate” eller “Ukrainegate” uden at kende til den historiske baggrund. Dette kommer nu frem i anklagerne mod Trump for “magtmisbrug” med hensyn til Ukraine – der vil komme mere ud, når undersøgelserne af Horowitz, Barr og Durham bliver frigivet. Hvad det vil vise, er, at de samme netværk bag Maidan-statskuppet i Ukraine i februar 2014 er i centrum for kup-bestræbelserne mod Trump, og de fortsætter med fuld intensitet på trods af faren for, at deres handlinger kan føre til en krig mellem USA og Rusland.

Et vigtigt moment for at imødegå dette vanvid, var den ekstraordinære konference hos Schiller Instituttet den 16. – 17. november i Bad Soden, Tyskland, hvor aktivister fra mere end 30 lande mødtes til en mindehøjtidelighed for Lyndon LaRouche. Helga understregede, at præsentationerne på konferencen demonstrerede Lyndon LaRouche’s unikke vision for fremtiden og den videnskabelige og kulturelle metode, han anvendte for at gøre de igangværende kampe forståelige og derfor mulige at vinde.




Berlinmurens fald, anden chance for en gunstig mulighed
Schiller Instituttets konference, 9. november 2019
1989 – Berlinmurens fald og en mistet mulighed
2019 – En anden chance for en stor mulighed

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Vi fejrer i dag et tredobbelt jubilæum: 30-årsdagen for Berlinmurens fald; Friedrich Schiller, den store tyske frihedsdigters 260-års fødselsdag; og 35-årsdagen for grundlæggelsen af Schiller Instituttet. Og når sådanne tre jubilæer falder sammen, er det faktisk værd at se tilbage på, hvordan de hænger sammen.

Nu om dage kan mange mennesker ikke engang huske murens fald, fordi de enten ikke var født endnu, eller fordi de var for unge til at følge med i det. Men det er virkelig vigtigt at lære lektien om hvad der skete dengang, og hvad der gik galt, i forhold til den situation som vi har i dag.

Jeg kan huske mange af begivenhederne, som om det var i går, fordi vi ikke bare stod på sidelinjen og så på, men vi befandt os midt i disse begivenheder og prøvede på at forme dem med vores ideer.

Der gives næsten ikke eksempler på en større forskel mellem den officielle fortælling om, hvad der skete i forbindelse med den tyske genforening og murens fald, [og hvad der egentligt skete]: Den officielle fortælling er en ting, og hvad der virkelig skete er noget ganske andet. For hvis man lytter til den officielle fortælling, så var dette demokratiets sejr over kommunismen, friheden over diktaturet, og Fukuyama, historikeren, sagde to år senere, da Sovjetunionen faldt sammen, at dette var slutningen på [verdens-]historien. Og opfattelsen var generelt, at hele verden ville tage den vestlige model for “demokrati” til sig, herunder menneskerettigheder og det parlamentariske system, og at det simpelthen bare ville gå den vej.

Imidlertid advarede jeg i mange taler i 1990 om, at hvis man agtede at presse en ligeså falleret vestlig liberal model ned over det sammenbrudte kommunistiske økonomiske system, vil man over en vis periode kunne opleve et opsving, men at det til sidst ville føre til et meget, meget større sammenbrud af systemet. Og jeg tror, at det er præcist der hvor vi er i dag.

Hvis man betragter verden rundt om på hele kloden, har man et system i fuldstændig uorden: Se på massedemonstrationerne i Chile, i Irak, i Libanon, se på de ‘gule veste’ i Frankrig; se på hvad der foregår med Brexit; de tyske landmænd er i totalt oprør. Efter min mening er det faktisk første gang i historien, at det sker samtidigt i alle hjørner af verden. Og jeg tror virkelig, at det i dag er sandt hvad Leibniz sagde i slutningen af 1600-tallet: Han sagde, at hvis hele verden på et tidspunkt bliver domineret af utilitarisme, vil det komme til en verdensrevolution.

Det vestlige etablissements intentioner i ’89 – og især efter Sovjetunionens sammenbrud i ’91 – om at påtvinge verden en unipolær orden, hvilket var denne idé om “demokrati-som-det-eneste”, har åbenlyst givet tilbageslag. De prøvede at påtvinge denne unipolære verdensorden med regimeskifte-operationer, med farverevolutioner, med interventionskrige; og ideen om at historien op til dette punkt, i det væsentlige, kun drejer sig om den atlantiske sektor. Men tilbageslaget mod denne indsats for at påtvinge en unipolær verden har ført til fremgangen for en hel række forskellige nationer, Rusland, Kina, Indien, og andre asiatiske nationer. Det har ført til en helt anden selvforståelse i Afrika. Det har øget kløften mellem de rige og de fattige på en sådan måde, at det ikke længere er bæredygtigt. Middelklassen forsvinder.

Så hvis man tager dette i betragtning, og spørger sig selv hvordan vi er nået til den såkaldte ”enden på historien”, demokrati overalt, og så de gigantiske omvæltninger, som finder sted lige nu?  Nuvel, ’89 var det man på tysk med rette kunne kalde en “Sternstunde der Menschheit”, hvilket betyder en enestående chance [for forandringer] i historien, en “stjernestund for menneskeheden.” Og det var et af disse store øjeblikke, hvor man faktisk kunne forme historien, fordi kommunismen var forsvundet, og man kunne have indført en fredelig verdensorden i det 21. århundrede. Og den vision havde vi:

Allerede i ’84, da Sovjetunionen afviste hans tilbud om SDI (Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ –red.), efter at præsident Reagan havde gjort det (SDI) til den officielle amerikanske politik, forudsagde Lyndon LaRouche, at hvis Sovjetunionen ville fastholde deres daværende politik, hvilket var en indsats for militær dominans, og ‘primitiv akkumulation’ imod deres egen økonomi, ville Sovjetunionen kollapse i løbet af fem år. Og det skete: Lyndon LaRouche, der også iagttog de økonomiske vanskeligheder i Comecon-landene, forudsagde i 1988 den snarlige tyske genforening, samt at det [gen-]forenede Tyskland skulle udvikle Polen med vestlig teknologi som en model for at omdanne hele Comecon.

Da muren faldt – i grunden efter de tiltagende mandagsdemonstrationer – var vi faktisk de eneste, der havde en forestilling [om det]. Husk tilbage på den utrolige glæde – folk dansede på Berlinmuren, da den blev åbnet, og det var et utroligt øjeblik med en potentiel forandring i historien. De officielle dokumenter fra den tyske regering, der blev offentliggjort et par år senere, viser, at til trods for at tysk genforening var det primære mål for tysk politik, havde man ingen beredskabsplan! De troede i virkeligheden ikke, at det nogensinde ville ske! Ingen troede for alvor på, at Sovjetunionen ville forsvinde. Men vi havde en idé om det, og hr. LaRouche foreslog første gang i 1988, at det genforenede Tyskland skulle udvikle Polen, og jeg skrev en løbeseddel, der blev offentliggjort i midten af november 1989, “Kære Tyskland, gå videre med selvtillid,” og jeg foreslog nøjagtigt dette, at vi med vestlig teknologi skulle udvikle Polen og de andre Comecon-lande.

