Macron taler på vegne af Imperiet
– Hører Trump efter?

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 25. april, 2018 – Hvis man troede på, at præsident Trump accepterede den franske præsident Emmanuel Macrons fantasmer for den samlede amerikanske Kongres i dag, så ville man acceptere, at Trump skulle være rede til at underkaste nationen Det britiske Imperiums kollapsende, gamle paradigme. Macron, der tydeligvis talte for Imperiet (som franskmændene plejer at gøre) opførte sig, som om Trump havde aftalt med ham, at USA skulle forblive i Syrien som en besættelsesmagt; at Trump snart ville vende USA tilbage til den fascistiske, grønne Paris-aftale om afindustrialisering af verden for at »redde planeten«[1] og at, når Trump taler om »fake news«, mener han russerne.

Pardon, Monsieur, men det britiske kupforsøg mod vores præsident er endnu ikke lykkedes; faktisk er det i store vanskeligheder, med MI6-agent Christopher Steele og hans amerikanske medskyldige i Obamas efterretningssamfund og i Obamas Udenrigsministerium, der selv står over for retsforfølgelse for kriminelle handlinger. Medlem af Repræsentanternes Hus for Californien, Devin Nunes, har, med sit formandsskab for Husets Efterretningskomites efterforskning af anklagerne bag Russiagate-fupnummeret, fastslået, at »der ikke var nogen officiel efterretning, der blev brugt til at indlede denne efterforskning«. Det var snarere alt sammen britiske løgne, der blev bragt til torvs i massemedierne som »fake news« – som Trump korrekt har fremført og gentagent fordømt.

Monsieur Macron fik, desværre, en heltemodtagelse af de korrupte medlemmer af USA’s Kongres, der stod op og applauderede og højlydt jublede, da Macron sagde, at menneskeheden var i færd med at ødelægge denne planet; at CO2 ødelagde ethvert håb for vore børnebørn; at »der er ikke nogen Planet B«, og at »vi må arbejde sammen for at gøre planeten stor igen«. Prins Philip kunne ikke have sagt det mere diabolsk.

[1] Se Introduktion til EIR’s Rapport: »Skræmmekampagne om global opvarmning er befolkningsreduktion – ikke videnskab!« Inkl. oversigt og links til de artikler, der er oversat til dansk. En forhåndsvisning som pdf er tilgængelig.

Men Trump har hidtil ikke kapituleret over for dem, der truer ham, og som forlanger, at han opgiver sine løfter til det amerikanske folk, der skaffede ham valgsejren. Trump lægger skylden for »fake news« på USA’s og UK’s pressehorer, ikke Rusland. Han hævder, at udvikling er vigtigere end klimaforandringens falske videnskab. Han insisterer på, at USA må blive venner med Rusland. Han annoncerede ligeledes tirsdag, at han sender sit økonomiske team til Kina, hvor »vi har en virkelig god mulighed for at indgå en aftale« med Xi Jinping, som er »en fantastisk fyr og én af mine venner«.

Det er præcis dette, som briterne og deres aktiver i USA, såvel som i Frankrig, er desperate for at forhindre. Der er et potentiale for, at der i USA og Europa skabes en massebevægelse imod den imperiale krigspolitik, der drives frem af britiske løgne. Folk reflekterer nu over Tony Blairs eventyr for børn om masseødelæggelsesvåben i Irak, som lancerede de seneste 15 års blodbad og ødelæggelser i hele Mellemøsten, og som atter drev skabelsen af udstrakte terroristnetværk med grobund i de befolkninger, der var mål for denne destruktion, og ligeledes var det, der drev millioner af desperate flygtninge, som således bragte kaos i Europa. En tysk, parlamentarisk komite fastslog 20. april, at det britiskanstiftede missilangreb mod Syrien var »en overtrædelse af folkeretten«, selv om den ynkelige kansler Angela Merkel kaldte det for »nødvendigt og passende«. Verden må i sandhed sige »aldrig mere« til det britiske imperie-krigsparti.

Verden må ligeledes sige »ja« til den Nye Silkevej som det eneste alternativ til diktater fra ’the lords’ fra finanscentrene i City of London og Wall Street, som ikke vil sky noget middel for at redde deres bankerotte system for storstilet spekulation og ditto svindel. De er helt villige til at løbe risikoen for en global krig for at forhindre USA i at gå sammen med Kina og 140 andre nationer, der nu ser en vej ud af nedskæringer og krig gennem det Nye Paradigme, der udtrykkes gennem Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ. Den indiske premierminister Narendra Modi rejser til Kina i denne uge med den hensigt at bringe Indien ind i et samarbejde med Kina og Rusland i det globale udviklingsalternativ. Hvis præsident Trump bringer USA ind i et fuldt og helt samarbejde i den Nye Silkevej, ville dette komplettere »firemagtsalliancen«, som Lyndon LaRouche længe har promoveret som den kraft, der er nødvendig for at gøre en ende på Det britiske Imperium.

Ved at forene Øst og Vest, kan vi for altid afskaffe imperiepolitikken med sin »del og hersk«, og menneskeracen kan gå fremefter med opbygningen af en fremtid for menneskehedens fælles mål. Der er intet valg, og dette er et dyrebart mulighedens øjeblik, vi ikke må forpasse.

Foto: Præsident Trump og præsident Macron fra Frankrig,. 24. april, 2018.  (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)




Fjern krigens tåger:
Løgne, forbandede løgne;
forbandede britiske løgne

Lederartikel; Flyveblad, fra LaRouchePAC, 16. april, 2018 – Mandag, den 16. april, portrætterer Washington Post præsident Donald Trump som værende omgivet af et forræderisk udenrigspolitisk team, der konstant og konsekvent lyver for ham om Rusland og om skridt, dette team har taget i præsidentens, og i jeres, navn, imod Rusland og Kina. WP forsøger at hævde, at Trumps nationale sikkerhedsstab iscenesatte et paladskup imod ham med hensyn til Rusland og Syrien, og at Trump tabte denne kamp. 

Men præsidenten handlede omgående imod forræderne omkring ham. Han forkastede udnævnelsen af Nikki Haleys assistent, aldrig-Trumperen Jon Lemer, til en national sikkerhedspost, for Mike Pence. Det Hvide Hus annoncerede, at nye sanktioner mod Rusland, baseret på Ruslands støtte til Syrien, og som Nikki Haley promoverede blot i går, blev kaldt tilbage. Det blev offentligt meddelt, at præsident Trump stadig ønsker at mødes med Vladimir Putin, men en dato er endnu ikke fastlagt.

Samtidig pralede den franske præsident over for hele verden med, at det var ham, der narrede præsident Trump til at udføre et missilangreb mod Syrien, som herved genoplivede selve Hillary Clinton/Obama-doktrinerne for regimeskifte, som det amerikanske folk, helt rigtigt, afviste i valgene i 2016. Dette sætter blot scenen for et voldsomt, politisk bagslag for Frankrigs præsident.

Med tågen fra sidste uges handlinger, der nu letter, bliver flere aspekter af vores nuværende situation meget, meget klarere. Alt imens angloamerikanerne er ved at falde over deres egne fødder for på tåbelig vis at erklære, at de har fået Trump manøvreret ind i et bur, så står det meget klart, at deres proklamerede sejr er en Pyrrhussejr, som udgør arrogante vrangforestillinger og kun er midlertidige. De opførte sig ansvarsløst, og muligheden for et bagslag er enormt og revolutionerende for verden, hvis det amerikanske folk nu går sammen med Lyndon LaRouches krav om at »annullere Det britiske Imperium«. På intet tidspunkt, siden Franklin Roosevelt erklærede sin plan om at gøre en ende på britisk kolonialisme, har det anglo-hollandske imperium været så sårbart og eksponeret. Her er de relevante træk af vores nuværende situation:

  1. Svindelnummeret med det kemiske angreb i Syrien; svindelnummeret med Skripal-forgiftningen i Storbritannien, samt det britiskinspirerede kup mod vores præsident, er alle en del af én og samme, britiske, strategiske pakke. Storbritannien er nu, sammen med sin mangeårige puddel Frankrig, ude efter at anføre den vestlige verden i at udfordre Rusland og Kina, der påstås at praktisere noget, der skulle hedde »totalitær kapitalisme«. Her er, hvordan den britiske imperieskriverkarl Allister Heath beskrev det britiske motiv for forgiftnings-svindelnumrene i Salisbury og i Syrien, i londonavisen Sunday Telegraph den 14. marts:

»Vi har brug for en ny verdensorden, der kan gå op imod totalitære kapitalister i Rusland og Kina … En sådan alliance … ville på dramatisk vis ændre den globale magtbalance og gøre det muligt for de liberale demokratier, endelig at kæmpe tilbage. Det ville give verden den form for robuste institutioner, der kræves for at holde Rusland og Kina tilbage … Storbritannien må have en ny rolle i verden: at opbygge et sådant netværk ville være vores perfekte mission.«

På den anden side af vandpytten, som de siger, udkom der, nøjagtig samtidigt, en tilsvarende, stiftende erklæring fra 68 tidligere embedsmænd i Obama-administrationen, der har dannet en gruppe ved navn National Security Action, og som tilsigter at sikre Donald Trumps afsættelse og angreb mod Rusland og Kina.

  1. Russerne siger nu, at de har uigendrivelige beviser for, at de Hvide Hjelme, en hjælpeorganisation, der er associeret til al-Qaeda og modtager finansiel støtte i millionklassen af den britiske regering og U.S. AID, iscenesatte det kemiske angreb i Douma, Syrien, på direkte tilskyndelse fra London. Beviserne omfatter fotografier og aflytninger. Samtidig har et uafhængigt, schweizisk laboratorium, der samarbejder med OPCW, fastslået, at den gift, der blev brugt på Skripal og datter, var noget, der hedder BZ, et stof, der aldrig blev udviklet i Rusland, men som i stedet har hjemme i både USA’s og UK’s programmer for kemiske våben. Disse påstande er helt i overensstemmelse med uafhængige analyser, som LaRouchePAC har fremskaffet i løbet af de seneste 10 dage. (Se: ’Der var intet kemisk angreb i Syrien’  og ’Assads kemiske våben: Endnu et britisk eventyr for børn’ ).
  2. Der er allerede i Storbritannien en enorm, folkelig reaktion, som kommer fra Labour-partiet og Brexit-bevægelsen, mod disse løgne. De sammenligner meget passende de »klassificerede« beviser for forgiftningssvindelnumrene med de løgne, der førte til den katastrofale Irakkrig. På samme måde gik de glemte amerikanere her i USA, der valgte Trump til at afslutte dette nonsens, sammen med LaRouchePAC og protesterede højlydt imod det syriske angreb hele sidste uge. Denne protest trak efter alt at dømme verden væk fra en balanceren og poseren på kanten af atomkrig, anstiftet af Storbritannien, Frankrig og deres kolleger i det Demokratiske Parti og blandt de neokonservative i USA.
  3. En hoveddrivkraft bag denne situation er det forestående finanskollaps af finanscentrene på Wall Street og i City of London. Langt fra at praktisere ’totalitær kapitalisme’ er Kina, sammen med Rusland, midt i et projekt for massivt byggeri af infrastruktur og økonomisk udvikling, der har vundet tilslutning fra over 100 andre nationer i verden. Det udgør det største infrastrukturbyggeprojekt, menneskeheden nogensinde har påtaget sig, og det har det udtrykkelige formål at gøre en ende på fattigdom og hæve levestandarden på hele planeten. Kina og Rusland afsætter også betydelige andele af deres budget til rumforskning og fundamentale, videnskabelige opdagelser. Dette er den form for »at tænke stort«, som vi i USA plejede at praktisere. Det giver genlyd af det Amerikanske System for Politisk Økonomi. »Totalitær kapitalisme« er det ikke. Hvis præsident Trump accepterer Kinas invitation til at slutte USA til Bælte & Vej Initiativet, vil det snarere blive det Anglo-hollandske Imperium, og ikke Donald Trump, der henvises til historiens skraldespand.
  4. Situationen er fortsat fuld af farer. Nikki Haley og John Bolton har forpligtet USA over for en militær respons, når som helst, en terrorist i Syrien kan iscenesætte endnu et falsk kemisk angreb. Ukraine er et andet muligt trigger point, der kunne bruges af dem, der er involveret i forræderi mod vort land og vor præsident. Det står nu ligeledes klart, at en desperat Robert Mueller er ude på at gøre Donald Trumps advokat til statens bevis imod hans egen klient, en taktik, den beskidte Mueller gentagne gange har anvendt. Muellers taktik har måske denne gang fjernet det Sjette Tillæg til den Amerikanske Forfatning. Mueller er desperat, fordi Russiagate er sprængt i stykker, Comey er en fiasko og hele afdelinger af Obamas Justitsministerium nu konkurrerer om at afsløre hinandens forbrydelser.

Så med tågen, der letter, finder vi faktisk os selv på randen af en sejr. Spørgsmålet vil blive afgjort af den amerikanske befolknings mod til at kræve, og handle for, en afslutning af dette kup, en afsløring af de perfide, britiske løgne og en insisteren på at komme videre med genopbygningen af landet, og af planeten. Lyndon LaRouche har gentagne gange advaret imod pragmatisme i netop denne situation. Med et citat af apostlen Paulus, minder LaRouche os om, at »Thi for os står kampen ikke mod kød og blod, men mod myndigheder og magter, mod verdensherskerne i dette mørke, mod ondskabens åndemagter i himmelrummet.«[1] (Paulus’ brev til efeserne, kap. 6, v. 12.) Vær en kraft for retfærdigheden og det gode.

(Det engelske Flyveblad kan downloades her)

Foto: Den syriske præsident Assad og den russiske præsident Putin i Syrien, december, 2017. Photo: Kremlin.ru

[1] Den danske oversættelse iflg. Bibelselskabet.

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Afrikas lysende fremtid på
Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ.
Schiller Institut-konference i
New York, 7. april 2018.
Hovedtale af Jason Ross. (Video)

 




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

Introduktion:

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

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

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

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

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

Indledningen lyder således:

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

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

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

Her følger engelsk udskrift af Helga Zepp-LaRouches tale:

 

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

A DIALOGUE OF THREE PRESIDENCIES:

BENDING THE ARC OF THE MORAL UNIVERSE TOWARD JUSTICE 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SARE:  OK, next question.

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

SARE: Thank you.

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

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

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

SARE: Thank you very much! [applause]

 

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

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

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

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

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

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




Geopolitikere spinner den arktiske jernbane som antirussisk

26. marts, 2018 – Nord-Syd-dimensionen af jernbanen fra det Arktiske Hav (Ishavet), Helsinki-Tallinn-tunnellen og Rail Baltica i områderne, der støder op til Rusland, har sendt nogle geopolitikere ud i et spin, hvor de foretrækker at se dette som en måde at isolere Rusland på og, i stedet for at gå igennem Rusland for at komme til Kina, da at gå uden om, både mod nord og syd. En artikel, »Poland And
Sweden Are Building a `Baltic Ring’«, (Polen og Sverige bygger en ‘Baltisk Ring’), skrevet af den Moskva-baserede, amerikanske geopolitiker Andrew Korybko den 23. marts, nævner endda Polens og Sveriges historie som 16. og 17. hundredetallets europæiske magter, for en genopståen som en antirussisk, nordisk blok.