Dette var naturligvis endnu ikke blevet til politik, men Helmut Kohl, Tysklands kansler på det tidspunkt, tog et første ‘baby-skridt’ i retning af suverænitet, ved den 28. november, et par dage efter min løbeseddel, at offentliggøre et 10-punkts program, som endnu ikke var ideen om genforening, men en konføderation af de to tyske stater.

To dage derefter, den 30. november, blev Alfred Herrhausen, lederen af Deutsche Bank på det tidspunkt, myrdet af en meget tvivlsom – sandsynligvis ikke eksisterede – ”tredje generation” af terrororganisationen Røde Armé Fraktion. Det er i det mindste et spørgsmål, der stadig skal undersøges af historikere. Men det var et budskab til Kohl, “vov ikke på at gå i retning af tysk suverænitet.”

På det tidspunkt kom der en voldsom reaktion: [Den daværende britiske premierminister] Margaret Thatcher igangsatte denne kampagne for “Det fjerde Rige”; den franske præsident Mitterrand krævede, at Tyskland skulle opgive D-marken og indføre Euroen; Bush Sr. krævede selvbegrænsning af Tyskland gennem yderligere integration i NATO og EU, accept af Maastricht-traktaten, og dermed det regime med nedskæringer der nu fører til sprængningen af EU, spændingerne mellem øst og vest, nord og syd.

Vi foreslog den produktive ‘Paris-Berlin-Wien-trekant’, som var ideen om at bruge vestlig teknologi til at transformere landene i Østeuropa, og dybest set bruge deres produktive potentialer til at modernisere og integrere med Europa. Det første sådant forslag offentliggjorde vi i januar 1990, og da Sovjetunionen kollapsede i ’91 udvidede vi straks idéen om den produktive trekant til hele Eurasien for at forbinde de produktive befolkningscentre i Europa med dem i Asien gennem udviklingskorridorer, og vi kaldte det for ‘Den eurasiske Landbro’, Den nye Silkevej. Dette skulle også [danne basis for] den fredelige verdensorden i det 21. århundrede.

Naturligvis brød de neo-konservative, som ønskede at påtvinge deres unipolære verdensorden, løfterne de havde givet til Gorbatjov, om, at NATO aldrig ville blive udvidet til Sovjetunionens grænser. I ’91 offentliggjorde CIA ifølge en tysk avis en rapport om, at Rusland havde en bedre uddannet arbejdsstyrke og flere naturressourcer end USA, og at landet derfor ville blive en konkurrent på verdensmarkedet, hvis man tillod økonomisk udvikling. Derfor skulle den økonomiske udvikling afværges.

Hvad der trådte i kraft var chokterapien fra Jeffrey Sachs, den samme Jeffrey Sachs, der nu befinder sig midt i den grønne klima-finansieringssvindel.
George Soros var involveret i en enorm hjerneflugt fra Rusland og de øvrige tidligere sovjet-lande, og i Tyskland forsøgte de virkeligt at sprænge potentialet for et godt forhold til Rusland på det tidspunkt. Den 8. marts 1990 var den sidste samling i DDR’s ‘Volkskammer’ [parlamentet i Østtyskland]. De skabte ‘Treuhand Anstalt’, som senere skulle blive til den største industrielle bedrift i verden. Og de skulle angiveligt beskytte DDR’s statsejede ejendom, men et ‘koldt kup’ blev udført: Allerede den 26. juni 1990 offentliggjorde De Maizière-regeringen vedtægter, der alene handlede om “privatisering” og “omorganisering” af de statsejede industrier.

I august 1990 blev Detlev Karsten Rohwedder, som var en meget god og effektiv industrialist, udpeget til at foretage en omlægning af førnævnte ‘Treuhand’, og han havde en fremragende forståelse af kravene til realøkonomien, så han satte genopretning før privatisering med det primære formål at beskytte arbejdspladserne fra de tidligere statsejede virksomheder. Straks kom han under ondskabsfulde angreb fra de britiske og amerikanske investeringsbanker, der beskyldte ham for at blokere for udenlandske investeringer. Den 1. april 1991 blev han skudt af den samme tvivlsomme, sandsynligvis ikke eksisterende, “tredje generation” af ‘Rote Armé Fraktionen’ af den terroristiske Baader-Meinhof-gruppe. Han blev erstattet af Birgit Breuel, en datter af Alvin Münchmeyer, hvis bank har en meget dyster historie, idet den var med til at finansiere NSDAP [nazist-partiet] i 30’erne sammen med Harriman i USA og Montagu Norman, bankdirektør for Bank of England.

Hvad der skete, var en gigantisk ekspropriation af den østtyske befolknings ejendom. Pludselig betød alle disse menneskers livsværk intet; det blev erklæret værdiløst; og dette er et chok, som disse mennesker i det tidligere Østtyskland ikke er kommet sig over den dag i dag. Og jeg vil sige, at denne ekspropriation har spillet meget ind på det faktum, at vi nu har fået fremkomsten af Alternativet for Tyskland (AfD), en populistisk organisation som imidlertid har en masse af alle de onde elementer, højreekstremisme, hvis ikke værre – fascistiske elementer – i sig.

Se, etablissementet udnyttede grundlæggende det faktum, at kommunismen var forsvundet, og der skete noget nyt. Da Sovjetunionen stadig eksisterede, så oligarkiet i Vesten stadig et vist behov for videnskabelig og teknologisk fremgang, for dybest set at holde trit med våbenkapløbet i Den kolde Krig, af årsager, der allerede var blevet formuleret af Machiavelli: At man altid skal forblive på samme teknologiniveau som ens modstander, eller være foran.

Men med Sovjetunionens sammenbrud gik det britiske imperium ind i en absolut ubændig deregulering af de finansielle markeder, og de gik tilbage til den gamle oligarkiske tankegang om befolkningsreduktion, og at holde befolkningen i tilbageståenhed, og især efter at det lykkedes at eliminere Glass/Steagall-loven i USA i 1999, fik vi en fuldstændig, uhæmmet deregulering af de finansielle markeder på bekostning af industrien og velfærden, til fordel for spekulanternes profitmaksimering.

I juli 2007, da den anden ejendomsmarkedskrise brød ud – faktisk en uge før – optog Lyndon LaRouche en verdensberømt video, hvor han sagde, at ”Dette system er absolut færdigt, og alt hvad vi vil se nu er, hvordan de forskellige aspekter kommer til at manifestere sig”. Og som et resultat af det faktum, at folk ikke lyttede til ham, fik vi så det store systemiske nedbrud i 2008. Intet blev gjort af centralbanker for at eliminere de grundlæggende årsager til dette nedbrud, og derfor står vi nu, ca. 11-12 år senere, overfor en endnu værre krise, fordi det eneste man lavede var kvantitative lempelser, nulrenter, negative renter, og i dag ser man et sammenbrud af hele systemet, i meget, meget værre grad end i 2008.

Men i mellemtiden udviklede sig også en anden tendens: I forbindelse med vores forslag til den ‘Eurasiske Landbro’, arrangerede vi konferencer og seminarer på fem kontinenter. I ’96 var der en stor konference i Beijing, hvor jeg forelagde vores forslag om at bruge den Eurasiske Landbro som hjørnesten for en ny verdensøkonomisk orden, og på det tidspunkt erklærede Kina, at den Eurasiske Landbro skulle være det strategiske mål inden år 2010. Men så kom naturligvis krisen i Asien i ’97. I ’98 kom den russiske statsbankerot, og disse lande – de asiatiske lande – blev tvunget til at udvikle et alternativ for at forsvare sig selv. Og siden da har der udviklet sig en hel række organisationer: BRICS, Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Global South; og Schiller Instituttet fortsatte med at afholde konferencer med forslag om, at den Eurasiske Landbro skulle blive til en ‘Verdenslandbro’, der forbinder alle fem kontinenter.

I 2013 i Kasakhstan annoncerede præsident Xi Jinping så den Nye Silkevej. Og i de forløbne seks år siden da, er dette blevet det største infrastrukturprojekt nogensinde i historien. Det har allerede fået tilslutning fra 157 nationer og 30 store internationale organisationer. De har skabt et nyt paradigme, der er baseret på respekten for national suverænitet og ikke-indblanding i de andres landes sociale system. Det er en model for samarbejde, som ifølge præsident Xi Jinping er åben for samarbejde med enhver nation på planeten.

Når man ser rundt omkring på kloden er der demonstrationer i mange lande, mange af dem er større end ‘mandags-demonstrationerne’ i DDR. i ’89, og nogle af dem er ikke så fredelige som de var. Vi konfronteres også med eksistentielle farer: Det udgår især fra narkokartellerne, hvis man betragter situationen i Mexico, eller hvis man ser på de overvejende Soros-sponsorerede farverevolutioner, såsom i Hongkong og andre destabiliseringer rundt om i verden. Det er i realiteten de samme kræfter, der står bag kuppet mod præsident Donald Trump, siden 2016. Men der er også en modbevægelse. Den kriminelle efterforskning af kupmagerne mod Trump ledes af justitsminister William Barr.

Så 30 år efter murens fald er vi præcist på det punkt, som jeg har påpeget i mange taler, at hvis man påtvinger det liberale system, så vil man få et langt større sammenbrud, og det er præcis, hvad vi ser i dag. Men vi har også den nye konstellation med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet og præsident Trump, som mange gange har sagt, og bevist gennem sine handlinger, at han ønsker at forbedre forholdet til Rusland og Kina. Så faktisk oplever vi lige nu den store chance igen i 2019, men hvad der [nu] må ske, for at tage ved lære af hvad der gik galt for 30 år siden, er, at de fire [stor-]magter – USA, Rusland, Kina og Indien – skal gennemføre Lyndon LaRouches recept:

– Vi skal have en global Glass-Steagall, adskillelse af bankerne. Kasinoøkonomien må slutte, og dette bør ske inden sammenbruddet for alvor kaster verden ud i kaos.
– Derefter har vi i brug for en nationalbank efter Alexander Hamiltons principper i ethvert land.
– Der er brug for en ny Bretton Woods-aftale, et nyt kreditsystem til at finansiere internationale projekter under Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.
– Og vi er nødt til at have en forøgelse af produktiviteten i økonomierne gennem et fælles lynprogram til realisering af fusionskraft, samt internationalt samarbejde om rumfart og -forskning.

Nu må disse lande – de fire stormagter – gå sammen med andre lande om den økonomiske genopbygning af Sydvestasien, som er blevet ødelagt af disse interventionskrige; og vi har brug for industrialiseringen af Afrika, fordi dette er den store udfordring for hele menneskeheden. Vi må få bugt med geopolitik, og vi må samtykke i hvad præsident Xi Jinping har foreslået igennem mange år: Et fællesskab for hele menneskehedens fremtid.

Dette skal dog kombineres med en renæssance af klassisk kultur, og det er derfor at Schiller Instituttets rolle og ideerne fra Friedrich Schiller er så absolut uundværlige. Det var principielt for Schiller Instituttet, da det blev grundlagt i 1984, at en ny økonomisk verdensorden i virkeligheden kun kan lykkes, hvis den kombineres med en klassisk renæssance. Vi har brug for en dialog mellem de bedste traditioner indenfor alle kulturer, og for europæisk civilisation betyder det, at det smukke menneskebillede, som det blev udtrykt af Friedrich Schiller, og som det blev fejret af Beethoven i ‘Ode til Glæden’ i den niende symfoni, må blive grundlaget for vores uddannelsessystem og vores sociale liv. Fordi hvert menneske, ifølge Schiller, har potentialet til at blive en smuk sjæl, og hans definition af dette er, at ethvert menneske potentielt kan blive et geni. Han har en idé om, at ethvert menneske har en ubegrænset evne til selvforbedring, intellektuelt og moralsk.

Så hvis man ser på det, har den liberale model ikke bare fejlet økonomisk, men også kulturelt. Hvis man ser på narkotikaepidemien, for eksempel i USA, grimheden i ungdomskulturerne, volden i den såkaldte ”underholdning”, skoleskyderier og lignende ting, er det meget, meget tydeligt, at hvis Vesten ønsker at overleve, er der brug for en æstetisk uddannelse. Præsident Xi Jinping har sagt ved mange lejligheder, hvor vigtig han betragter den æstetiske uddannelse, fordi den fører til et smukt sind og en smuk sjæl, og det er kilden til skabelsen af store kunstværker.

Så, I USA og Europa må vi til at genskabe de bedste traditioner for humanisme og klassisk kunst; i traditionen fra den italienske renæssance, de tyske klassikere, musikken fra Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Verdi og andre. Dette er ikke en mulighed: Det er en nødvendighed. Civilisationer er forsvundet, og hvis man går til museerne, er de fulde af eksempler på nationer, kulturer og civilisationer, som moralsk var for anløbne til at klare sig. Europa og USA kunne muligvis helt forsvinde! Og dette siger jeg ikke som en pessimistisk prognose, men som et incitament for os til at ændre vores vaner og antagelser. Vi er nødt til at genskabe vores civilisation baseret på de høje idealer fra de store digtere, som Schiller, hvis 260 års fødselsdag vi fejrer i dag.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 21. november 2019:
Regimeskifte og modkup verden rundt.
Schiller Instituttets konference sætter LaRouche på dagsordenen.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

 




Alle fire paneller: Schiller Instituttets konference i Tyskland forener folk med god vilje til
at skabe et nyt paradigme

Panel 2:

Panel 3:

Panel 4:

Den 17. nov. (EIRNS) – To begivenheder i den forgangne uge demonstrerer de to modsatrettede fremtider, som menneskeheden står overfor i dag. I Washington er den skandaløse og selvklart svigagtige rigsretsundersøgelse, der ledes af demokraterne og de korrupte efterretningsfolk og embedsmænd, som sidder tilbage efter George Bush’ og Barack Obamas mislykkede præsidentskaber – alt imens de keder de fleste amerikanere, ude af stand til så meget som at nævne hvilken forbrydelse der undersøges – ikke desto mindre en farlig fortsættelse af kupforsøget mod USA’s præsident; et kupforsøg, der hidrører fra den britiske efterretningstjeneste og deres nynazistiske allierede i den tidligere ukrainske regering. Med mindre dette kup afværges, vil det så godt som givet føre til verdenskrig på kort sigt. Samtidigt afholdtes Schiller Instituttets internationale konference med deltagelse af over 300 ”nationale patrioter og verdensborgere” (som Schiller definerede ægte statsborgerskab). Under titlen: “The Future of Humanity as a Creative Species in the Universe” (Menneskets Fremtid som Kreativ Art i Universet) var konferencen viet til mindet om Lyndon LaRouches levende ideer. Alt imens hovedtalen blev holdt af grundlægger og præsident for Schiller Instituttet, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, inkluderede rækken af talere:

* Wang Weidong, ministerrådgiver, direktør for handels- og handelsafdelingen ved den kinesiske ambassade i Tyskland, om ”Potentialet for den Nye Silkevej for Europa”;

* Natalia Vitrenko, doktor i økonomisk videnskab, leder af det progressive socialistiske parti i Ukraine, tidligere parlamentsmedlem, Ukraine, om “LaRouches Videnskab om Fysisk Økonomi som nøglen til at løse verdens problemer, Eurasien og Ukraine”;

* Professor Andrei Ostrovskii, vicedirektør for Institut for Fjernøsten Studier ved Det Russiske Videnskabelige Akademi, om “Rusland i det kinesiske Bælte-og Vejinitiativ: Muligheder og udsigter”;

* Jozef Miklosko, tidligere vicepremierminister i Tjekkoslovakiet, om “LaRouche og videnskab”;

* Theo Mitchell, tidligere delstatssenator i South Carolina, om LaRouche, “manden, der skulle have været præsident for De Forenede Stater”;

* Nino Galloni, tidligere generaldirektør for budget- og arbejdsministerierne, Italien, om “Fædreland, nation og stat som set af progressive katolikker og af Lyndon LaRouche.”

Der blev endvidere holdt taler af andre medlemmer og venner af Schiller Instituttet fra U.S.A. Grækenland, Frankrig, Irak og Libanon. En koncert med musik af Beethoven, Schumann og Schubert blev afholdt på den første aften af todages begivenheden; koncerten var viet til mindet om Lyndon LaRouche.

Fru Zepp-LaRouche indfangede i hendes bemærkninger de afgørende aspekter af hendes afdøde mands ideer, der er nødvendige for, at nutidens ”verdensborgere” kan overvinde den permanente krigsførelse, kulturelle nedbrydning og det endelige sammenbrud af verdens finansielle system, som vi nu står overfor, og skabe et nyt paradigme baseret på en global renæssance af kunstnerisk og videnskabelig kreativitet:

”Det er absolut enestående for LaRouche, at han demonstrerer overgangen mellem relativistisk fysik og kreativiteten i det menneskelige sind som sådan, og forbindelsen mellem dette domæne og klassiske former for kunst og statsmandskunst. Lyn leverede rigeligt bevis for, at det alene er gennem klassiske former for poesi, drama og musik, at de åndsevner, der er i stand til at skabe gyldige hypoteser og nye indsigter i universets lovmæssighed, kan udvikles. Og hvorfor det er i musik, poesi og drama at de samme kampe mod reduktionistiske og deduktionistiske forestillinger må udkæmpes, og hvorfor kvaliteten af metafor, ironi og Furtwänglers idé om at spille mellem noderne er så afgørende for at hæve sindet til denne højere riemannske tankemåde. Hermed følger opøvelsen af følelserne væk fra det sanselige og profane område, til niveauet for lidenskabelig kærlighed til menneskeheden (agape). Den oligarkiske samfundsmodel og dets menneskesyn reducerer individet til en skabning af hedonistiske ønsker og begær, hvilket gør det let manipulerbart og modtageligt for rollen som ‘undersåt’ for Thrasymachos’ lov og orden’. Det er den kognitive oplevelse forbundet med klassiske former for komposition, der frigør individet ved at appellere til sindets skønhed og frigøre den form for ”agapisk” kærlighed til menneskeheden, som er nødvendig for at vælge det Nye Paradigme for menneskeheden, der kan sætte en stopper for den privilegerede klasses snæversynede og onde stræben efter påståede geopolitiske interesser på bekostning af de lavere klasser”.

Program for Schiller Instituttets Europæiske Konference d. 16.-17. november

Menneskehedens Fremtid som Kreativ Art i Universet

Lørdag d. 16. november

Panel 1: I en tid med strategiske omvæltninger: Vil Europa være i stand til at hjælpe med udformningen af det ’nye paradigme’?

 

* Vi kan forme en ny æra for menneskeheden!: Helga Zepp-LaRouche, formand for Schiller Instituttet

* Potentialet for den Nye Silkevej for Europa: Wang Weidong, ministerrådgiver, direktør for ‘handelsdepartementet’ ved den kinesiske ambassade i Tyskland

* LaRouches videnskab om fysisk økonomi som nøglen til at løse verdens problemer, Eurasien og Ukraine: Natalia Vitrenko, doktor i økonomisk videnskab, leder af det Progressive socialistiske Parti i Ukraine, tidligere parlamentsmedlem, Ukraine

* Ruslands deltagelse i det kinesiske “Ét Bælte Én Vej”-initiativ: Muligheder og fremtidsudsigter: Professor Andrei Ostrovskii, viceadministrerende direktør for Institut for Fjernøstenstudier ved Det Russiske Videnskabelige Akademi

* Broforbindelserne mellem Italien-Tunesien og Italien-Albanien: Forbindelsen af Bælte- og Vejkorridorerne: Prof. Enzo Siviero, direktør, E-Campus Universitet, Italien; Næstformand i Réseau Méditerranéen des Ecoles d’Ingénieurs (Netværk af Ingeniører i Middelhavsområdet)

* Udvikling af forbindelserne mellem Grækenland og ‘Bæltet og Vejen’: Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos, ambassadør, Grækenland, tidligere generalsekretær for Sortehavets Økonomiske Samarbejdsorganisation

* Pragmatisme versus ideologier: Alain Corvez, konsulent i international strategi, Frankrig

 

Panel 2: De grundlæggende videnskabelige spørgsmål vedrørende fremtiden og den ‘Nye Silkevej i rummet’

 

* Kan Europa spille en nøglerolle indenfor videnskaben: Jacques Cheminade, præsident for Solidarité et Progrès, tidligere [fransk] præsidentkandidat

* Månebyen: Næste skridt mod en ny æra for menneskeheden: Sébastien Drochon, formand for rumpolitik, det franske Schiller Institut

* LaRouches opdagelser: Uddannelse af en ny generation: Megan Beets og Jason Ross, Lyndon LaRouches “kælder-team”

* Til forsvar for afrikansk suverænitet: Diogène Senny, præsident for den Panafrikanske ‘Umoja’-Liga

 

Klassisk koncert: en hyldest til Lyndon LaRouche med værker af Beethoven, Schubert og Schumann

 

Søndag d. 17. november

 

Panel 3: Hvem er Lyndon LaRouche?