Det er helt hen i vejret, eftersom den Nordlige Sejlrute hovedsageligt er et russisk projekt, i samarbejde med andre nationer. Desuden løber den Nye Silkevej til det Baltiske Hav (Østersøen) for det meste igennem Rusland fra Kina. Godstog ankommer regelmæssigt til den østlige, finske jernbaneby Kouvola, til den lettiske hovestad Riga, og fra Chongqing, Kina, ankommer Soltoget til den litauiske havn Klaipeda. Når Belkomur-genvejen fra den Transsibiriske Jernbane snart bliver forlænget til Arkhangelsk, vil det også skabe en korridor til centrum af Finland.

Men hovedårsagen til, at Rusland ikke kan udelukkes af området omkring det Baltiske Hav, er, at det ikke vil være muligt at isolere den økonomiske virkning af områdets store by – Skt. Petersborg, Rusland, med et indbyggertal på 5,3 mio. Når tunnellen forbinder Helsinki og Tallinn, vil de to hovedstæder, sammen med Skt. Petersborg, danne det største byområde i Nordeuropa omkring den Finske Bugt.

Den enorme infrastrukturudvikling i området omkring det Baltiske Hav vil styrke det Nye Paradigme snarere end en eller anden forældet geopolitik.

Foto: Engang i fremtiden vil en ekspresrejse fra Helsinki, Finland, til Tallinn, Estland, blot tage 30 min. via en tunnel under havet. Billede fra forundersøgelserne til byggeriet.




Namibias præsident styrker relationerne med Kina;
forsvarer Kina som Afrikas bedste ven

31. marts, 2018 – Præsidenterne for Kina og Namibia, hhv. Xi Jinping og Hage Geingob, har aftalt at etablere et omfattende, strategisk partnerskab for samarbejde mellem deres lande og har underskrevet seks bilaterale samarbejdsaftaler, på deres møde i Beijing den 29. marts. Præsident Geingob havde påbegyndt sit syv dage lange besøg dagen før.

Ved underskriftsceremonien talte begge præsidenter om, hvordan Kina har været en »ven af Namibia i alskens vejr«, med henvisning til Kinas støtte til Namibias uafhængighed, og nu til landets udvikling. Xi sagde, »Kina byder Namibia velkommen til at deltage i Bælte & Vej Initiativet og håber på at styrke samarbejdet om denne politik og samvirket af udviklingsplaner«, rapporterede Xi. Xi talte også om sin overbevisning om, at Kina og Afrika vil slå sig sammen om at bygge et tættere fællesskab for en fælles fremtid og indsprøjte nye impulser for bånd mellem Kina og Afrika.

På sin side gav Geingob udtryk for Namibias interesse i at samarbejde med Kina om infrastruktur, bæredygtig udvikling, menneskelige resurser, teknologi, fattigdomsreduktion, mellemmenneskelige udvekslinger og store samarbejdsprojekter. Han benyttede også lejligheden til at komme med et udtrykkeligt forsvar for Kinas indsats for udvikling i Afrika. Xinhua rapporterede, at den namibiske præsident kaldte Kina for Afrikas bedste ven. Det har aldrig koloniseret Afrika og har altid behandlet små og mellemstore afrikanske lande på lige fod, sagde Geingob, og det afrikanske folk modsætter sig grundløse anklager mod Kina.

»Kina støttede os, da vi havde det vanskeligt, og efter uafhængigheden fortsatte vi vort samarbejde på et andet niveau«, sagde han til CGTN. »Nu rykker vi yderligere opad. Nu er tiden inde til anden fase af kampen for os, hvor folk nu har fred og stabilitet, men de er ivrige efter at høste fordelene ved denne frihed. De ønsker fremgang. De ønsker boliger, infrastruktur, skoler, klinikker osv., og de er opsatte på det. De har travlt. Så Kina, som vennen i al slags vejr, der var der, da vi begyndte at kæmpe, og nu, hvor vi er i anden fase, som handler om vores økonomiske emancipering, må de, der er med os, komme og tilslutte sig os … Denne gang taler vi om at skabe en win-win-situation.«

Foto: Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping (øverst, højre) med Namibias præsident Hage. G. Geingob (øverst venstre) deltager i en underskriftsceremoni i Folkets Store Hal den 29. marts, 2018 i Beijing. Efter invitation fra Xi Jinping vil Hage Geingob fra Republikken Namibia være på statsbesøg i Kina fra 28. marts til 3. april.




Det Nye Paradigme: Et nyt koncept for udenrigspolitik
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast, 30. marts, 2018

Vært Matthew Ogden: God eftermiddag. Det er den 30. marts, 2018; Langfredag.

Hvis man ser på begivenhederne i verden i løbet af de seneste to uger, kunne man sige, at, på den ene hånd, er vi meget tæt på krig; at truslen om krig er alvorligt forøget. Men på den anden side kan man også sige, at muligheden for en reel, permanent, holdbar fred er meget tæt på. I realiteten er begge disse udsagn sande. Jeg mener, at denne kendsgerning viser os sandheden omkring, hvor, vi står i historiens forløb. Vi er usikkert anbragt på en knivspids og balancerer mellem to, modsatrettede paradigmer, som ikke kan sameksistere. Der er paradigmet for geopolitik og krig, og som desperat forsøger atter at gøre sig gældende på den transatlantiske scene netop nu; men så har vi også det modsatte paradigme for win-win-samarbejde og fred gennem økonomisk udvikling. Det er det Nye Paradigme, der vokser frem og fejer hen over planeten. Det er præcis dette Nye Paradigmes succes, der har sat den geopolitiske gruppering her i det transatlantiske område i alarmtilstand. Det viser os også, at det er absolut nødvendigt, at folk af god vilje, inkl. LaRouche-bevægelsen her i USA og internationalt, intervenerer for fred, og for det Nye Paradigme.

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

 

On the one hand, you have this incredible provocation from
Mad Theresa May, or as she’s being called “Theresa Mayhem”; a
very appropriate nickname.  She’s trying to rally an
international war coalition.  She’s going from a very weak
government that was on the verge of collapse three weeks ago, to
now; she’s probably casting herself in the image of Margaret
Thatcher, or even her image of Winston Churchill.  However, while
an unprecedented number of countries have fallen into lockstep
behind the UK in expelling these Russian agents, the more
interesting thing is how many countries did not do so.  Including
nearly a dozen European countries, which include Austria, which
sees itself as a bridge between Europe and Russia; Belgium, the
seat of the EU government interesting; Bulgaria; Cypress; Greece;
Luxembourg; Malta; Portugal; Slovakia; Slovenia.  Then on top of
that, you have Japan — a major US-UK ally; but also under the
recent years under Abe’s government, an ever-increasingly close
relationship with Russia. Then, even New Zealand, which is the
most fascinating of them all.  New Zealand is a member of the
so-called Five Eyes, which is the intelligence sharing group
comprised of the United States, the UK, Canada, Australia, and
New Zealand.  There was an article in the {Guardian} saying this
was a huge surprise that New Zealand, which they characterize as
Lilliputian, would go against the diktat that came from Theresa
May in London.
So, you can see that this is a very precarious and dangerous
situation, and that continues to play out.  But on the other
hand, take a look at the extremely promising developments towards
actual peace and towards averting nuclear war which are now
occurring on the Korean peninsula.  While the geo-politicians
would have you believe that second only to Russia, China is the
biggest global threat that we have to face right now; or perhaps
even more so.  The reality is that China has played a key role
in bringing Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table.  This is closer
to a real peaceful settlement of this crisis than we’ve seen in
many years.  The crucial factor in this has been the close
personal relationship that was forged between President Xi
Jinping of China and President Donald Trump here in the United
States.  So, in an absolutely surprising development which caught
the entire intelligence community here in the United States —
for one — by surprise, Chairman Kim Jong-un made a personal trip
to China; travelling by special train to Beijing on March 25th.
He stayed in the official government guest house, and had a
series of meetings stretching over the course of three and a half
days from March 25th to March 28th, meeting with Chinese
President Xi Jinping in Beijing’s Great Hall of the People.  They
engaged in very serious talks.  According to reports, this is the
first time in his seven years as President of North Korea that
Kim travelled outside of the country.  Now, what President Xi
Jinping said, as was reported in Chinese media about this meeting
during the summit that he had with Kim Jong-un, he said, “The
basics of the traditional friendship between China and North
Korea were founded and nurtured by the elder generations of
leaders of both countries.  This is our invaluable heritage.”
Then, Kim Jong-un, who is slated to meet face-to-face with
President Trump of the United States within the coming weeks in
the next month or so, said that he is ready to conduct this
high-level dialogue with the United States.  He said, “The issue
of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula can be resolved, if
South Korea and the United States respond to our efforts with
goodwill.  It will create an atmosphere of peace and stability,
while taking progressive and synchronous measures for the
realization of peace.  It is our consistent stand to be committed
to denuclearization on the peninsula, in accordance of the will
of late President Kim Il-Sung and late General Secretary Kim
Jong-Il.
According to reports, Kim also told Xi Jinping that North
Korea is ready to make some pretty reforms to its domestic
economic policy.  He’s ready to further open up to a market
economy, along the lines of what China has done over the past
couple of decades, going back to Deng Xiao-ping; what is called
“socialism with Chinese characteristics”.  Also, the reports are
that China, coming out of this meeting, agreed to invest in and
expand North Korea’s two major ocean ports; one on the west coast
of North Korea in Nan Pao, and one on the east coast in Wonsan.
What President Trump had to say following this summit
between Kim Jong-un and President Xi Jinping, he posted on
twitter.  He said, “Received a message last night from Xi Jinping
of China that his meeting with Kim Jong-un went very well and
that Kim looks forward to his meeting with me.  In the meantime
and unfortunately, maximum sanctions and pressure must be
maintained at all costs.”  But I think this shows you very
clearly that this is a joint project between President Trump and
President Xi Jinping personally.  This is an example of the kinds
of benefits that the world can gain if major nations such as the
United States and China work together towards these common ends.
Now, let me play you a clip from Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s
international webcast from yesterday, where she addressed the
very positive outcome that is developing there on the Korean
peninsula.
HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Oh, I think this is the
absolute overwhelming event, happening this past week.  Because
the Western mainstream media are again so ridiculous.  They were
saying, “oh, these two dictators meeting…” and so forth, but
this is very, very good, because obviously, both Xi Jinping and
Kim Jong-un recalled the long friendship between the two
countries, North Korea and China, and Kim Jong-un, in particular,
promised to carry on policy in the tradition of his father and
other relatives in the past.  He basically promised that he wants
to work towards the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula,
provided that this offer is being met in an atmosphere of peace
and constructive attitude.  Obviously, North Korea will need
security guarantees; without that, he probably will not give up
the nuclear weapons.  But the fact that he first went to China,
and then is going to meet with President Moon Jae-in from South
Korea, at the end of April, and then, in all likelihood, with
President Trump in May, that means that one of the most dangerous
possible points for a World War III scenario could be peacefully
resolved.
And, you know, the fact that, as contacts were telling us in
South Korea, this whole thing had an economic dimension to it.
China  — according to these sources — is going to build ports
in North Korea on the east coast and the west coast, and also
obviously, the whole question of the extension of the Belt and
Road Initiative, involving South Korea, North Korea, Russia, and
China, — that is the framework within which one can get a really
stable development.
So Trump immediately made a tweet, where he said he got a
phone call from President Xi Jinping, who told him that the
meeting went very well, and that he is extremely optimistic,
looking forward; that unfortunately the sanctions [against North
Korea] have to be maintained until the problem is resolved, but
that he is absolutely looking forward towards this coming summit.
So I think this is {really} good, and it shows you that if
you have back-channels and in this case, you had everybody
involved, — Trump, Xi Jinping, Putin, but also Abe from Japan —
so this really shows that if you have this kind of diplomacy and
negotiation, there is no problem on this planet which cannot
solved by people who have a good will. And I think everybody
should be very happy about this development.
OGDEN:  So, exactly as I said, that is a testament that
there are major crises on the planet which cannot be resolved
unilaterally, but if we have this kind of great powers
relationship, these kinds of crises can be confronted, and can be
resolved.  Crises that have hung over our heads for decades.
This relationship between China and the United States through
this close personal relationship between Xi Jinping and President
Trump is already paying dividends, as you can see in the case of
this Korean peninsula here, and the possibility of not just
positive effects abroad, but very positive effects here at home
is also very real if we continue to cultivate this special great
powers relationship between China and the United States.
Now, despite all the talk of trade war, etc., there are very
interesting openings for joint Chinese-US investments and
cooperation in development projects right here in the United
States.  This, of course, is right along the lines of exactly
what LaRouche PAC has been campaigning for in terms of the United
States joining this New Paradigm, joining the New Silk Road, and
also exactly what Lyndon LaRouche has addressed in his Four
Economic Laws for drastically upgrading the productive powers of
the US labor force and lifting the United States to a much higher
platform of high-technology development.  This can be done with
this kind of US-Chinese relationship.  So, some of the very
interesting US to China, China to US relationships, some news on
that front over just the last few days.  Some US Republican
Senators — Senator Danes from Montana, Senator Grassley from
Iowa, Senator Johnson from Wisconsin, Purdue from Georgia, and
Senator Sass from Nebraska — all were in Beijing just a few days
ago this week on March 27th, where they had a meeting with
Premier Li Keqiang.  The Senators called the United States-China
relationship “one of the most important bilateral relationships
in the world.”  So, this is very interesting, especially coming
from Republicans in the US Senate who have been taking a very
anti-China line up to this point.  Of course we see contrary
voices, such as Marco Rubio, who is accusing every Chinese
student in the United States of being a secret Chinese spy.  But
this trip is interesting, and it comes from Senators who are
mainly from the so-called Farm Belt.  I think the involvement of
Senator Grassley is interesting, because of Terry Branstad’s
roots in Iowa.  Terry Branstad, former Governor of Iowa; now the
ambassador to China.
Also, we had news of the mayor of Miami-Dade County in
Florida, Mayor Carlos Jimenez, who just returned from a visit to
China, where he led a delegation of 50 elected officials and
business leaders from Florida.  He met with the mayor of
Shanghai, who stated to Mayor Jimenez, “The bilateral
relationship between China and the United States is the most
important.  It will affect the well-being of the people from both
countries and the world’s peace and prosperity as well.”  So,
interestingly, exactly the same wordings that came out of that
communiqué from the five US Senators, that the China-US
bilateral relationship is one of the most important bilateral
relationships in the world.  The mayor of Shanghai also made the
point very correctly that this is a win-win; the well-being of
the people of both countries — the United States and China —
can benefit out of this kind of bilateral relationship; but also,
the world’s peace and prosperity as well.  So, this is exactly
along the lines that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been making and has
continued to make this week, as we will see.
Also — this is very interesting — the Governor of Alaska,
Governor Bill Walker, has announced that he will lead a trade
delegation to China in May; which interestingly, he first
proposed during his January 2018 State of the State address.
This is has been subsequently worked out, so this is another
state along the lines of what Governor Jim Justice in West
Virginia has been discussing.  Jim Justice, in his State of the
State, obviously discussed the importance of these $80 billion
Chinese investments into the state of West Virginia.  Now, you
have Governor Bill Walker from Alaska.  This does come in the
wake of Governor Walker personally hosting President Xi Jinping
last April in Anchorage when President Xi was flying back from
Florida, where he had his meeting with President Trump at
Mar-a-Lago on his way back to China; where he took a brief
opportunity to visit Governor Walker in Anchorage, Alaska.  Then
on November 8, 2017, Governor Walker was the only governor to
accompany President Trump on his delegation for the so-called
“state visit plus” to Beijing, where one of the deals that was
signed out of the $300 billion of deals and memoranda of
understanding, one of the deals that was signed was a $43 billion
China investment and purchase deal for an 800-mile Alaska gas
pipeline.  Also, there were important commitments made for
liquefied natural gas sales.  But this pipeline project which is
now being very much emphasized by Governor Walker, is being
characterized by the CEO of the Alaska Gas Line Development
Corporation — one of the parties in this memorandum of
understanding — is being characterized as having the potential
of “turbo-charging” the Alaskan economy.
So, these are states that have been on the margins and are
some of the poorer states.  West Virginia for sure, Alaska very
isolated, who are now developing these relationships with China
and are becoming gateways for the Silk Road spirit to enter into
the United States.  This is exactly what we’ve been discussing in
terms of the crucial importance of the role that China can play;
these mutual investments and joint projects that China is willing
to assist in building here in the United States.  And just the
idea of the United States joining this wave of mega-projects
which is sweeping the globe and upgrading our infrastructure from
the point that it’s now reached, which is a very sorry state of
disrepair and deterioration that has come from decades and
decades of disinvestment.
President Trump was in Ohio just yesterday, where he was
speaking to a room full of union members and building trades
workers.  The point of his trip was to address his so-called
infrastructure plan.  We know that there are many deficits when
it comes to the actual content of what Trump has proposed, but
Trump in this speech made it clear that he is still very clear in
terms of what the urgency of the problem here in the United
States is when it comes to infrastructure.  And also the image of
the United States as a nation of builders, and reclaiming the
legacy that we had over centuries that we were the premier
building nation in the world.  Our infrastructure was second to
none, and other nations were coming to the United States to try
to emulate what we had accomplished.  So, I’d like to just play a
couple of excerpts from President Trump’s address in Ohio
yesterday, and you’ll see that this infrastructure debate is
still very much on the front burner.  It desperately needs the
kind of input that the LaRouche movement is uniquely positioned
to make.
PRESIDENT TRUMP