 

* Fornuftens magt: Den levende arv efter Lyndon LaRouche: Dennis Small, koordinator for Latinamerika ved Schiller Instituttet

* LaRouche og videnskab: Josef Miklosko, tidligere vicepremierminister i Tjekkoslovakiet

* Manden der skulle have været USA’s præsident: Theo Mitchell, tidligere statssenator i South Carolina

* ‘Fædreland, nation og stat’ som set af progressive katolikker og af Lyndon LaRouche: Nino Galloni, tidligere generaldirektør for budget- og arbejdsministerierne, Italien

* LaRouche, betydningen af Lyndon LaRouches ideer for den arabiske verden: Hussein Askary, Sydvestasien-koordinator for det Internationale Schiller Institut

* LaRouche, et “florentinsk” sindelag: Claudio Giudici, formand, Uritaxi (Nationale Taxi Fagforening), Firenze, Italien

* Lyndon LaRouches kamp for fred og udvikling i Libanon og Mellemøsten: Bassam El-Hachem, professor ved det libanesiske universitet, Beirut, Libanon

* Hvor er Amerika på vej hen? LaRouches løsninger som vejen ud af kaos: Harley Schlanger, tidligere talsmand for Lyndon LaRouche, bestyrelsesmedlem i Schiller Instituttet

 

Panel 4: Skønhed og klassisk kunst som et ‘kald’ for menneskeheden: Den kulturelle silkevej

 

* Nødvendigheden af en klassisk renæssance for ungdommen: Diane Sare, direktør for Manhattan Kor-projektet

* LaRouche og harmonien mellem kunst og videnskab: Antonella Banaudi, Sopran og sanglærer, ekspert i Verdis kammertone

* Sand frihed gennem ægte kunst: ‘Negro Spirituals’ enestående bidrag til klassisk boglig dannelse i Amerika: Elvira Green, mezzosopran, 30-årigt medlem af Metropolitan Opera, grundlægger af Spirituel Renaissance Sangere i Greensboro/North Carolina, USA

 




At drage læren af den forspildte chance i 1989 – denne gang kan det blive anderledes
Schiller Instituttets ugentlige webcast med Helga Zepp-LaRouche den 10 november 2019

Hvad var det i virkeligheden der skete i 1989, da Berlinmuren faldt, og hvad kan vi lære af at undersøge begivenhederne i denne historiske periode? Ved en gennemgang af hvad der rent faktisk skete for tredive år siden, da Berlinmuren blev revet ned, i modsætning til den officielle fortælling fremsat af de neoliberale og geopolitikerne, taler Helga Zepp LaRouche lidenskabeligt for, hvorfor det vil være anderledes denne gang. Chancen for verdenshistoriske forandringer findes kun kortvarigt, men denne gang, siger hun, er lejligheden gunstigere. I modsætning til 1989, hvor alene kræfter, der var tilknyttet hendes mand, Lyndon LaRouche, og Schiller Instituttet, havde en strategisk plan, er der i dag Bælte- og Vejinitiativet og en voksende erkendelse af, at der kommer et nyt [finansielt] krak, og at det vil være dødbringende at holde fast ved det gamle paradigme, der blev påtvunget [verden] af det britiske imperium.

Hun præsenterer de afgørende spørgsmål fra 1989, som en der selv deltog i dem, og forklarer hvordan det britiske imperium overlevede dengang ved hjælp af mord, trusler og korruption, herunder fængslingen af hendes mand.  Men det nye paradigme der dukker op globalt, udformet på basis af LaRouches ideer, ses i stigende grad som den eneste levedygtige mulighed i dag, hvor faren for et nyt krak er øget. De, der forsvarer den gamle orden i Europa og USA, bliver i stigende grad afsløret, idet efterforskningen af Russiagates oprindelse dagligt frembringer flere beviser.

Nu er tiden inde til at læse Schillers værker, sagde hun, for at blive opmærksom på potentialet for hvert menneske – inklusive dig selv! – til at blive en smuk sjæl, og bruge denne opdagelse til at blive en kraft til at skabe historie, og sikre at menneskeheden ikke går glip af denne mulighed.

 

 

 

 




NYHEDSORIENTERING SPECIELRAPPORT OKTOBER 2019:
Økonomiske principper for et nyt paradigme:
Lyndon LaRouches opdagelser

Download (PDF, Unknown)




For en økonomisk renæssance for menneskeheden
og renselse af Lyndon LaRouches navn.     

Erklæring fra Schiller Instituttet formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, vedrørende de internationale aktionsdage 10.-15. oktober 2019

Forestil jer: Verdens ende indtræffer, men der møder ingen op! Forestil jer at teenager-klimaidolet Greta Thunberg, og alle central- og investeringsbankfolkene, hedgefonde og spekulanter, der er euforiske over den angivelige vished for at planeten vil koge over inden for 18 måneder (ifølge Prince Charles) – mens sidstnævnte er ekstatiske over astronomiske profitter, som de tror kan opnås ved ”grønne finanser”. Men så, ikke desto mindre, fortsætter verden – trods forskellige udsving i klimaet – simpelthen med at eksistere!

Denne variation af fredsbevægelsens gamle slogan: ”Antag at der er krig, men at der ikke kommer nogen”, er nyttig for at understrege den pointe, at en ideologi kun indvirker på virkeligheden, hvis størstedelen af befolkningen tror på den.

Der er ingen klimakrise. Klimadata for de sidste 500 millioner år viser, at Jordens klima har varieret kontinuerligt med en konstant vekslen mellem varme og kolde perioder. (Den sidste af disse kolde perioder sluttede først i 1850 med den ‘Lille Istid’.) Dagens klimaalarmister kan ikke basere sig på videnskabeligt beviselige fakta, men bruger klimamodeller, hvis forudsigelser allerede har vist sig at være overdrevne. Fejlen i disse modeller understreger det faktum, at klimaet er en meget kompleks størrelse, som straks må bringes tilbage på et videnskabeligt grundlag. Mens menneskeskabte aktiviteter har en begrænset effekt på klimaet, er det som IPCC gør – nemlig at ignorere den dybe indvirkning af processer i solen og i vores galakse – højdepunktet af videnskabelig inkompetence!

Dæmoniseringen af CO₂ og det resulterende mål om af-karbonisering af verdensøkonomien er lige så rationelt som at brænde hekse på bålet som et middel mod sygdom. CO₂ er ikke et forurenende stof, men er en uundværlig betingelse for livet på jorden, og især for trivslen af planter og landbrug som grundlag for menneskets eksistens. Den virkelige krisesituation er af-karboniseringen af den globale økonomi, hvilket den finansielle sektor presser på med, og som vil føre til et sammenbrud af de industrialiserede lande, ødelæggelse af udviklingslandene og massiv, global befolkningsreduktion – dvs. folkedrab.