:  We will breathe new life into your
very run-down highways, railways, and waterways.  We’ll transform
our roads and bridges from a source of endless frustration into a
source of absolutely incredible pride.  And we’re going to do it
all under budget and ahead of schedule.  You ever hear those
words in the public world?  Under budget and ahead of schedule.
We have other things.  Nearly 40% of our bridges were built
before — think of this — before the first Moon landing.  You go
to some countries, they’re building bridges all over the place;
all over you have bridges going up.  One particular country, I
won’t use it because they’re friendly to me, they weren’t
friendly to us as a nation, but now they’re friendly; they’re
building 29 bridges.  We don’t build bridges like that very much
anymore.  A little bit, every once in a while.  But our roads are
clogged, we have average drivers spend 42 hours every year stuck
in traffic, costing us at least $160 billion annually.  Our mass
transit systems are a mess; they’re dilapidated and they’re
decayed.  Nationwide, we average 300 power outages per year;
compared to just five per year in the 1980s.  A total mess.
In recent years, Americans have watched as Washington spent
trillions and trillions of dollars building up foreign countries
while allowing our own country’s infrastructure to fall into a
state of total disrepair.  We spent — and I was against it from
the beginning — they try and say “Well, maybe not ⦔  I was
against it from the beginning.  And by the way, we’re knocking
the hell out of ISIS; we’ll be coming out of Syria like very
soon.  Let the other people take care of it now.  Very soon, very
soon we’re coming out.  We’re going to have 100% of the Caliphate
as they call it, sometimes referred to as land; we’re taking it
all back, quickly, quickly.  But we’re going to be coming out of
there real soon; we’re going to get back to our country where we
belong, where we want to be.
But think of it.  We spent, as of three months ago, $7
trillion — not billion, not million — $7 trillion with a “t”;
nobody every heard of the word trillion until ten years ago.  We
spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.  We build a school, they
blow it up; we build it again, they blow it up.  We build it
again, it hasn’t been blown up yet, but it will be.  But if we
want a school in Ohio to fix the windows, you can’t get the
money.  If you want a school in Pennsylvania or Iowa to get
Federal money, you can’t get the money.  We spent $7 trillion in
the Middle East.  And you know what we have for it?  Nothing.
Stupid!  Stupid!  But we spent $7 trillion, but we barely have
money for the infrastructure.  For most of our history, American
infrastructure was the envy of the world — true.  Go back 30,
40, 50 years.  They would look at us like — now, we are like in
many places a Third World country.  It’s an embarrassment!  And
we’re the ones that had the imagination and the drive to get it
done, but we’ve got that again.  Other nations marveled as we
connected our shores with transcontinental railroads and brought
power to our cities that lit up the sky like no other place on
Earth, and build mile after mile of internet capabilities and
interstate highways to carry American products all across the
country and around the globe.  Nobody did it like us!  We dug out
the Panama Canal; think of that!  Thousands of lives were lost to
the mosquito, to the mosquito — malaria.  We dug out the Panama
Canal.  We transformed our skylines with towering works of
concrete and steel, and laid the foundation for the modern
economy.  To rebuild this nation, we must reclaim that proud
heritage — have to reclaim it.  And we’re on our way.
We must recapture the excitement of creation, the spirit of
innovation, and the spark of invention.  We’re starting!  You saw
the rocket the other day, you see what’s going on with cars.  You
see what’s going on with so much.  NASA, space agency, all of
sudden it’s back, you notice?  It was dormant for many, many
years.  Now it’s back, and they’re doing a great job.  America is
a nation like you, of builders.  It’s a nation of pioneers, a
nation that accepts no limits, no hardship, and never ever gives
up.  We don’t give up!  We don’t give up.  Anything we can dream,
you can build.  You will create the new highways, the new dams
and skyscrapers that will become lasting monuments to American
strength and continued greatness.  You will forge new American
steel into the spine of our country.  You will cement the
foundation of a glorious American future, and you will do it all
with those beautiful American hands.  Powerful hands, powerful
heart, and powerful American pride, right?  Powerful American
pride.
But you’re the ones who are truly making America great
again.  We’re going to work together.  We’re going to work with
the state of Ohio, we’re going to work with everybody.  And we’re
going to bring our country to a level of success and prominence
and pride like it has never ever seen before.  Thank you, and God
bless America.  Thank you.  Thank you very much.
OGDEN:  So you can see, the commitment truly is there.  This
is obviously what got President Trump elected in the first place.
He’s back in Ohio, back in the industrial heartland.  That
commitment to the reindustrialization of the United States, the
reclaiming of the legacy of the great manufacturing power and
returning to that image of the United States as the envy of the
world in terms of builders.  He cited the transcontinental
railroad connecting the sea to the sea, ocean to ocean,
stretching across the United States.  The Moon landing, so many
other things that the United States accomplished.  Now, in his
words, there are parts of the United States that literally have
come to resemble a Third World country.  So, the commitment is
there.
The program is exactly what LaRouche PAC has issued.  This
is the Four Laws economic program, and that’s why it’s so
indispensable that this pamphlet is circulated across the
country, and that this is studied by people in the United States
everywhere.  This should be the material which is being used by
these trade delegations that are travelling to China.  Alaska,
Miami-Dade County, West Virginia; all of these states, all of
these local government officials, all of these governors, all of
these Senators and Congressmen.  If they really want to figure
out what is the policy that the United States should be
discussing, this is the source material.  This is what they
should be studying.  You are the ones who play the critical role
in getting it into their hands and communicating the ideas that
are contained in this pamphlet.
The way that this is going to happen, and this is exactly
what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been addressing from the
standpoint of the New Silk Road becoming the World Land-Bridge
and the United States becoming part of this New Paradigm of
development and mega-projects.  One very interesting development,
which is really just a continuation of what has been discussed by
numerous officials coming out of China, and really was originated
by Helga Zepp-LaRouche and the LaRouche movement when she went to
the Belt and Road Initiative forum last Spring, along the lines
of China actually converting their US Treasury bonds that they
hold into equity in a national infrastructure bank here in the
United States and putting that money in terms of credit into
allowing the United States to capitalize such an infrastructure
fund; and to build these great projects that you heard President
Trump discussing.
So, let me just say, this week, as publicized by CGTN, which
is the China Daily global television network, an organization
called the Center for China and Globalization has reiterated the
idea that the only pathway towards stability in terms of US-China
trade relations, and evening out this so-called trade deficit,
the only pathway should be based on joint economic initiatives
and joint investments.  Instead of tit-for-tat tariff retaliation
this way and that way, the Center for China and Globalization —
according to CGTN — said that China should continue ten measures
that it should take to foster US-China trade ties.  They
recommend, in addition to adjustments that should be made in
areas such as lifting excessive limits on high technology exports
to China, and various other aspects.  The two most important
steps that they propose here are the following:  1. “Consider the
establishment of an investment fund to help the United States
upgrade its infrastructure, capitalizing on China’s advanced
technology and expertise in the field.”  2.  “Enlist the
participation of American companies in Belt and Road projects as
third party partners.”  So again, the establishment of an
investment fund where China can invest in the upgrading of US
infrastructure, and also contribute its significant expertise
that it has developed in terms of the projects that China has
built over the last 10-15 years.  Then, two, enlist American
companies in Belt and Road projects as third party partners.
So, in other words, the United States and US companies
actually join China as third party partners in some of these
development projects in other countries.  Why could the United
States not be participating as joint investors and joint partners
in some of these fantastic rail projects that China has been
building in Africa, for example?  Or some of the water projects,
or some of the power projects?  And this kind of win-win
relationship between the United States and China could then
benefit both China and the United States, but also benefit the
world.  So, in this way, China can continue to adhere to their
professed goal of long-term stable economic and trade relations
between the two nations, but also third party partners can also
benefit.
So, that’s what was proposed by this organization — the
Center for China and Globalization.  And emphatically, this is
not a new idea.  In fact, this idea comes directly from what the
LaRouche movement has been discussing in terms of America’s
future on the New Silk Road.  So, this is a very significant
opportunity, and despite the fact that everything you’re hearing
right now is trade war, tariffs, tit-for-tat, and so forth,
President Trump even in that speech in Ohio that you just heard,
praised what China has been able to accomplish in terms of these
marvels of infrastructure.  Bridge building, so forth and so on,
over the recent years.  It’s exactly that spirit, the spirit of
the New Silk Road that the United States must emulate right now.
We see some very interesting potentials around that sort of
development.  Again, as I said, these are the dividends of the
close personal relationship that President Trump and President Xi
Jinping have forged.  And it’s our job to continue to develop
things along that path.
So, let me conclude here by playing another clip from Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s webcast from yesterday, where she addresses this
proposal for the United States joining the Belt and Road
Initiative as a third party partner in development projects
abroad, and also this idea of Chinese investment through an
infrastructure bank or similar investment fund in infrastructure
projects here in the United States.  So, here’s this clip from
Helga Zepp-LaRouche.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  Well, there is actually a very
interesting response from China, where the Prime Minister Li
Keqiang made a proposal:  He said, rather than reducing the trade
deficit by imposing tariffs, which would end up in a trade war,
and nobody would be the winner in the end, he said, the other way
to  resolve the trade deficit would be to increase the volume of
trade, and that way you could have also joint ventures between
the United States and China and third countries. And that is
obviously the approach which we have been proposing for a very
long time.
There was also an extremely productive approach being
discussed on CGTN, the China Global Television Network, where
they said that the United States and China should start a
dialogue about infrastructure, and that Chinese investors could
invest in the development of infrastructure in the United States,
through a fund.  Now, this is a proposal which we have been
pushing from way back, saying that China has these very large US
Treasury reserves, which if they just sit there, don’t do
anything good.  But if they would be invested in the
infrastructure inside the United States, through an
infrastructure bank or some other mechanism, it could help to
solve the financing problem which President Trump clearly has;
given the fact that presently what is available in terms of
funding, is very far from the $1 trillion he had mentioned during
the election campaign.  And the American Society of Civil
Engineers had said what is needed is not $1 trillion but actually
$4.5 trillion; and some experts have even said, in order to get
modern infrastructure in the United States, you need $8 trillion
in investment.
So, I think there is a situation where you could get rid of
the trade imbalance by really using the Chinese expertise in
high-speed train systems and other infrastructure. And what we
have shaping up from the Schiller Institute was this idea to do
exactly in the United States what China has been doing and will
complete by 2025, or even 2020, to connect all its major cities
through fast train systems.  Now, obviously the infrastructure in
the United States is in terrible shape and needs urgent repair,
most of it is almost 100 years old or even older.  So this would
be an approach to really resolve this on a higher level.
I think many people should discuss this, and there are
already many forces in the United States who have opened channels
with their Chinese counterparts.  The governor of West Virginia,
the mayor of Houston, Texas, the governor of Alaska. Naturally
people in Iowa are very tuned in, because the former Iowa Gov.
Terry Branstad is U.S. Ambassador in Beijing.  So there are
actually other alternatives than going into a trade war, which
nobody would really benefit from.
[T]he world has reached a point where we {have} to
overcome geopolitics.  Because if, at this point, the United
States, or the West in general, would go into the Thucydides
Trap, take the rise of China as a reason to go into war and
confrontation,  this could very easily be the end of all of
humanity, so we have to find a different way.  And China has said
many times, they do not want to surpass the United States and
replace with a unipolar world order, but they want to be in a new
alliance of sovereign countries, and have the idea of the one
humanity first.
And I think this is a new concept of foreign policy, and
people should study it and relate to it, rather than going for
the rather uninformed opinions of such people as Marco Rubio, who
is on a rampage against anything Chinese. But it really is not
going to work, because the rest of the world is very happy with
what China is doing, and I think it would be for the absolute
benefit of humanity if the United States and China could find a
way to cooperate in their mutual interest.
OGDEN:  So there, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said, it would be
of the absolute benefit of the people of the United States and of
China and the benefit of all humanity, if these two countries can
find a pathway towards cooperation in their mutual interest.  In
fact, that’s the reality with all countries.  This is the point
of the idea of a great powers relationship.  Russia, China,
India, the United States; and that really is the foundation of
exactly what this idea of a new win-win paradigm of relations
between nations is.  There are problems to be overcome; there are
disagreements that will invariably occur; there are conflicts
that different nations must resolve.  But all of these can be
resolved by elevating the dialogue to a higher level, and to look
at what the common challenges are and what are the avenues of the
common benefit that all nations can work together towards this
idea of a common destiny for mankind.
So, we’re out of time right now.  As I said in the
beginning, if you looked at in one way, you would say the
possibility of war is very near at hand.  But if you look at it
in another way, you say the possibility of a New Paradigm of
peace and mutual development is also very close at hand, and is
right there for the taking.  It is all that much more necessary
that those of us who have this perspective and understand that
the big picture — events on the ground are being dictated and
are being driven by this fight; by this struggle between two
mutually opposing paradigms.  The geopolitical paradigm, that has
brought us to the threshold of this kind of war situation; but
also, this New Paradigm of economic development and
mega-projects.  And the offer, that we will assist you, not
expecting something in return, not trying to impose our will on
you; but just from the standpoint that this kind of cooperation
is in our mutual benefit.  It’s up to us and it’s up to the
elected leadership here in the United States on all levels, to
gain that perspective and to look for those avenues of mutually
beneficial cooperation and win-win relationships that can build
the bridge from now into this future in which the New Paradigm is
dominant.
So, as I said, we have the material which you need, which is
in the contents of this Four Laws pamphlet.  This is “Lyndon
LaRouche’s Four Laws; The Physical Economic Principles for the
Recovery of the United States:  America’s Future on the New Silk
Road.”  This was originally printed many months ago, but it
remains highly relevant and a very timely intervention that we
can use to educate our fellow Americans according to this
potential for the dividends of the New Paradigm of win-win
cooperation and economic development.  With that perspective in
mind, we wish you a Happy Easter, and we thank you for tuning to
larouchepac.com.  Please stay tuned, and we’ll see you on Monday.




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Ambitiøse finske initiativer vil opkoble den arktiske jernbane til Tyskland

26. marts, 2018 – Den finske regering annoncerede den 9. marts sin beslutning om at planlægge en arktisk jernbanelinje til Norges mest østlige beliggende by, Kirkenes, ved Barentshavet. Denne beslutning har afgjort denne jernbanelinjes rute, som flere norske havne og den russiske havn Murmansk har konkurreret om. Ruten fra Kirkenes vil åbne for adgang til et potentielt meget rigt område for minedrift i det nordlige Finland. Den vil løbe til Rovaniemi, der via jernbane er forbundet til resten af Finland. Jernbanen vil bringe hele Finland og Sverige i kontakt med den nordlige sejlrute, såvel som med de enorme energiprojekter i det arktiske område.

Den finske minister for transport og kommunikationer Anne Berner arbejder for en række projekter, der forbinder den nordlige sejlrute, gennem Finland, direkte med Centraleuropa og Tyskland. Hun arbejder aktivt for tunnelprojektet mellem den finske hovedstad, Helsinki, og den estiske hovedstad, Tallinn. Herfra findes projektet Rail Baltica som et af de ni sovende EU-korridorprojekter (TEN-T), der forbinder hele Europa. Minister Berner er meget aktiv med at etablere kontakt med de relevante institutioner i Norge, Sverige og de Baltiske Stater, såvel som med de hjemlige oprindelige folk i området, hvor den arktiske jernbane (fra det Arktiske Hav) skal løbe. Berner var den finske regerings repræsentant ved Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing, 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Finland arbejder også for, at Sverige skaber en Botnisk Korridor i begge lande, på begge sider det Baltiske Hav (Østersøen). Den hesteskoformede jernbanekorridor vil, sammen med Helsinki-Tallinn-tunnelen, Rail Baltica og jernbanenettet i Danmark, Tyskland og Polen, fuldstændiggøre en Baltisk Ring omkring hele det Baltiske Hav.

I en rapport om Arktisk Hav-jernbanen (Arctic Ocean Railway) gøres det klart, at det er planen at arbejde sammen med Kina i hele det arktiske område. Et kapitel med overskriften, »Arktisk Hav-jernbanen er den del af det globale transportsystem« er visionært: »På en bredere skala er Arktisk Hav-jernbanen også forbundet til de førnævnte projekter, dvs., Rail Baltica og Helsinki-Tallinn-tunnelen. Arktisk Hav-jernbanen bør derfor ses som en del af det globale transportsystem … Arktisk Hav-jernbanen ville forbinde det arktiske område og dets udstrakte naturlige resurser med både Finlands jernbanenet og – via Helsinki-Tallinn-tunnelen og Rail Baltica – med Centraleuropa og hinsides. Arktisk Hav-jernbanen ville give en alternativ rute for finsk eksport og import. En forbindelse til det Arktiske Havs dybe, isfrie havne ville åbne for en forbindelse til Atlanterhavet og Nordøstpassagen og herved på signifikant vis øge Finlands transportkapacitet og forbedre dets logistiske position og tilgængelighed. Takket være disse forbindelser, ville Finlands betydning som en nordeuropæisk transportrute vokse.«

Det Finske Transportagentur udgav sin Arctic Ocean Railway Report i år.

Tidligere er betydningen af Arktiske Hav-jernbanen blevet beskrevet i en tale for Schiller Institut-konferencen i Berlin, 25.-26. februar, 2012 af EIR’s Stockholm-korrespondent Ulf Sandmark, »Man in the Arctic – But How?«, udgivet i EIR, 6. april, 2012.




Videnskaben om at gøre en ende
på fattigdom og geopolitik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Federal Reserve og infrastrukturprojekterne

23. marts, 2018 – Med Federal Reserves hævelse af Federal funds-renten til 1,75 % onsdag, og med yderligere to planlagte rentestigninger, har man regnet ud, at Fed vil udbetale $37 mia. i 2018 i renter på overskydende reserver (IOER) til banker, der fortsat har overskydende reserver i Fed. Det drejer sig i overvældende grad om storbankerne på Wall Street og i City og London og andre europæiske storbanker, samt de store, amerikanske, regionale institutioner; og de har stadig næsten $20 billion i overskydende reserver i Fed, i form af amerikanske statsobligationer.

Fed vil således udbetale dem $37 mia. i år, for ikke at udlåne disse overskydende reserver, men til fortsat at bruge dem som instrumenter for sikkerhedsstillelse til spekulative handler.

$37 mia. ville finansiere både hele Gateway Projektet og udskiftningen af Poe Locks, helt til deres færdiggørelse; eller, en ny jernbanetunnel i Baltimores havn og hele Texas kystbeskyttelse mod oversvømmelse og plan for vandmanagement, der har ventet på finansiering, siden 1968.

Federal Reserve anlagde første gang i historien IOER under finanskrakket i 2008. Selv de to Republikanske ledere af Husets Komite for finanstjenesteydelser, Jeb Hensarling og Patrick McHenry, truede gentagne gange Fed-formænd på komiteen med, at, hvis Fed ikke standser denne praksis, vil Kongressen tvinge dem til det. Men Fed ignorerer dem; Wall Street behøver stadig denne »støtte«; og de har ikke forsøgt at handle på disse trusler.

Den gennemsnitlige rente, der tilbydes sparere, som køber CD’er (Credit Default Swaps), er stadig ikke engang oppe på 1 % og ligger på 0,91 %, iflg. American Banker.

Foto: Houston, Texas, august 2017. Det er påkrævende nødvendigt at finde finansiering til at gå i gang med moderne infrastruktur til beskyttelse mod oversvømmelser, der jævnligt forekommer i området som følge af orkaner og koster menneskeliv og enorme ødelæggelser.




Hvad mener Aarhus Universitet egentlig?

af Hans Schultz fhv. kandidat til Folketings- og Kommunal-valg for Schiller Instituttets Venner, marts 2018 – Lektor emeritus i bioscience fra Aarhus Universitet Per Nørnberg skriver i en kronik i Jyllands-Posten bragt d. 28. februar 2018, at vi grundlæggende set mangler en pest i ny og næ til at reducere verdensbefolkningen med – sikkert lidt ligesom den mørke tidsalder i det 14. århundrede da byldepesten hærgede i Europa. 2,5 mia. mennesker på jorden er, hvad Per Nørnberg stiler efter, hvor andre af lignende overbevisning kan nævne en eller en halv mia. mennesker som deres ‘drømmescenarie’.

Med det menneskesyn, der ligger bag denne tankegang, må man jo konkludere, at Adolf Hitler var en våbenfælle for denne ‘bæredygtige’ verdensorden. Måske med den undtagelse, at Hitler også forårsagede død blandt de forkerte mennesker, såsom europæere og jøder. Per Nørnberg peger nemlig direkte på Afrika som det sted, hvor befolkningen først og fremmest skal reduceres, ud fra hvilket man nødvendigvis må konkludere, at det er udviklingslandene, der er det første mål for reduktion. Altså må disse befolkninger bestå af mennesker af mindre værd end kaukasiske hvide. Dette er en grundtanke bag nazismen, som Per Nørnberg altså fremturer med.

Per Nørnbergs argumenter er et sammensurium af forskellige emner, som klimaforandring, flygtningeproblemer, biodiversitet – ingen overraskelser her – og meget andet mellem himmel og jord. Fælles for det hele er, at Per Nørnberg ikke viser den mindste indsigt i de dybere detaljer for hver enkelt af de sager, han nævner, men agerer som en elefant, der forsøger sig med broderi.

At ressourcer ikke er begrænsede, og at der findes løsninger på verdens fattigdomsproblemer, optræder ikke i Per Nørnbergs optik. For eksempel har Lake Chad-myndigheden netop holdt en succesrig konference om megaprojektet Transaqua, der handler om at omlede en del af vandet fra tilløbsfloderne til Kongofloden op til Chad-søen beliggende mellem Niger, Nigeria, Cameroun og Chad. Dette viser en vej til, hvordan man faktisk kan forbedre levebetingelserne for nogle af de fattigste mennesker på jorden, fremfor at stigmatisere dem, ved at erklære dem som problemet.

Afrika er ikke overbefolket, men mangler derimod udvikling. Og fattigdom er ikke en naturlig konsekvens af demografi eller lignende, men er politisk kunstigt iscenesat. Netop nu er en historisk udvikling i gang, båret af Kinas Bælte og Vej Initiativ (BRI) også kaldt ‘Den Nye Silkevej’, som gør det muligt for verdens fattigste befolkninger en gang for alle at gøre op med fortidens åg fra kolonimagterne og befri sig fra århundreders fattigdom.

Men Per Nørnbergs verdensopfattelse kommer af hans grundlæggende menneskesyn. Et menneskesyn han deler med bl.a. prins Philip Mountbatten, medstifter af Verdensnaturfonden, Adolf Hitler, der vidst ikke behøver yderligere introduktion, samt Winston Churchill, der bl.a. stod for den forcerede udsultning af 4 millioner Bengalere i året 1943 alene. Spørgsmålet er så, om Aarhus Universitet som institution også deler Per Nørnbergs syn. Står Connie Hedegaard, formand for AU’s bestyrelse, på linje med dette syn? Og hvad med de andre universiteter her i Danmark?

Link til artikel på Jyllandsposten:
https://jyllands-posten.dk/debat/kronik/ECE10357910/det-egentlige-problem-er-befolkningsudviklingen/




Londons scenarie for krig,
eller Kinas scenarie for fremskridt?
Hvad vælger Amerika?

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 19. marts, 2018 – Den britiske regerings nu dagligt eskalerende konfrontation med Rusland er drevet af de mest korrupte motiver og tilsigter frem for alt at trække USA ind i – det, der kunne blive krig, endda en »krig uden overlevende«.

I løbet af de seneste 48 timer er tre nye »narrativer« om angivelige russiske angreb mod Storbritannien blevet sendt ud af London, som konstant optrapper og forandrer den oprindelige, udokumenterede anklage om, at Rusland – og dernæst, russere efter præsident Putins personlige ordre – forsøgte at myrde en MI6-dobbeltagent i England. Og de britiske medier har gjort en dristig »militær udfordring af Rusland« ud af en øvelse med britiske ubåde, læsset med amerikanske atommissiler, sammen med amerikanske atomubåde under polarisen.

Hvilke motiver har den britiske udenrigsminister Boris Johnson, der ser ud, og agerer, som »Col. Blimp« fra tegneserien fra Første Verdenskrig, og Theresa May, der blev premierminister ved et tilfælde, og som har den stilling, Johnson troede, ville blive hans? De er imperialister af en finansiel og geopolitisk London-orden, som, forventer de, vil blive håndhævet militært af USA.

De ser denne geopolitiske orden blive erstattet af Kinas nye paradigme for samarbejde mellem stormagter for alle nationers fremskridt og deres befolkningers produktivitet: Bælte & Vej Initiativet med nye infrastrukturprojekter og udryddelse af fattigdom. De ønsker Kina holdt tilbage, Bælte & Vej sat under City of Londons regler; men de kan ikke få det til at ske. De ønsker Kinas allierede Rusland konfronteret og endda udfordret til kamp.

De konfronteres selv med utilfredse britiske befolkninger og en determineret og bredt støttet leder i Labours Jeremy Corbyn, som bekæmper deres geopolitiske politikker og City of Londons finansielle, imperiale bankcentrums finansielle forbrydelser. De ønsker Corbyn tjæret som en »håndlanger for Kreml« af tabloidpressen, og drevet ud.

De ser fortsat stærk modstand mod Londons geopolitik fra præsident Donald Trump. Efter 18 måneders nonstop angreb på Trump, der har deres udspring i britiske efterretningstjenester, som sigter på at knække ham eller fjerne ham, går han stadig ind for samarbejde mellem stormagterne og vinder støtte i den amerikanske befolkning.

De står meget snart over for endnu et krak i London-Wall Street-kabalen, værre end i 2007-08. Det britiske Imperiums svar på denne trussel har altid været krig.

På trods af hysterisk støtte i de store medier, så har de »nye Churchills« fra London ikke det momentum, de forestiller sig, for krigskonfrontation. Ikke engang i UK – men, for dem er det, at køre USA, altid det, der tæller mest.

Det, der nu er afgørende, er, at præsident Trump og USA vælger tilbuddet fra Kina, Bælte & Vej Initiativet, og lader dets paradigme for produktiv, økonomisk fremskridt dryppe lidt på os.

Skattelettelser og afregulering af Wall Street har ikke genoplivet, og vil ikke genoplive, amerikansk vækst fra dens lange stagnation, og heller ikke udfylde USA’s enorme infrastrukturunderskud. Det vil derimod de tiltag, som stifter af EIR, Lyndon LaRouche, har foreslået, med begyndelse i Glass/Steagall-loven til at bryde Wall Street op. Disse tiltag, som omfatter den første, statslige kreditinstitution, USA har haft siden Franklin Roosevelts Reconstruction Finance Corp., har til formål at slutte USA til et globalt samarbejde mellem suveræne nationer for »menneskehedens fælles mål«.

Det betyder at vælge Kinas fremskridt til, og Storbritanniens krig fra.

Foto: Vladimir Putin og Theresa May diskuterede spørgsmål af fælles interesse for Rusland og Storbritannien. Hangzhou, Kina, 4. september, 2016 (Kreml).  




Britisk geopolitisk imperiepolitik kollapser;
Theresa May forsøger desperat at kontrollere Trump

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. marts, 2018 – Den britiske premierminister Theresa May har opført et show à la Churchill over det, der fremstår som en forgiftning af en russisk dobbeltagent i London. Hun og udenrigsminister Boris »Col. Blimp«[1] Johnson har givet Rusland et 24-timers ultimatum og krævet NATO’s støtte til, at UK konfronterer Rusland og et muligt angreb mod Syrien. Tirsdag eftermiddag kontaktede May præsident Donald Trump pr. telefon for at forsøge at overtale ham til at angribe Rusland.

Uheldigvis for hende var Churchill selv en ivrig bruger af giftvåben på slagmarken, »udslettelsesbombning« – som han udtrykte det – og af giftgasangreb mod civile fra »laverestående racer«. Mange i verden husker Det britiske Imperiums historie og er bevidst om dets aktuelle bevæbning og styring af den saudiske folkemordskrig mod Yemen.