Klimahysteriet, der er iscenesat af den finansielle sektor og de etablerede medier, er den største propagandistiske manipulation af befolkningen nogensinde; en manipulation der har fungeret så effektivt, at den nazistiske propagandamester Josef Goebbels ville have opgivet sit job på grund af sin relative fiasko i forhold hertil. Det egentlige spørgsmål der står på spil er ganske anderledes: Det neoliberale finanssystem er absolut færdigt. Årsagerne til nedbruddet i 2008 er langt fra blevet løst, men er i stedet blevet forstørret gennem elleve år med kvantitative lempelser, og renter der er sat til nul eller endda under. Hvilke planer har det finansielle oligarki? Ifølge et papir, der for nylig blev fremlagt af BlackRock på Jackson Holes årlige bankmøde, skulle centralbankerne gennemføre et “regimeskifte”, hvor centralbanker, der forbliver “uafhængige”, udsteder store mængder penge og giver dem direkte til regeringer, som kun vil bruge dem i henhold til centralbankernes direktiver. Det er samme princip, som Hitlers finansminister Hjalmar Schacht brugte til at finansiere den militære opbygning på det tidspunkt – men denne gang skal alle de penge der er skabt bruges til at gøre verdensøkonomien ”grøn”.

For de fleste mennesker der er indfanget af den neoliberale ideologi, iscenesat af de etablerede medier, er det meget svært at forestille sig, at hele grundlaget for dette system er forkert. Men denne ideologi involverer ikke kun det “regimeskifte”, der er planlagt af centralbankfolkene, men også et “regimeskifte” mod den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump, såvel som imod Rusland og Kina, som det ses i “farverevolutionen”, der nu bliver anstiftet i Hongkong. Og det inkluderer også ideen om, at det er helt normalt, at et lille lag af rige mennesker bliver stadig rigere, mens flertallet bliver stadig fattigere; at Afrika skal forblive underudviklet for evigt; at hvert menneske under alle omstændigheder er en parasit, der forurener miljøet; og at grænserne for vækst er nået. Og lad os ikke glemme de liberale ideer om, at “alting går an,” og at enhver mening er lige så god som enhver anden.

Men set ud fra universets love og menneskehedens evolution, som de er bestemmende for, er disse aksiomer lige så forkerte som de fleste af antagelserne fra middelalderen, såsom skolastik, hekseri eller flagellantisme.

Hvis vi skal slippe ud af den nuværende voksende krise, hvor alt ser ud til at løbe ud af kontrol, er vi nødt til at ændre hele vores tankegang. Vi er nødt til at finde et referencepunkt, hvorfra vi kan vurdere alle vores antagelser om menneskeheden og universet vi bebor, og undersøge deres gyldighed. Dette referencepunkt er rumforskning og rumfart.

Bemandet rumfart er det sejrende bevis for, at Leibniz havde ret i at hævde, at vi lever i den bedste af alle verdener. Naturligvis ikke i den forstand, som den kyniske Voltaire – på sin vis den tids Sir David Attenborough – angreb Leibniz’ optimistiske billede af mennesket, men i den forstand at det viser, at menneskeheden er den eneste (hidtil kendte) kreative art, der gennem opdagelsen af stadigt nye principper for det fysiske univers kan skabe grundlaget for at overvinde alle grænser.

Som Lyndon LaRouche demonstrerede i sin banebrydende bog ‘Der er ingen grænser for vækst’, (PDF) og i hele sit livs arbejde, er det de originale opdagelser af stadigt mere komplekse eksperimentelt beviselige principper for universet, der giver grundlaget for helt nye økonomiske platforme, som kan skabe midlerne til at opretholde bedre brødfødte, længere levende og bedre uddannede mennesker. På den måde er vækstbegrebet ikke så simpelt som nogle fjolser, såsom Malthus, forestiller sig; fjolser, der tænker i baner af en kausal verden indskrænket af en euklidisk aritmetik eller geometrisk multiplikation; men snarere svarende til en mangfoldigt forbundet riemannsk manifold, der udfolder sig til højere ordener, der ikke kan forstås med udgangspunkt i de lavere. Kreativ fornuft kan, som det mest udviklede element i universet, skabe nye singulariteter, der igen kan øge graden af menneskelig effektivitet i universet ud over alle grænser.

De bedste eksempler på dette er den forventede beherskelse af termonuklear fusion – hvor mennesket efterligner fusionsprocessen i Solen og derved producerer ubegrænsede mængder af energi og reserver af råmaterialer – og bekræftelsen af Albert Einsteins generelle relativitetsteori, som det for nyligt blev gjort med bekræftelsen af gravitationsbølger og billedoptagelser af sorte huller; sorte huller, som befinder sig i centrum af hver af de to billioner galakser, som Hubble-teleskopet indtil videre har været i stand til at opdage.

Den nye måde at tænke på må afvise bankfolks pseudo-religioner, etablerede medier og klima-apostle, og erstatte dem med en videnskabelig debat om eksperimentelt beviselige fakta. Artemis-programmet, der er vedtaget af præsident Trump, og som vil bringe folk tilbage til Månen i 2024 og etablere en permanent station i 2028, er lovende i så henseende, og ligeledes rumprogrammerne i Kina, Indien, Rusland og Det Europæiske Rumfartsagentur. I øvrigt viser Kinas enestående økonomiske succes og dynamikken i ‘Den Nye Silkevej’, at fokuseringen på videnskabelig innovation er mere gavnligt for de involverede lande end det neoliberale systems fokusering på profit.

Hvis det er muligt at bringe Europa og USA ind i et samarbejde med det kinesiske Bælte- og Vejinitiativ og, for USA’s vedkommende, i et samarbejde med Kina om rumfart, vil menneskeheden ikke befinde sig på randen af en klima-apokalypse, men snarere i begyndelsen af en ny æra, hvor menneskets iboende evne til fornuft frit kan udvikle sig, og vi i en vis forstand kan overgå til voksenlivet for vores art. Vi vil udforme en mere menneskelig tidsalder, og demonstrere at denne verden faktisk er den bedste af alle mulige verdener, fordi der potentielt findes et geni i ethvert menneske, og graderne af frihed i udviklingen af vores art vil stige uden begrænsning til i et omfang, hvor flere [og flere] mennesker kan realisere dette potentiale i sig selv.

Det uomgængelige skridt for at opnå denne nye tankegang er den fuldstændige renselse af Lyndon LaRouche, der blev forfulgt og fængslet i 1980’erne og 1990’erne af det Britiske Imperiums onde og desperate storinkvisitorer i deres forsøg på at blokere adgangen til hans ideer.

Vi har brug for de dristige og optimistiske visioner af tænkere som Leibniz, Schiller, Einstein, Krafft Ehricke og Lyndon LaRouche, fordi den kulturelle pessimisme fra Malthus, Nietzsche og Spengler fører til fascisme og krig, mens positive ideer om menneskeheden fører til nye renæssancer og blomstrende perioder i historien. Det er op til os alle, hvilken retning vi tager!




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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

Læs også afskriftet (på engelsk) nedenunder.

Trailer:

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

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

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

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

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

Afskrift på engelsk:

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

The Case for the Exoneration of Lyndon LaRouche 

June 21, 2019 

 

[music] 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

[from Oct. 6, 1986] 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

Thank you. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Dear Attorney General Reno, 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The [inaudible 54:09] rocket docket. 

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

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

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

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

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

 

MANN:  The session will come to order. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that was essentially our commitment as an association. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

MANN:  Thank you. 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[closing music] 

 




Trump forsvarer præsidentskab mod de britiske kræfter

Den 17. juni (EIRNS) – Den forbløffende offentlige erklæring fra New York Times i sidste uge, i ledtog med den nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, John Bolton, om at USA’s militære Cyber Command udførte cyberkrig mod den russiske stat, bag præsident Donald Trumps ryg, har afsløret forsøget fra britiske kræfter i USA på at skabe en virtuel todelt magtsituation, med det formål at undergrave enhver form for indsats fra præsidenten for at etablere venlige og arbejdsmæssige forbindelser med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin. Dette kommer bare få dage før det planlagte møde mellem Putin og Trump på G20-mødet i Japan den 28.-29. juni.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche, har i dag i diskussion med de amerikanske medlemmer af LaRouche-bevægelsen sammenlignet dette med krigspartiets indsats for at skjule sandheden for præsident Kennedy om det fulde omfang af den planlagte invasion af Cuba gennem Svinebugten – en handling der let kunne have fremprovokeret en 3. verdenskrig, hvis Kennedy ikke havde grebet ind for at forhindre et luftangreb. Hun tilføjede, at dette er et andet aspekt af den britiske indsats gennem NATO for at fremprovokere en konfrontation med Rusland langs den russiske grænse i Europa. Der er krig i luften, med Irans konfrontation som endnu et klart tilfælde af falske nyheder målrettet til at retfærdiggøre en krig, ligesom med bedrageriet om masseødelæggelsesvåben af Tony Blair, der igangsatte Irak-krigen og det efterfølgende kaos i Mellemøsten.

G20-topmødet kan og skal være et vendepunkt for at vende denne nedstigning til global krig. Hvis Trump skal bryde med krigspartiet, der omgiver ham i hans regering og i Kongressen, må han bruge de møder på tomandshånd med Putin og Xi Jinping i Osaka som muligheden for at udvise sandt lederskab med udgangspunkt i menneskehedens fremtid på dagsordenen.
Det er netop dette, der var genstand for den historiske mindehøjtidelighed for Lyndon LaRouche den 8. juni på Manhattan. Hvad der er på spil i krisen i dag, er ikke kun en konflikt mellem konkurrerende nationer, men en konflikt mellem to paradigmer, der konfronterer menneskeheden som helhed – et imperium, der er underlagt det magtfulde finansielle oligarki, som har reduceret USA’s og Europas samfund til et levende helvede med omfattende narkotikamisbrug, kollapsende infrastruktur, “underholdning”, som ikke er andet end vold, bestialsk musik og seksuel perversion, og den forsætlige næring af racistisk had, som det nu er kommet frem i det fanatiske anti-Kina-hysteri.
Kun en chokeffekt som præsident Trump kunne udløse ved at erklære Lyndon LaRouche frifundet, kunne skabe betingelserne for den nødvendige faseændring i menneskets historie. Videoen, der udgives af LaRouchePAC på fredag i denne uge med titlen “LaRouche-sagen: Robert Muellers første lejemord”, vil formidle til alle amerikanere og borgere i verden, at den kombination af kræfter, der står over for præsident Trump i dag, er præcis de samme kræfter, som udførte dæmoniseringen og fængslingen af Lyndon LaRouche for 30 år siden, anført af Robert Mueller både dengang og nu.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche har sammenlignet det nuværende vendepunkt i historien med det 15. århundrede, da genopdagelsen af Platons skrifter kombineret med indsigter og opdagelser af Nicholas Cusanus gav anstød til den Europæiske Renæssance, og derefter det 17. århundredes skabelse af begrebet om den suveræne nationalstat ved den Westfalske Fred i 1648, baseret på princippet om respekt for de øvrige suveræne nationers interesser. Dette skete først efter 150 års religiøs krigsførelse, som ødelagde Europa, ligesom det 20. århundredes krige og krigene for regimeskifte i det nye århundrede har truet menneskeheden som helhed. Vi er meget tæt på den globale krig, og dog, hvis folk tog deres rolle alvorligt som kreative mennesker, ikke kun sanselige dyr, er vi lige så tæt på et nyt paradigme for alle folkeslag, der er baseret på udviklingen af hele menneskeheden, som det fremgår af forvandlingen af Kina i løbet af de sidste 40 år, der stort set har udryddet fattigdom som et levn fra fortiden, og formidlet denne ide til de tidligere koloninationer over hele kloden. Trump kan gøre en ende på krigspartiet og det forfejlede, afslørede kupforsøg, ved at bringe USA ind i ånden fra Den Nye Silkevej med Kina og Rusland på G20-topmødet i slutningen af denne måned. At frifinde LaRouche, ligesom indførelsen af Platons ideer i et Europa, der var fanget i permanent krigsførelse i det 15. århundrede, er midlet hertil.

 




Briternes G20-‘krigsdiplomati’ går i højt gear

Den 18. juni (EIRNS) – Det Britiske Imperium er fast besluttet på at forhindre præsident Donald Trump i at sætte sig ned sammen med Ruslands Vladimir Putin, Kinas Xi Jinping og Indiens Narendra Modi på det kommende G20-topmøde d. 28.-29. juni i Osaka, Japan, for at tage fat på planetens største problemer i en samarbejdsvillig ånd. De frygter, at en helt ny økonomisk verdensorden hurtigt kunne blive resultatet af et sådant samarbejde og dermed bringe deres imperium til dets velfortjente fald.

For at forhindre dette er briterne og deres allierede i Washington ude efter at slippe krig løs i Mellemøsten, at foretage massive cyber-angreb mod Ruslands infrastruktur, at føre økonomisk krig mod Kina og at udføre et de facto kup mod præsident Trump, for at få frie hænder til at føre denne politik ud i livet. Som følge heraf er faren for en optrapning til egentlig atomkrig mellem USA og Rusland og Kina større end på noget tidspunkt siden den cubanske missilkrise i 1962.

Putin har advaret om, at “hvis vi ikke holder denne ‘ildsprudende drage’ under kontrol, hvis vi lader den ‘slippe ud af sækken’ – Gud forbyde det – kan dette føre til en global katastrofe.” Hans diplomater gentager substansen af disse bemærkninger næsten dagligt. Kinas statsråd og udenrigsminister Wang Yi har advaret USA om “ikke at åbne Pandoras æske” med dets eskalerende provokationer omkring Iran.

På trods af denne farlige udvikling indledte præsident Trump den 18. juni en telefonsamtale med præsident Xi, og meddelte senere at de to ledere ville have et “udvidet møde” på sidelinjen af G20-topmødet. Xi sagde omvendt, at han var parat til at “udveksle synspunkter om grundlæggende spørgsmål vedrørende udviklingen af forholdet mellem Kina og USA.” Hvad angår et muligt møde mellem Trump og Putin, er der endnu ikke aftalt noget i så henseende.