Og UK er selv i besiddelse af den sjældne, kemiske nervegift, som May hævder, blev brugt af russere i London.

Men Mays desperation kommer i realiteten af den kendsgerning, at den geopolitiske doktrin, briterne i århundreder har fremmanet, kører på pumperne. Den er i færd med at blive besejret af en ny politik, kendt som den Nye Silkevej og af Kinas præsident betegnet som »menneskehedens fælles fremtid«.

Kina har bragt et nyt, produktivt, globalt boom med infrastrukturbyggeri ind i verden og sammen med det, en idé om stormagtsrelationer, baseret på respekt og gensidig udviklingshjælp til andre nationer. Præsident Trump har gentagne gange valgt at understrege sin fremragende, gensidigt respektfulde relation med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping, og deres samarbejde kunne endda stabilisere Koreahalvøen.

De af britisk efterretning skabte »Russiagate«-skandaler i USA, der har til formål at enten tvinge Trump ind i en konfrontation med Rusland, eller også tvinge ham ud af embedet, fortsætter med at kollapse – nu med Husets Efterretningskomite, der har afsluttet sine efterforskninger og erklæret, »intet at finde«.

Præsident Vladimir Putins tale 1. marts har erklæret NATO-politikken med omringning af Rusland med NATO’s strategiske førsteangrebskapacitet for forældet og død. Det kan ikke ignoreres. Selveste USA’s Forsvarsministerium har nu erkendt, at USA’s ABM-systemer ikke vil virke mod Ruslands strategiske våben. Som præsident Putin sagde, så er forhandlinger, baseret på gensidig respekt, den bedste politik for begge lande.

May kunne være på nippet til at blive udskiftet som premierminister af leder af Labour-partiet, Jeremy Corbyn, der faktisk har massiv støtte i den britiske befolkning, til dels for at have afvist krigskonfrontation med Rusland.

Hvad enten den britisk PM kan få præsident Trump til at sige »Rusland gjorde det« i dag eller ej, så er hendes problem af en dybere karakter. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag kommenterede, så er det establishment, som May repræsenterer, allerede besejret i en kamp, de har tabt på forhånd – og hvor de kæmper for britisk imperiepolitik til den bitre ende. Det nye paradigme for stormagtsrelationer, som Kina står i spidsen for, er i færd med at skubbe den længe dominerende, britiske, geopolitiske doktrin ud af den historiske scene.

USA under Trump kan undgå »Thukydid-fælden« og samarbejde, til gensidig fordel for alle nationer.

Men kan det genoplive sin industri, produktivitet, sin storhed som rumfartsnation, sin videnskabelige dygtighed – eller endda sine borgeres forventede levetid? Kan det skabe kredit for at udskifte sin nedbrudte, økonomiske infrastruktur?

Det er her, både Trump og Kongressen er ved at forlise. Og det er, hvad en tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej vil betyde.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump køber tydeligvis ikke PM Theresa Mays B—S—, under konferencen i Davos, 2. jan., 2018. (Public Domain)

[1] Britisk tegneseriefigur fra trediverne. Blimp er pompøs, opfarende, chauvinistisk og en britisk stereotype. Figuren er opkaldt efter en spærreballon, kendt som en ’blimp’. (-red.)




Et stort skridt fremad for
realisering af Transaqua-projektet:
Overførsel af vand er ikke en
valgmulighed, men en nødvendighed

2. marts, 2018 – Det officielle udfald af den internationale konference om Tchadsøen den 26.-28. feb. i Abuja, Nigeria, er en utvetydig støtteerklæring til Transaqua-projektet, der foreslår overførsel af vand fra Congoflodens bækken til Tchadsøen. Den siger klart:

* Der er ingen løsning på Tchadsøens svindende vandmængde, som ikke involverer en genopfyldning af søen gennem en overførsel af vand fra uden for søens bassin.

* Overførslen af vand fra det interne bækken er ikke en valgmulighed, men en nødvendighed.

* Transaqua-projektet, der vil overføre vand fra Congoflodens bifloder på dens højre side og føre det 2.400 km frem via en kanal til Charifloden, er den foretrukne, gennemførlige mulighed.

LPAC’s featurevideo om Transaqua-projektet:

 

Det blev desuden, under mødet på højt niveau mellem præsidenterne for kommissionen for Tchadsøens bækken, af den italienske ambassadør til Nigeria, Stefano Pontesilli, annonceret, at Italien vil bidrage med €1,5 mio. til forundersøgelserne til Transaqua-projektet og erklæret, at Italien var parat til at indgå som partner i det foreslåede »Transaqua-projekt« for at sikre den heldige overførsel af vand. Forundersøgelserne er planlagt til at blive gennemført af det italienske ingeniørfirma, Bonifica, og byggefirmaet PowerChina.

Radio France International citerer EIR’s Claudio Celani

Radio France International citerede EIR’s korrespondent Claudio Celani i sin dækning af den Internationale Konference om Tchadsøen den 26.-28. feb. i Abuja, Nigeria. »For ambitiøst, for risikabelt, for dyrt? Grundene til at være modstander af det mangler ikke, men projektet for at genopfylde Tchadsøen er tilbage. Tirsdag, den 27. feb. i Abuja, Nigeria, var den titaniske ambition om at overføre vand fra Congobækkenet på alles læber, som det blev rapporteret af den italienske analytiker, Claudio Celani:

»’Folk her er overbevist om, at overførsel af vand er den eneste måde, hvorpå en genoplivning af Tchadsøen kan ske. De ser store ting. De forstår, at de har brug for et stort projekt, Transaqua, det store projekt, hvis hensigt ikke alene er at flytte vand fra punkt A til Punkt B, men også at bygge en reel, moderne infrastruktur i Afrikas hjerte’, forklarer han.«

RFI fortsætter: »Transaqua er ved at rejse sig af asken. Det italienske firma Bonifica, der oprindeligt udarbejdede projektet, er nu associeret med det kinesiske selskab, PowerChina. En fælles forundersøgelse vil blive finansieret af den kinesiske og italienske regering. PowerChinas chefingeniør er glad for dette samarbejde: ’Jeg mener, vi står ved begyndelsen til et nyt samarbejde. Vi ser frem til at begynde dette samarbejde.’«

Alt imens artiklen citerer François Kalwele fra den Demokratiske Republik Congos Miljøministerium, som sagde, han er fortaler for solidaritet mellem afrikanske stater, så handler resten af artiklen om muligheden for, at man finder olie i regionen.

Dækningen fra Agence France-Presse (AFP) understregede de to valg, som Tchadsøen står overfor, enten at bringe mere vand til søen, eller også at overlade regionen fuldstændigt til Boko Haram-islamister. »Omkring 40 million mennesker lever ved eller omkring Tchadsøen – men denne vitale resurse er hastigt i færd med at skrumpe ind under virkningen af klimaforandring og fejlagtig management af vandet … Det lyder som noget fra Wakanda, det futuristiske, afrikanske kongedømme i hit-filmen, ’Black Panther’. Men ’Transaqua’ er et meget virkeligt forslag til et meget virkeligt problem – hvordan man genopfylder Tchadsøens svindende vandmængde.

Forslaget forudser en 2.600 km lang kanal fra den Demokratiske Republik Congo, tværs over den Centralafrikanske Republik for at mødes med Charifloden, der løber ud i ferskvandssøen …

Regionens forværrede sårbarhed er blevet et rekrutteringsgrundlag for Boko Haram. Jihadisterne har fundet det langt lettere at vinde landmænd og fiskere, der fører en forarmet tilværelse, over på deres side, og at skabe en base for sig selv på mange af søens øer … Eksperter mødtes i Abuja i to dage for at diskutere måder, hvorpå man kan standse udtørringen af Tchadsøen – og Transaqua tiltrak interesse, selv om projektet stadig er i sin vorden og står over for mange forhindringer.«

AFP citerer eksekutive sekretær for Tchadsø-bækkenets Kommission, Sanusi Abdullahi: »Overførsel af vand i det interne bassin er ikke en valgmulighed, men en nødvendighed. Vi står over for den mulighed, at Tchadsøen forsvinder, og det ville være en katastrofe for hele det afrikanske kontinent.«

Med en kritik af UNESCO’s nye research- og bevaringsprogram til $6,5 mio., som omfatter Cameroun, Tchad, Niger og Nigeria, såvel som C.A.R. (Centralafrikanske Republik), som udgørende en afledning, sagde Horace Campbell, en professor i afrikanske studier ved Ghanas Universitet, til delegerede, ’Det, de franske intellektuelle har promoveret, er overlevelsesevne og levebrød. Men det kan man ikke få uden at genopfylde søen.’«

Den tekniske direktør Franco Bochetto, fra det italienske ingeniørfirma Bonifica, som først designede Transaqua-projektet for henved 35 år siden, citeres, »Synet af hundreder af mennesker, der dør i Middelhavet« havde ansporet den italienske regering til at støtte projektet. »I de seneste år har situationen hastigt ændret sig, og det, der ikke syntes at være muligt i 1980’erne, har nu interesse«, sagde han. »Vi arbejder her for projekter, og vi ønsker at tage et socialt ansvar«, sagde Ziping Huang, en ingeniør hos PowerChina. Bonifica og PowerChina vil udføre forundersøgelserne til projektet.

Foto: Præsident for den Føderale Republik Nigeria og øverstkommanderende, Hans excellence Muhammadu Buhari GCFR holder åbningstalen på konferencen for at redde Tchadsøen, Abuja, Nigeria. Photo: @lcbcconference2018




Hvorfor geopolitik fører til krig
– Og en sejr i Abuja, Afrika.
Helga Zepp-LaRouche i Nyt Paradigme
Webcast, 1. marts, 2018 (pdf, dansk, og video)

Er det virkelig OK med narkoepidemien, der i USA har ført til et fald i den generelle levetid; guvernør Bevin påpegede det faktum, at nogle af disse sataniske budskaber også er i teksterne i popmusikken, i filmene, i videospillene – bør vi tillade alt dette, og få vore samfund totalt ødelagt? Der er en virkning af alt dette på de kognitive evner! Hvis man ønsker Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love som den eneste løsning til at undgå systemets kollaps, jamen, især den fjerde lov kræver et forceret program for fusionskraft, for international rumforskning og rumrejser. Man kan ikke have folk med ødelagte hjerner, fordi de er afhængige af disse ting, og så få dem til at blive kreativ, produktiv arbejdskraft.

Så det er én og samme diskussion, vi har brug for – vi har brug for et Nyt Paradigme, og vi må have et uddannelsessystem, der understreger skønheden i klassisk kultur, der understreger karakterens skønhed som et udviklingsmål. Det var Wilhelm von Humboldts idé, som trods alt havde indflydelse på meget af undervisningssystemet i Europa og USA i det 19. århundrede, og det holdt sig endda til langt ind i det 20. århundrede, og han havde den idé, at formålet med uddannelse må være karakterens skønhed. Hvem taler om dette nu om stunder? Hvis man tager nogle af disse børn, der er afhængige af disse voldsvideospil, eller endnu værre, der kigger på forfærdeligt materiale på Internettet, hvor der bruges tortur og sådanne ting, og som virkelig bliver ødelagt. Deres hjerner bliver fuldstændig ødelagt!

Eftersom guvernør Bevin har krævet en national debat om dette, og præsident Trump heldigvis også ønsker at tage dette spørgsmål op, mener jeg, vi må have en sådan debat, for det er efter min mening en integreret del af USA’s tilslutning til det Nye Paradigme og den Nye Silkevej, for vi kan ikke have, at dette fortsætter.

Schiller Instituttet har i mange år bevist, at, med klassisk musik, med klassisk poesi, med Schiller, med Shakespeare, kan man transformere folk og få en æstetisk opdragelse, og det er præcis, hvad vi har brug for lige nu.

 

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Putin leverede en meget fremsynet Tale til Nationen

Torsdag, 1. marts, 2018 – Den russiske præsident Putin leverede en meget fremsynet Tale til Nationen, eller tale om nationens tilstand, i går, hvor han talte til en fælles session i Ruslands føderale forsamling, de to lovgivende huse. Talens fulde tekst er udlagt på engelsk på Kremls website. (http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957)

Putin dækkede i talen hele spektret af økonomi, sikkerhed og internationale emner.

Præsidenten lagde ud med sin økonomiske politik, der er centreret omkring at løfte den russiske befolknings vilkår således, at det muliggør dens fulde, kreative potentiale, og således også den russiske nations potentiale. Her følger nogle enkelte uddrag af nogle af højdepunkterne i Putins inspirerende tale:

»Som jeg tidligere har sagt, så bestemmes statens rolle og position i den moderne verden ikke kun eller i overvejende grad af naturlige resurser eller produktionskapaciteter; den afgørende rolle spilles af folket, så vel som også af vilkårene for hvert enkelt individs udvikling, selvhævdelse og kreativitet. Alting afhænger derfor af indsatsen for at sikre det russiske folk og garantere vore borgeres fremgang. Vi må opnå et afgørende gennembrud inden for dette område.«

Putin understregede, at »verden akkumulerer nu et enormt teknologisk potentiale, som gør det muligt at opnå et virkeligt gennembrud i forbedringen af folkets livskvalitet og moderniseringen af økonomien, infrastrukturen og statens styrelse og administration … de næste par år vil være afgørende for landets fremtid. Jeg gentager; disse år vil blive afgørende …«

Med en advarsel om, at en »teknologisk forsinkelse og afhængighed vil sige reduceret sikkerhed og reducerede økonomiske muligheder for landet og, sluttelig, tabet af landets suverænitet … Som jeg har sagt, så vedrører forandringerne hele civilisationen, og den blotte skala af disse forandringer kræver en lige så magtfuld respons. Vi er rede til at yde en sådan respons. Vi er parat til et regulært gennembrud …

I modsat fald bliver der ingen fremtid for os, for vore børn og for vort land. Det er ikke et spørgsmål om, at nogen erobrer eller ødelægger vort land. Nej, det er ikke faren. Hovedtruslen og vores hovedfjende er det faktum, at vi sakker bagud. Hvis det ikke lykkes os at vende denne tendens, vil vi sakke endnu længere bagud … Vi må beherske den kreative evne og styrke udvikling, så ingen forhindringer står i vejen for, at vi kan bevæge os tillidsfuldt og uafhængigt fremad. Vi må selv eje vores fremtid.«

Han fremsatte krav om en halvering af de fattige fra 20 million til 10 million i løbet af de næste seks år, ved at tilbyde anstændige, velbetalte jobs og frigøre befolkningens kreative potentiale. Han fremsatte nødvendigheden af at forbedre livskvaliteten gennem en forbedret kapacitet i sundhedssektoren, boligsektoren, højere pensioner og en garanti for en høj livskvalitet for pensionister, samt en forøget forventet levealder på over 80 år.

Putin foreslog »at lancere et storskala, rumligt udviklingsprogram i Rusland, som ville omfatte at udvikle byer og andre lokalsamfund ved mindst en fordobling af udgifterne inden for dette område over de næste seks år … En renovering af byerne bør støttes af introduktionen af den mest avancerede byggeteknologi og de mest avancerede byggematerialer, moderne arkitekturløsninger, digital teknologi til sociale tjenesteydelser, og sektorerne for transport og offentlige tjenesteydelser (dvs., vand, elektricitet mm.)…

Det er vigtigt, at udviklingen af byer bliver drivkraften i hele landet. Rusland er et land med et udstrakt territorium, og dets aktive, dynamiske liv kan ikke være koncentreret i et par metropoler. Store byer må distribuere deres energi og tjene som støtte for en afbalanceret, harmonisk, rumlig udvikling af hele Rusland.«

Om infrastruktur annoncerede Putin, at »broen til Krim vil åbne for biler om et par måneder og for tog næste år. Dette vil stimulere udviklingen af Krim og hele det russiske sortehavsområde.«

Og yderligere, »de næste seks år må vi næsten fordoble budgettet til vejbyggeri og vejreparationer i Rusland og bevilge mere en 11 billion rubler [$198 billion]. Han nævnte også planer om at udvikle store, eurasiske transportkorridorer, inkl. en vej til bilkørsel, som vil blive en del af Europa-Asiatisk Stillehavsområde-korridoren, som allerede er ved at blive bygget i samarbejde med Kina og Kasakhstan.

»Gennemstrømningskapaciteten for Baikal-Amur-hovedlinjen og den Transsibiriske Jernbane [i den Eurasiske Landbro] vil vokse 1,5 gang, op til 180 million tons, på seks år«, sagde Putin. »Det vil tage syv dage for containere fra Vladivostok at nå Ruslands vestlige grænser … Volumen af transitfragt på vore jernbaner må vokse med næsten fire gange. Det betyder, at Rusland vil blive en global leder inden for transitfragt mellem Europa og Asien.«

Med hensyn til fragt over vand, sagde Putin, at gennemstrømningen i de russiske havne er vokset til mere end 1 mia. ton for første gang i historien, i 2017: »Som I ser på disse grafer, så overgår dette det niveau, som Sovjetunionen opnåede, med mere end to tredjedele … Vi må yderligere udvide denne kapacitet, inkl. ved at forøge kapaciteten af jernbaneforbindelsen til havne i Azov- og Sortehavsbassinet 1,5 gang, til 131 mio. tons«, sagde han.

Putin nævnte også udvidelsen af den Nordlige Søvej og sagde, at, frem til 2025, vil fragttrafikken langs denne rute vokse ti gange, til 80 mio. tons. »Det er vores mål at gøre det til en virkelig global og konkurrencedygtig transportrute. Lad mig minde jer om, at den Nordlige Søvej blev mere aktivt brugt under sovjettiden, sammenlignet med, hvordan vi hidtil har brugt den. Vi vil afgjort udvikle denne rute og nå nye horisonter. Det er jeg ikke i tvivl om.«

Den russiske præsident talte også længe om udviklingen af Ruslands Fjernøsten.




Tiden er inde til at fjerne fattigdom
og give vore børn en fremtid

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 28. feb., 2018 – I dag anfører New York Times den flok hyæner i det vestlige pressekorps, som misbilliger den kinesiske beslutning om at fjerne tidsbegrænsning for deres præsidenter og vicepræsidenter. »Xi sætter Kina på kollisionskurs med historien«, hyler Times’ overskrift og citerer ingen anden en taberen Hillary Clinton, der udtalte, at Kina er på »en taberkurs og forsøger at opretholde et regeringssystem, der ikke kan overleve i den moderne verden«.

Kesha Rogers, den uafhængige kandidat til Kongressen for Texas (9. Kongresdistrikt), og som støttes af LaRouche Politiske Aktionskomite, responderede til dette hysteri imod Kina ved at minde vore borgere om Martin Luther Kings ord (som, ulig Hillary, var kvalificeret til at være præsident), der sagde: »Tiden er inde for os at blive civiliserede ved totalt, direkte og omgående at afskaffe fattigdom.« Det er selvfølgelig det, Kina er ved at opnå, både for sine egne borgere (frem til år 2020) og for verden, gennem sit historiske Bælte & Vej Initiativ. Hvilken nation eksemplificerer den »civiliserede verden« i dag?

Global Times, det Kinesiske Kommunistpartis avis, skriver i dag, at »de vestlige medier begyndte at tale dårligt om Kina på deres sædvanlige og forskellige måder« efter meddelelsen om, at Kina ville afslutte begrænsede embedsperioder. »Den vigtigste grund til alt dette«, fortsætter lederartiklen, »er, at Kinas fremvækst har nået et afgørende punkt, hvor nogle vesterlændinge rent psykologisk ikke kan holde det ud længere. De ønsker at se en ulykke ramme landet. Selv, hvis det skulle skade deres egne interesser, så er de villige til først at se Kina smuldre«. De skriver fortsat, »I årenes løb er både Kinas Kommunistiske Partis Centralkomites myndighed og vort kinesiske samfunds fremgang vokset. Centralkomiteens myndighed er den mest fremragende del af Kinas konkurrencedygtighed. Den er kilden til landets effektivitet og evne til at mobilisere folk og foretage tilpasninger. Det er den ting, som den omgivende verden mest misunder Kina, og det er målet for vestlig, antikinesisk retorik.«

Mange i Vesten responderer, at, på trods af det store fremskridt i Kina, er det kinesiske folk ikke frit, har ikke basale menneskerettigheder, som om retten til et anstændigt levebrød, frihed fra fattigdom og frihed til at bidrage til nationens og menneskehedens fremtid, ikke skulle være den mest fundamentale af menneskerettighederne.

Men vi må også stille spørgsmålet, hvad er tilstanden for menneskerettighederne i USA? Hvad gør man mod vore børn, af hvilke millioner er blevet nægtet ethvert håb om en produktiv fremtid, og som i stedet tilbydes »friheden« til at tage narkotiske stoffer, til at blive »underholdt« af film og videospil og popmusik, der lærer dem at umenneskeliggøre deres medmennesker gennem vold og pornografi, og som nægtes enhver uddannelse med hensyn til den klassiske, vestlige kulturs skønhed, for slet ikke at tale om den klassiske kinesiske kulturs skønhed, eller skønheden i nogen af de andre, store kulturer i menneskets historie? Der bør ikke herske tvivl om, hvorfor hundredevis af vore børn bliver forvandlet til mordere. Der bør heller ikke herske nogen tvivl om, at hele økonomien og hele kulturen må transformeres for at denne rædsel skal stoppe, og for at verden kan gå ind i et nyt paradigme, baseret på menneskeligt fremskridt og menneskelig værdighed.

Præsident Trump vækkede et håb i det amerikanske folk, hvor han lovede at genopbygge nationens industrielle grundlag og den kollapsende infrastruktur, at afslutte narkosvøben, mindede folk om Alexander Hamiltons »Amerikanske System« og lovede at afslutte den nytteløse og farlige konfrontation med Rusland og Kina. Det er de spørgsmål, som Lyndon LaRouche har kæmpet for i et halvt århundrede, alt imens det politiske lederskab har været i færd med at transformere nationen til en postindustriel skrotbunke og en permanent krigsmaskine på vegne af Det britiske Imperium.

Håbet om at genoprette Amerikas storhed må nu fuldbyrdes på den eneste, mulige måde – ikke stykkevist, ikke med små skridt, men gennem den fulde og hele genindførelse af det Amerikanske System gennem LaRouches program, og ved fuldt og helt at vedtage den Nye Silkevejsånd, som Kinas Bælte & Vej har lanceret. Det er, hvad et civiliseret samfund må gøre.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump og præsident Xi Jinping møder børn, der vifter med kinesiske og amerikanske flag under velkomstceremonier uden for Folkets Store Hal, 9. nov., 2017, i Beijing, Folkerepublikken Kina. (WH Photo Shealah Craighead)




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

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

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

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

 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 




Masseskyderier: Et spejl af nationens moralske pessimisme

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 26. feb., 2018 – Hvad var det, præsident Trump lovede, havde til hensigt, blev valgt til at vende omkring? Sammenbruddet af den vindende optimisme, industriel formåen, Amerikas produktive ånd? Lad os holde op med at anstifte krige, sagde han, og i stedet genopbygge vores nation, industri, infrastruktur, økonomi og »sætte fodaftryk i fjerne verdener«. Hans mål, hvad enten han præcist kaldte det dette eller ej, var at afslutte den intensiverende pessimisme i et Amerika, der engang anførte mennesket ud i rummet.

På grund af disse hans hensigter blev præsidenten selv målskive for dem, der vil have et Amerika-altid-i-krig, et Amerika igen i stormagtskonfrontation med Kina og Rusland snarere end i stormagtssamarbejde om fred og økonomisk fremskridt.

For de neokonservative, der steg til vejrs under Bush’ og Obamas præsidentskaber, og for ulykkelige millioner af amerikanere, er USA blevet en nation, for hvem »at vinde« blot betyder at være den bedste til at identificere fjendtlige »regimer«, »stammer« eller folkeslag og slå dem ihjel, sammen med denne eller hin terrorgruppe, som disse krige afføder.

I forløbet med denne identifikation – eller skabelse – af modstandere og med forberedelser til at dræbe dem, tilskriver både neokonservative og liberale etablissementer disse »modstandere« deres egen adfærd – »spejlfælden«. Den nylige, forbløffende rapport fra Center for Strategiske og Internatonale Studier (CSIS), der erklærede, at Kina er ved at forberede førsteangreb med krydsermissiler mod Washington og mord på amerikanske ledere samtidig med, at de invaderer Taiwan, er typisk for det »nye koldkrigshysteri«. Kinas meget lange historie fremviser ingen sådanne handlinger; USA’s seneste 50 år er fuld af dem, og disse handlinger er endda mangedoblet i de seneste 20 år. Kinas Global Times gav et korrekt svar på denne CSIS-uhyrlighed ved at give det betegnelsen, »USA skræmt af sit eget spejlbillede«.

Masseskyderier, hvor amerikanerne selv skyder amerikanere, afspejler denne kulturelle og moralske pessimisme.

Amerikanere bør blive skræmt af synet af masseskyderne i spejlet: hvor de ser sig selv som snigskytter og specialstyrker og gør det af med fantasifjender, og altid med selvmord som det ultimative mål. Alle med undtagelse af et enkelt af de 25 værste masseskyderier i Amerikas historie har fundet sted siden 1980. I 1950’erne og 1960’erne – hvor våbenlovene ikke var reformeret, men hvor der var en stærk tiltrækning mod videnskabelig og økonomisk optimisme og en nation, der eksporterede kernekraft og havde rummet i sigte – var der kun seks af disse offentlige skudepisoder på 20 år.

I 1999, da »Columbine-massakren« fandt sted (på trods af et nationalt forbud mod angrebsvåben), skrev stiftende redaktør af EIR Lyndon LaRouche, at Littleton, Colorado, havde oplevet »et varsel for vor tid … Hvordan bærer man sig ad med at korrumpere uskyldige børn til at blive psykotisklignende mordere? Det hurtige svar på dette spørgsmål er: Umenneskeliggør billedet af mennesket … Det er ikke en oversimplificering at sige, at, når først dette første skridt, umenneskeliggørelse af billedet af mennesket, er opnået, så har man etableret det aksiomatiske grundlag for at gøre krig og myrderi til en blot og bart barnlig leg … «

Og hvordan genopretter man nu billedet af mennesket i universet, og af en nation, der hjælper andre nationer i udviklingen af »menneskehedens fælles mål«? »At vinde« vil faktisk sige »win-win«. At forpligte sig over for Bælte & Vej Initiativet for store infrastrukturprojekter i samarbejde med Kina og 60 andre nationer. Genoptag udforskningen af rummet, som i Apollo-projektet, sammen med de andre rumfartsnationer. Få Amerikas økonomi op at stå, før den rammes af endnu et finanskrak, ved at gennemføre Glass-Steagall på Wall Street og skabe kredit til udvikling, ligesom Alexander Hamilton gjorde det.

Men de 50 år, der er gået, siden præsident Kennedy blev myrdet, har været et voksende mareridt for Amerika. At vende tilbage til, hvad det vil sige at være menneskelig – det virkelige emne for LaRouches refleksion fra 1999 over Columbine – er det fundamentale spørgsmål.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump mødes med folkevalgte fra delstater og lokalsamfund, for at diskutere sikkerhed i skolerne. 22. feb., 2018. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)




En afslutning af geopolitik;
en afslutning af Det britiske Imperiums
bestialske menneskebegreb

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 24. feb., 2018 – Den 24, feb. udgav Demokraterne i Kongressen deres respons til den ødelæggende afsløring, som FBI, Justitsministeriet og deres kriminelle partnere har været udsat for som et resultat af Nunes-memoet og relaterede rapporter – og som i særdeleshed inkluderer EIR’s dossier, som totalt afslører Storbritanniens Mueller-operation. Det 10 sider lange Demokratiske memo var intet andet end et skamløst forsvar for FBI, Justitsministeriet og den særlige anklager Robert Mueller, baseret på skamløse løgne og sofisteri, der ville have gjort Trasymachos og Kallikles stolte.

Men husk, hvem og hvad det er, som Mueller et al. faktisk forsvarer gennem deres kampagne for at vælte USA’s valgte præsident: Det britiske Imperiums gamle, døende paradigme. Dette paradigme er baseret på alle-mod-alle krigsførelse; brutal økonomisk udplyndring af underkastede befolkninger (inklusive den amerikanske befolkning); og, frem for alt, et bestialsk menneskebillede, der er blevet omhyggeligt næret og spredt over hele planeten.

Dette – og ikke en eller anden profileret debat omkring våbenloven – er det spørgsmål, som den nylige massakre på skoleelever i Florida stiller, og de dusinvis og atter dusinvis af lignende hændelser, der har fundet sted i hele landet i løbet af de seneste år. Som guvernør for Kentucky Matt Bevin understregede i et nyligt videointerview, der cirkuleres bredt på internettet, så er problemet, at hele nutidens amerikanske kultur har hærget vores ungdom. »Vi har en kultur, der er desensibiliseret over for døden, over for værdien af liv, og vi fejrer død gennem vore musikalske tekster, vi fejrer døden gennem videospil, der bogstavelig talt belønner dig med ekstra points for at gå tilbage og gøre det af med folk.«

Selv om Bevin ikke påpegede dem, der er ansvarlige for krisen, og heller ikke foreslog en positiv løsning til den, så opfordrede han til en presserende nødvendig, national debat. I dag understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at Bevins bemærkninger er et meget vigtigt bidrag til denne debat, der også må omfatte de nødvendige, økonomiske politikker, som Lyndon LaRouche unikt har specificeret. Hun satte det kulturelle forfald og lammelsen med hensyn til nødvendige, økonomiske politikker, som gennemsyrer USA og Europa, op imod Kinas optimistiske fremstød for udvikling – som det reflekteres i deres annoncering i går af investeringer på over $1,5 billion i »en masse store projekter« inklusive infrastruktur og ny, hightech industrisektorer.