Bekræftelsen af mødet mellem Trump og Xi er et opmuntrende skridt, men alene god vilje er ikke tilstrækkeligt til faktisk at finde en løsning på den nedbrydende krise, der gennemsyrer hele det transatlantiske finansielle og politiske system. Det kræver et skift til et helt nyt paradigme med hensyn til økonomi, politiske relationer, til selve tænkningen – en ny renæssance af den slags der i princippet findes i Lyndon LaRouches liv og værk.

Med denne vision klart i fokus og med den påtrængende nødvendighed af den strategiske krise, der er over os, vil LaRouche-bevægelsen nu på fredag den 21. juni vise to videoer om Lyndon LaRouche, den første er en rystende dokumentar om hans retssag og fængsling; den anden om mindehøjtideligheden den 8. juni: “The Triumph of Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.” – videoer, der sammen råber på LaRouches fulde frifindelse, således at hans ideer kan tages op af præsidentskabet i USA, og af hele verden i denne øjeblikkelige eksistentielle krise.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom til kernen i sagen i en kort videoindspillet besked, som hun sendte til Forum for Bælte- og Vejinitiativet den 16. juni, en video der var sponsoreret af Schiller Instituttet og Folkerepublikken Kinas Konsulat i Los Angeles, og som omfattede det følgende:

“Det vi ønsker at anspore til er, at et helt kor af lande over hele verden skulle udsende det samme budskab: Vi vil samarbejde med Bælte- og Vejinitiativet, men vi insisterer kraftigt på, at USA skal være en del af det. Fordi jeg mener, at der ellers ikke kan findes en løsning på verdens presserende problemer, og der er mange presserende problemer, ikke kun handelskrigen mellem USA og Kina, der har gjort folk meget foruroligede i Kina, men også, som præsident Putin påpegede på det seneste Internationale Økonomiske Forum i St. Petersborg, at modellen for globalisering i dag forværres.

“Vi håber derfor, at præsidenterne for USA, Rusland, Kina og Indiens premierminister på det kommende G20-møde i Osaka senere denne måned vil beslutte at gennemføre et nyt kreditsystem, et Nyt Bretton Woods-system, fordi det er presserende nødvendigt at undgå faren for et kommende sammenbrud af det vestlige finanssystem. Hvis det ville ske, kunne andre lande deltage.

“Og jeg mener, at vi befinder os i en sådan historisk epoke, hvor vi virkelig ser udviklingen af et helt nyt potentiale for civilisationen. Vi bør se på, hvor menneskeheden skal være om 100 år fra nu af. Jeg tror, at hvis vi fokuserer på det og menneskehedens fælles mål, så kan præsident Xi Jinpings smukke vision om at have et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid blive en realitet.”

 




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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: 2. del:

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

Lyd:

 




Pres for Lyndon LaRouches frifindelse er alternativet til krig og økonomisk sammenbrud

Den 19. juni (EIRNS) – En stor del af verden frygter nu en anden katastrofal amerikansk krig i Sydvestasien – den amerikanske offentlighed og militæret er begge stærkt imod enhver yderligere krig der – og den russiske præsident har netop sagt, at de amerikansk-russiske forbindelser “forværres time for time”. Det blev meget farligere i løbet af weekenden, da New York Times blev brugt af en “anden magt” i Det Hvide Hus til offentligt at give udtryk for, at USA’s cybercommand plantede cybervåben i det russiske elnet uden præsident Donald Trumps viden eller godkendelse. “Virtuelt forræderi”, kaldte præsidenten det. Som prof. Stephen Cohen fra den Amerikanske Komité for Øst-Vest Anliggender har gjort det klart i en analyse i The Nation i dag, truer en ny cubansk missilkrise, hvor krigsprovokationer, der implicerer Rusland, bliver ledet af amerikansk militær eller andre embedsmænd uden præsidentens vidende eller samtykke.

Hvorfor gøre det offentligt, som John Bolton og det nationale sikkerhedsråd samarbejdede med New York Times om at gøre? Præsidenten kan derved ikke imødegå disse provokationer eller endog diskutere dem med den russiske præsident uden at blive anklaget for at kapitulere af sine politiske fjender. Og i præsident Donald Trumps tilfælde er disse fjenders centrale kommando blevet afsløret i “Russiagate”, som britisk efterretningstjeneste. De har den tydelige politik at fabrikere anklager om “samarbejdet” med Putin, for at tvinge Trump ud af embedet eller i krig. Hvorfor gøre det nu? For at umuliggøre et meningsfuldt Trump-Putin-møde på G20-konferencen.

Det mest afgørende forhold mellem USA og Kina, som præsident Trump klart har ønsket skal dreje sig om strategisk samarbejde og økonomiske fremskridt, har et drastisk behov for forbedringer fra en handelskrigstilstand. Og Indien er blevet ramt af amerikanske sanktioner rettet mod Iran og Huawei, og har gjort gengæld med told. Men præsidenten roste atter på det kraftigste præsident Xi Jinping på sit kampagnemøde tirsdag aften, selv om han insisterende på, at Kina havde udnyttet Amerika økonomisk.
Disse er lederne – præsidenterne Xi og Putin og den indiske premierminister Modi – som præsident Trump skal mødes produktivt med på G20-mødet i Japan om lidt over en uge. Dette er chancen for fred og for amerikansk samarbejde med det nye Asien-centrerede paradigme, repræsenteret af Bælte- og Vejinitiativet.

Ellers står vi ikke kun over for en permanent krig, men også et nyt økonomisk sammenbrud.
Det er klart, at der er behov for en dramatisk indgriben fra den amerikanske befolknings side inden dette topmøde. Som vi fortalte Trump-tilhængerne ved Orlando-mødet, skal interventionen komme fra “Lyndon LaRouches USA”. Det var LaRouche, der gennem hele sit liv bekæmpede det Britiske Imperium, herunder den britiske efterretningstjeneste og London, som ingen anden modstander. Det var fra LaRouche, at infrastruktur-visionen om den “Eurasiske Landbro” og derefter “Verdens-Landbroen”, kom i 1990’erne, der har taget form som Kinas Bælte- og Vejinitiativ. Det var LaRouche, der kæmpede for et Amerika som kunne udstede kredit og fremstille værktøjsmaskiner til udvikling af de underudviklede lande, som FDR ønskede at gøre. Det var LaRouche, der, da USA forlod de bemandede missioner til Månen og Mars i 1970’erne, holdt ånden fra den amerikanske rumkolonisering i live i 40 år, idet han så den som en “videnskabelig drivkraft” og en uddannelsesmæssig ansporing for fremtiden.

Han blev latterliggjort af medierne for det sidste, retsforfulgt under Robert Muellers ledelse for alle hans andre værker. Hans frifindelse nu, der involverer præsident Trump, er en intervention der er brug for. Kun få begivenheder ville interessere resten af verden og på længere sigt påvirke USA. To videoer udgives på fredag den 21. juni om LaRouches liv og om kendsgerningerne, der afslører hans retsforfølgelse, den første af Schiller Instituttet, den anden af LaRouche PAC. Deres brede, brede cirkulation er afgørende. Situationen skal ændres.