Hvis vi vitterligt skal gøre 2018 til året, hvor geopolitik endelig lægges i graven, sådan, som Zepp-LaRouche har opfordret til, så må dette også være året, hvor Det britiske Imperiums bankerotte finanssystem begraves, sammen med dets bestialske menneskebegreb. Som fr. Zepp-LaRouche understregede mod slutningen af sit webcast den 22. feb.:[1]

»Vi må blot gå tilbage til det højeste, kulturelle niveau i hver nation. I USA ville det selvfølgelig sige Benjamin Franklin, de grundlæggende fædre, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Kennedy – disse perioder, hvor USA havde en positiv vision af sin rolle. Jeg mener, John Quincy Adams havde f.eks. en tilgang til udenrigspolitik, der ligner meget det, Kina gør i dag. Benjamin Franklin var en absolut entusiastisk elev af Konfutse, og han brugte Konfutses filosofi til at udvikle sit eget moralsystem! Det er denne form for diskussioner, der virkelig ville hjælpe …

I Tyskland er vi velsignet med en meget rig kultur: Vi har haft mange, mange tænkere, fra Nikolaus von Kues, Kepler og til Leibniz. Vi har haft mange klassiske komponister, fra Bach til Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann og mange andre. Vi har haft fantastiske digtere, som Schiller, Lessing, Heine, Möricke og endnu mange flere. I Italien havde vi den Gyldne Renæssance, i Spanien havde vi den Andalusiske Renæssance. Vi havde Kalifatet i Bagdad – i en bestemt periode under Abbaside-dynastiet var Bagdad verdens mest udviklede by! Så var der de forskellige århundreder, hvor Kina var den førende nation med hensyn til videnskab og kultur. Så det, vi må gøre, er, at vi må aktivere det bedste potentiale i hver enkelt nation. For dette er ved at gå tabt …

Vi må skille os af med en masse af den nuværende, populistiske kultur. Vi må komme af med denne idé om, at ’penge skaber penge’, vi må holde op med at spilde vores tid på spekulation, på videospil, eller – folk er virkelig ved at miste deres kreative potentiale! Men man kan genvinde det ved at studere klassisk musik, klassisk poesi, ved at læse filosofferne, Platon, Cusanus, Leibniz, originalværkerne … jeg mener, det ville være meget let at skabe en ny renæssance for tankegang. Og jeg mener, at den nye, økonomiske verdensorden, den Nye Silkevej, Bælte & Vej Initiativet, sluttelig kun vil kunne lykkes, hvis den ledsages af en renæssance for klassisk kultur …

Dette er et presserende spørgsmål, hvis vi ikke ønsker at se flere rædselsforestillinger som skoleskyderierne, som jeg mener – selvfølgelig er diskussionen om våbenloven vigtig – men det er i realiteten vigtigere at give mennesker en indre styrke, fornemmelsen af indre skønhed, så de ikke går i denne retning. Der er mange forstyrrede mennesker, der absolut kunne blive reddet, hvis der var en seriøs indsats for en æstetisk uddannelse eller opdragelse, en opdragelse af deres karakters moralske skønhed, hvilket er grunden til, at man har brug for klassisk kultur og ikke en moderne version af poesi og drama. For kun, hvis man har det højeste ideal om mennesket, mennesket som en skøn sjæl, som en skøn karakter, kan uddannelsessystemet vaccinere folk imod sådanne rædselsforestillinger. Og jeg ville virkelig ønske, at folk ville slutte sig til os i denne bestræbelse.«

Foto: Barack Obama modtager Dronning Elizabeth II og Prins Philip, hertug af Edinburgh, før en middag til ære for dronningen i Winfield House i London, 25. maj, 2011. (Official White House Photo)                      

[1] Læs hele webcastet her (dansk): http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=23890




Den Nye Silkevej inspirerer de amerikanere,
der har held til at finde ud af noget om det

22. feb., 2018 – Aktivisten Andrew Dobbs fra Austin, Texas, har bidraget med en inspirerende, entusiastisk og grundigt researchet og velinformeret undersøgelse af Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ til online publikationen War is Boring i dag.

»For mindst 60 lande, der spænder over det meste af verden, er initiativet en enorm mulighed for vækst og udvikling af deres økonomier under en ny, global orden – en orden, der ikke har de samme bånd tilknyttet, som det amerikanskledede system, der i dag er ved magten.

Hvis initiativet skrider frem iht. planen – og hvis der er en ting, som Folkerepublikken Kina har vist evner for, så er det gennemførelse af veludviklede planer – vil det få verdenshistoriske konsekvenser for amerikansk magt.

Alle bomber og støvler på jorden, som vi har lanceret i det seneste århundrede, til trods, så er Kina tæt ved at besejre verden uden at affyre et eneste skud, og det ville du intet ane om, hvis du blot følger med i amerikansk presse.

I de kinesiske medier var Bælte & Vej Initiativet på den anden side det mest omtalte emne i nyhederne sidste år. Dette reflekterer planens historiske betydning. Hvis den bliver fuldført, vil den sandsynligvis repræsentere det største projekt i fredstid nogensinde og skønnes at ville koste mellem $4 billion og $8 billion.

Projektet ville genoplive oldtidens Silkevej og forbinde Kina, Centralasien, Mellemøsten, Afrika og Europa med veje, jernbaner, pipelines, kommunikationsnetværk, elektriske net og anden infrastruktur over land, samt en maritim vej, der ville forbinde havne fra det Sydkinesiske Hav, det Indiske Hav, det Arabiske Hav, den Persiske Golf og Middelhavet.

Alt i alt ville det forbinde det meste af verdens befolkning i et eneste, økonomisk netværk, og det ville integrere lidt under halvdelen af verdens BNP. Når det er færdigt, kunne den blotte proces med at bygge det meget vel betyde, at det ville bringe det meste af verdens økonomiske output sammen.«

Tro det eller ej, men Dobbs har en masse andet at sige, der både er sandt og desværre også næsten ukendt i USA, inklusive hans egen undersøgelse af Bælte & Vej som en videreførelse af de seneste 40 års kinesiske politik. Værd at læse. https://warisboring.com/50317-2/

Foto: Vægmaleri fra det centrale Kina. Foto David Axe.




Baltica Jernbanerute vedtaget; forbinder de tre baltiske stater

22. feb., 2018 – Den 14. feb. godkendte Estlands Ministerium for Offentlig Administration planen for Rail Baltica (RB) højhastigheds-jernbanelinjen, som vil fuldføre den endelige rute og det foreløbige design for hele jernbanen i de tre baltiske stater, rapporterede International Railway Journal den 16. feb.

Rail Baltica-projektet omfatter byggeriet af 870 km elektrisk normalsporsjernbane, der forbinder de tre baltiske hovedstæder Tallinn, Estland; Riga, Letland og Vilnius, Litauen, med en forbindelse til det europæiske normalsporsnetværk i Polen. Jernbanen designes til at operere med 240 km/t for passagertog og 120 km/t for fragttog, og vil udgøre en del af EU’s Nordsøen/Baltikum TEN-T-korridor (Transeuropæiske Transportnetværk ).

Fr. Baiba Rubesa, adm. dir. og forkvinde for RB Rail, sagde til International Railway Journal, at »Vi har nu færdiggjort planlægningsstadiet for Rail Baltica. Næste skridt er at fokusere på det konsoliderede foreløbige tekniske design og detaljerede tekniske design for Rail Baltica infrastrukturen i alle tre lande.«

Billede: Rail Baltica vækstkorridor, som en del af Nordsøen/Baltikum-korridoren.




Helga Zepp-LaRouche:
Hvad er det Nye Paradigme?
LaRouche PAC’s Nyt Paradigme
Undervisningsserie 2018; pdf og video

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Dagens emne er det Nye Paradigme for menneskelig civilisation. Jeg har ofte fremført, at, hvis man ser på tilstanden i især den vestlige verden i dag, dvs. USA, tilstanden i Europa, den tyske regering, der er selvdestruktiv mens den forsøger at bygge en ny regering; vi har tydeligvis en situation, hvor verden er i voldsom uorden. Jeg har fremført den pointe, at vi må have et Nyt Paradigme, der er lige så forskelligt i forhold til de nuværende antagelser og aksiomer, som de moderne tider var forskellige i forhold til middelalderen. Hvor alle middelalderens antagelser med skolastik, Aristoteles, overtro og lignende rod blev erstattet af et helt andet billede af mennesket og et nyt begreb om samfundet.

Dette er nødvendigt for at sikre den menneskelige arts evne til at overleve på lang sigt. Og spørgsmålet er, om vi kan give os selv et system for at styre os selv, der garanterer, at den menneskelige art vil eksistere i kommende århundreder eller endda årtusinder? Min mand, Lyndon LaRouche, helligede hele sit livsværk til dette spørgsmål, med andre ord, til at spore de aspekter af det nuværende system, som var forkerte, og hvordan de skulle erstattes med et bedre, mere fuldendt system. Hvis man ser på de nuværende, såkaldte liberale demokratier i Vesten, så benægter de, at man kan have et sådant nødvendigt billede af mennesket, og nødvendigt [kan ikke høres]. For det er selve liberalismens natur, at alt er tilladt, alt er gyldigt; men virkeligheden er, at dette vestlige liberale demokrati ikke er den eneste situation i verden. En del, et aspekt af dette Nye Paradigme er allerede ved at vokse frem. Det er ved at vokse frem i form af den Nye Silkevej, der for ca. 4,5 år siden blev sat på dagsordenen af Kina. Den såkaldte Ny Silkevejsånd, altså ideen om, at man kan samarbejde på win-win-basis til alles gensidige fordel; denne idé har allerede mange lande – faktisk hele kontinenter – taget til sig. Den Nye Silkevejsånd stormer allerede frem i store dele af Asien, endda visse dele af Europa, Afrika og Latinamerika.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 




Genopbyg Amerikas infrastruktur: Optrap kampagnen for LaRouche-planen
Webcast, 16. feb., 2018

 

Gæst Paul Gallagher.

Vært Matthew Ogden: Titlen på vores show i dag er »Genopbyg Amerikas infrastruktur: Optrap kampagnen for LaRouche-planen«. Jeg har inviteret Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review, på showet i dag, og vi er glade for at du tager dig tid til at komme, Paul. Vi har nu mulighed for at få en meget seriøs og nøgtern diskussion om LaRouches økonomiske program: De »Fire Love«, og lige nu er dørene vidt åbne.

Med udgivelsen af den såkaldte »Udkast til Lovgivning for Genopbygning af Amerikas Infrastruktur« – Dette er programmet fra Trumps Hvide Hus, som blev sendt over til Kongressen. Det blev udgivet mandag. Alt imens indholdet af denne rapport er, for at sige det mildt, uheldigt – det har Wall Streets fingeraftryk over det hele, alene det, at dette forslag er kommet frem; men det er rent ud sagt en total taber, der har galvaniseret diskussionen nationalt, og det er virkelig begyndt at katalysere kongresmedlemmer på begge sider midtergangen til at begynde at tænke over spørgsmålet på en meget mere seriøs måde: Hvordan finansierer man infrastruktur?  Hvis vi taler om $1,5 billion, hvor skal de komme fra?

(Her følger engelsk udskrift):

And this includes, frankly, Trump himself.  As President
Trump said in the Letter of Transmission, that was sent over as
the opening to this legislative proposal, he said: “Our nation’s
infrastructure is in an unacceptable state of disrepair, which
damages our country’s competitiveness and our citizens’ quality
of life.  For too long, lawmakers have invested in infrastructure
inefficiently, ignored critical needs, and allowed it to
deteriorate.  As a result, the United States has fallen further
and further behind other countries.  It is time to give Americans
the working, modern infrastructure they deserve…. My
administration is committed to working with the Congress to enact
a law that will enable America’s builders to construct the new,
modern, and efficient infrastructure throughout our beautiful
land.”
Now, on Tuesday, President Trump held an open, televised
roundtable with different Senators and Representatives, both
Democrats and Republicans, and this was ostensibly to discuss the
aluminum, steel industries and trade policy around that, but
during that roundtable, which was televised, the discussion of
the infrastructure program came up.  And I’d like to just play a
short clip from that roundtable; this is an exchange between
President Trump and Sen. Sherrod Brown [D] from Ohio, and then
Senator Blumenthal [D-CT] also gets in on this.  And what you
hear is that President Trump says, look, I want to have a
bipartisan plan.  Come back to me with a counterproposal.  What
we put out was an opening bid, but I really want a bipartisan
plan.  I’m ready, willing and able.
So, here’s a clip from that roundtable:

[start video]
PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I actually think that we can go bipartisan
on infrastructure, maybe even more so, than we can on DACA. …
On infrastructure which is the purpose of what we’re doing
tonight, come back with a proposal.  We put in our bid — come
back with a proposal. We have a lot of people that are great
Republicans that want something to happen.  We have to rebuild
our country.  I said yesterday, we’ve spent {$7 trillion} — when
I say “spent,” and I mean wasted — not to mention all of the
lives, most importantly and everything else — but we’ve spent $7
trillion as of about two months ago, in the Middle East — $7
trillion.  And if you want to borrow two dollars to build a road
someplace, including your state, the great state of Ohio, if you
want to build a road, if you want to build a tunnel, or a bridge,
or fix a bridge because so many of them are in bad shape, you
can’t do it.  And yet, we spent $7 trillion in the Middle East.
Explain that one. [crosstalk]

SEN. SHERROD BROWN: I’ve love a bipartisan — we have a
bipartisan proposal.  We can [crosstalk] dollars on it in
infrastructure.  We’re glad to work together on a real
infrastructure bill with real dollars, plus what you can leverage
in the communities and private sector.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Do a combination.

SENATOR BROWN:  It needs real dollars.

President Trump:  I would love to have you get back to us
quickly, ’cause we can do this quickly and we have to rebuild our
country.  We have to rebuild our roads and our bridges and our
tunnels, so the faster you get back, the faster we can move.
Focus on document this week, if you don’t mind, right?  But the
faster you get back, the faster we move.

SEN. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL:  I come back to Senator Brown’s
point, I think there’s a opportunity for real bipartisanship
here, in these two areas.

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  I agree, and I’d like you to come back
with a suggestion on infrastructure in the plan, and I think
that’s a bipartisan plan.  I really would like to see you come
back with a counterproposal on the infrastructure.  I think we’re
going to get that done.  I really believe that’s  — we’re going
to get a lot of Democrats, we’re going to get a lot of
Republicans. We’re going to get it done.  It’s something we
should do.  We have to fix our country:  We have to fix our roads
and our tunnels and bridges and everything, so, if you can work
together on that, and I am ready, willing and able, on
infrastructure — that is such a natural for us to get done.  And
I think we could probably do it.
Thank you all very much.  [End video]

OGDEN:  So as you can see, asking them to come back with a
counterproposal, he said, this is our opening bid, but the point
is clear:  Now is the time for us to mobilize like never before,
to put the LaRouche plan on the table.  {This} is the
counterproposal.
Let me put on the screen here:  first we’ve got our Campaign
To Win the Future.  This is obviously the national statement of
intent for the elections in 2018.  LaRouche PAC is mobilizing a
national movement and galvanizing discussion around this program.
And then the content of that campaign can be seen on the next
slide, this is “The Four Laws To Save the United States:  The
Economics Principles Necessary for a Recovery — Why the United
States Must Join the New Silk Road” and this contains full
elaboration of Lyndon LaRouche’s four economic laws.
So, I know that Paul is very short on time, and I would just
like to ask you: Please address what the situation is now in
Washington.  What’s coming out of this release of this so-called
legislative proposal? And what actually has to be done?

PAUL GALLAGHER:  Thanks, Matt.  My first reaction, when the
White House plan was released — I call it the “White House
plan,” not the Trump plan, but the White House plan — when it
was released, was that closed a certain door of people in elected
offices around the country and in Washington, constantly saying
“what is the White House going to come up with?  what is the
White House going to come up with?  what are they going to give
us in the way of what they can get started towards infrastructure
investments? because we desperately need it?”   And when it
finally came out, and it was very, very, very lacking — as you
said, a Wall Street plan — that closed a certain door, and
immediately, thus, opened another one.
OK, now they have come out with that.  Now, we have to come
out with something.  It’s up to the rest of us, particularly
those in elected office, but all of us who are active in fighting
for this:  It’s up to us now to shape the alternative, because
this one just isn’t going to work.  And it’s good to see that
that definitely includes the President — that view.  He, on
another occasion, immediately after the plan was rolled out on
Monday, he said that compared to the tax legislation and the
military spending increases and so forth, that this
infrastructure plan that the White House has put out, was really
quite unimportant.  A rather surprising thing for him to say.
But it indicated, when it was followed the very next day by the
comment you just saw, “give me an alternative,” and then the very
day after that, in another meeting with members of Congress,
when, as soon as he was prompted in any way by any of them, he
came out very strongly for increasing the Federal gasoline tax by
25 cents a gallon, and applying that through the Highway Trust
Fund, to infrastructure investment — not at all something which
is part of the White House plan, so-called; and not part of the
Republican leadership’s plan at all.
But when he was asked, he went with that.  He hasn’t said
this publicly, but a number of senators and representatives who
were at that second meeting, have reported it publicly in the
same way.  It’s clear that he did say that he was for that
increase in the gas tax, and as he said, he would take the
political heat for backing it as President, if they would go
forward with it.
So you’ve had, in rapid succession,  a number of indications
that this plan, as poor as it was that came out from the White
House, is not in fact the President’s plan, and it simply closes
the door on all this waiting, and now says, where are the
alternatives?
And that is very definitely what is in the LaRouche Four
Laws, is the one alternative to this that will work.
Let me get into this in another way, unless you want to
break it up, Matt.  And if you have questions, please, interrupt.
But I wanted to read a piece that was written just two days
ago by a Chinese scholar John Gong; he’s a very prominent
professor University of International Business and Economics in
Beijing; and he’s a former executive editor of the {Journal of
Chinese Economic and Foreign Trade Studies}.

OGDEN:  We actually have a slide with the title of that
article which was written for China Global Television Network
(CGTN), “Make America Great Again — With Chinese Money.”   And I
can read some of the quotes that people can see on the screen,
and then maybe you can address what the content is.
This is what he had to say:  “Trump is absolutely right that
Americas crippled bridges, potholed highways, and crooked
railways cannot wait any longer. America needs to be great again.
The only question is, where is the money coming from?”  And then
later in the article he said, “I have a great idea. Bank of China
and other major banks from China are now flush with dollar cash
and other dollar-denominated liquid assets, totaling over $3
trillion, mostly in the form of holdings in U.S. Treasury bills
and bonds. This money can be readily used for Chinese investors
to participate in America’s infrastructure boom. By that I mean
Chinese investors can participate in those infrastructure
projects as active equity investors, and maybe contractors or
suppliers at the same time.
“Call it the Belt and Road. Call it
America-belt-America-road. I don’t care, as long as Chinas current
account trade surplus can be somehow transformed into a capital
account stock, in the form of money invested in America as
permanent equity shareholders, and more importantly permanent
stakeholders of a stable and prosperous Sino-U.S. economic
relationship. This could be a win-win mode for both countries.”
[https://news.cgtn.com/news/79596a4d33677a6333566d54/
share_p.html]
So that’s Dr. John Gong.

GALLAGHER:  Now, that’s very important, in the way it is
formulated, in the precision of it.  He’s talking about Treasury
holdings, — he’s not the first Chinese official to do this.  In
fact, a year ago, in late January of 2017, Ding Xuedong, the
then-chairman of the Chinese Investment Corp., which is one of
their two big sovereign wealth funds, made essentially the same
proposal.  He said, we have such and such a volume of long-term
U.S. Treasury holdings, they’re not earners, their interest rates
are very low, their return is very low; we would like to trade
them for a long-term investment in a U.S. infrastructure bill, as
he put it. And he, at the time, estimated that really, the need
for investment in the United States for new infrastructure, was
{$8 trillion}, a figure which may seem impossibly large to many,
but actually isn’t.
[http://www.larouchepub.com/pr/2017/170116_chinese_invest.html]
Nonetheless, Helga Zepp-LaRouche has written in articles
which have been published in the Chinese press, she’s frequently
interviewed and quoted there, — she has written exactly this
proposal in articles which have been published there.  I have
presented exactly this idea to Chinese officials in Washington.
This is part of LaRouche’s Four Laws.
But to start with, the first action implied by his four
actions that have to be taken legislatively and from an executive
standpoint, is the restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act and the
breakup of the Wall Street banks and the hiving off of all of the
casino speculative investment vehicles, special purpose vehicles
and all of that, in order to protect and use the commercial
banking system for investments.
You cannot get to real, major infrastructure renewal without
doing that, and you could see this in the meeting that you played
the clip from. There was at least one representative from
Missouri, who brought up the issue, when the discussion was about
trade, and specifically whether there might be tariffs against
aluminum imports from China, he brought up the fact that there is
a grave lack of capacity to produce sufficient aluminum for
industry in the United States, and where is that lack coming
from?  The lack of power supplies.  So that, this is an
infrastructure question, although if you ask the simple question,
“Is there an apparent sufficient amount of kilowatt-hours per
year per capita in the United States?”  Yes, there is. But is
there sufficient, reliable electrical power supply — constantly
online, reliable, electrical power supply — for an expansion of
industry?  The answer would in many cases be, “no.” And that was
what he was bringing up, in particular with respect to more
aluminum plants in the United States.  You have a grave inability
to produce enough power, particularly since the fiasco of
electricity deregulation out on the West Coast 15 years ago: That
deprived the aluminum industry and shut down a very significant
amount of it.
Now, if there’s going to be that kind of investment in
infrastructure across the country, it’s not going to be one, or
two, or three, or four, very famous big projects, like the
renovation of the whole Northeast rail corridor of Amtrak, and
the bridges and the tunnels in New York and so forth.  It’s not
going to be simply those things.  It’s going to be, at many, many
levels around the country, the production of enough clean water
supplies, the production of enough electrical power supplies; the
replacement and renovation — mostly replacement — of the river
navigation systems, locks and dams, and many of these things.
And for those, the commercial banks have to be ready to lend,
because it takes a lot of employment, a lot of contracting, a lot
of local borrowing:  The banks have to be ready to lend and if
you allow them to stay the big commercial banks, and the mid-size
regional banks — if you allow them to stay in the Wall Street
casino, that’s where they’ll stay.  If you say, “no, your
business as a commercial bank is lending,” then you have a credit
channel through the banking system through which national credit
can flow, and cooperate in this kind of thing.
So it starts with restoring bank separation under
Glass-Steagall.  We’re going to have a group of elected officials
from Italy in a couple of months come over and help us organize
in Washington on this, because they’re fighting for it in Italy
at the national and also the local level.
Then, the specific second law of LaRouche, a national credit
institution, which is able to produce large volumes of productive
credit for productive employment of the people, and for increased
productivity.  And that is where not only the White House plan,
but many other plans that have been put forward, are really
completely inadequate, where we do have to talk about several
trillions of dollars at least of investment,  and the way to do
that, is exactly the way that was reflected in that comment by
Dr. Gong: That is, there is a lot of long-term Treasury debt held
out there; three major holders of this long-term Treasury debt,
which totals $7.5-$8 trillion, are the commercial banks of the
United States, again, which hold it in their reserves and all
their excess reserves which are very large right now;  second,
Japan, which holds more than $1 trillion in primarily long-term
U.S. Treasury debt; thirdly, China, which actually holds now
somewhat more than Japan; about $1.2 trillion of the same kind of
debt.  Those are potential shareholders, equity holders,
subscribers of that Treasury debt into a new bank created by
Congress for the purpose of generating this kind of credit.
That is exactly how we have proposed and circulated and
organized that this is the way to form — without a tremendous
amount of new borrowing — to form a sufficiently large national
bank for infrastructure; essentially by swapping existing
long-term Treasury debt holdings for equity in such a new
national bank created by Congress with a guarantee from the
Treasury for the payment of the dividends on that equity.  And
with taxes — this is not free; it’s never free, — but with
taxes assigned to make sure that those dividends can be paid.
That’s where the increase in the Federal gasoline tax and
potentially the use of other what you would call infrastructure
excise taxes, like the port excise tax and the navigation tax on
the locks and dams, that’s where these would come in.  Because if
you simply go and raise the gas tax by 25 cents and spend the
money for infrastructure projects, it will not produce nearly,
nearly enough.  But if you use it in this way as leverage to
guarantee the equity in a new national bank in exactly the way
that we’re seeing reflected in that proposal, that article from
Dr. Gong, then it’ll work.  As I said, he’s not the only person,
not only among leading Chinese thinkers about this, but also from
Japan, there’s the same kind of positive view of this idea.
Potentially, there you have it — an infrastructure bank.
Then you have to go on and what are you going to use that
credit for?  It can’t be used simply to repair roads and repair
bridges.  There are entirely new areas of technological and
scientific breakthroughs which will raise productivity in the
economy to a far greater extent.  One of them that we identify is
that a crash program is necessary to develop not only
thermonuclear fusion electric energy, but the plasma technologies
of infrastructure, which will probably come from such a crash
program even before commercial nuclear fusion electricity
arrives.  We will have plasma technologies being spun off from
that crash program, which will address themselves exactly to the
production of the kinds of capacities that have died out in
deindustrialization in the United States.  But they’ll do it at a
higher level of technology.  Those kinds of investments, are one
of the Four Laws that LaRouche has called for.  Also, a big
increase in NASA’s capabilities, going back to the Apollo Project
level of effort by NASA to really go back to the Moon;
industrialize, develop the Moon, develop the raw materials there,
including for fusion energy production.  And from there, go
deeper into the Solar System and ultimately into the galaxy.
This is the kind of science driver which leads up-shifts in
productivity in industry.  And infrastructure is really the way
that these up-shifts get introduced to the economy.  For example,
in a high-speed rail system of cars using magnetic levitation and
similar technologies, this is the way it gets introduced.
So, that opening from the President is very important.
Yesterday you had comments which I think are very significant
from the two leaders of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee — the Republican chairman William
Shuster of Pennsylvania, the Democratic ranking member Peter
DeFazio — they are normally quite a bit at odds.  But in
interviews yesterday which were reported today, they were
reporting that they are already jointly working on a legislative
alternative to exactly what you saw the President asking for
there.  A legislative alternative again, with real Federal
dollars; the language which Senator Brown used — actually it was
Senator Wyden was the other Senator — real Federal dollars.  An
alternative to present which the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee is where legislation along these lines
will have to start.  So, you’re seeing that; you’re seeing the
gas tax being discussed very widely, including by those same two
leaders of that committee.  You’re already seeing an
infrastructure bank act in the House — HR547 — of
Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat from Connecticut, which has
the backing of fully half of the Democratic Caucus in the House
and is not a national infrastructure bank which would operate in
the way that we’ve described and therefore would not be as large
or as capable.  But nonetheless, it’s legislation which in my
view is quite similar to the Reconstruction Finance Corporation
which operated under Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration
and did so much to recover the country and then to lead the
mobilization for the war and through the war in the 1940s.  So
that is also something definitely within the purview of
LaRouche’s Four Laws.

OGDEN:  The idea of national banking is, I think, really the
critical idea; and it takes us obviously directly back to
Alexander Hamilton.  If you look at Hamilton’s view on
infrastructure, the idea of public infrastructure is very much an
American idea, and is a major pillar of the American System.
Hamilton’s emphasis on the necessity for the rapid upgrading of
the national infrastructure, the ports and dredging the harbors
and things like this, what was called “internal improvements.”
But this idea of public infrastructure has an American idea to
it.  In fact, it was written directly into the Constitution in
the form of the General Welfare.  There were huge fights,
including Hamilton’s defense of the Constitutionality of a
national bank against Thomas Jefferson around this idea of the
General Welfare.  I know you have to go, so maybe one more aspect
that you can address before you leave, and then I can conclude
the remaining portions of the show on my own.  But just on this
subject of the idea of the public good, the United States used to
be the world’s gold standard, in great modern infrastructure,
public infrastructure.  You can see that obviously by what
Franklin Roosevelt did during the New Deal.  Nations around the
world were banging on our door to try to imitate what we
accomplished with the Tennessee Valley Authority and so forth and
so on.  But now, the gold standard is swiftly being set by China
and what China has done in an unparalleled way.  Create this
amazing public infrastructure in a very rapid and swift manner.
Two things I think maybe could be addressed in what we need to
now learn from China or relearn in terms of what we used to be
committed to, is: 1) the policy approach that has made this
possible in China; but also, 2) the philosophy that China is
clearly committed to when it comes to this idea of the public
good, the common good, or what we call in American Constitutional
language, the General Welfare.  Maybe you can address that just
briefly before you leave, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  There was, in the 19th Century, the American
Whig and then Republican leaders were all very conscious
Hamiltonians.  They realized that they were attempting to develop
the country, and they were doing it — at least a lot of the time
— extraordinarily successfully with a commitment to the
“internal improvements” what we call infrastructure, but the
internal improvements, the national credit provision, the
protection of industry; which came from Alexander Hamilton.
But his overriding premise was actually none of those
particular policies, but rather his stating against the tide of
opinion in the 1790s when he was Treasury Secretary and the
decade before and after.  He definitely took on the tide of
opinion that the United States was going to be an agricultural
country, a country of yeoman farmers with all of their well-known
virtues and so on and so forth.  He said that the wealth of a
country is found in the inventive qualities of its people, and in
the freedom and opportunity that they have to turn their
inventive qualities into enterprise.  And he really was
responsible for the emergence of the first banks of the United
States; not only the First Bank of the United States, the first
national bank, but also the first private banks of the United
States, of which there were very few at that time.  He saw the
creation of a national bank as essentially the necessary link or
liaison between the actions of the government to assist the
economy and the actions of the private banks; that this was the
necessary way, in which they should be related.  But his principle
was that the mind of the individual and the freedom of the
individual and opportunity to make that into enterprise, that
that was what defined the ability to produce the wealth of a
country and that the wealth of a country was produced within it;
it was not gained by trading with other countries — fairly,
freely or otherwise.  It was gained primarily by producing the
wealth which the inventiveness of the people and the resources of
the country made possible.  And that was the function of
protection when it was used, but of course, Hamilton favored more
what we would call industrial subsidies than he did what we call
tariffs.  So that, right through Abraham Lincoln, was the creed
of the great leaders of the United States in the 19th Century and
considerably thereafter.  We became the greatest industrial
nation on Earth that way.
Franklin Roosevelt revived that general outlook, although he
did so without the creation of a national bank, really because of
what he was working with in Congress.  Otherwise, he might have
preferred to do that.  But he did it through such institutions as
the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the TVA, which became
wonders of the world.  We have not really improved on that much
in the 70-80 years since.  But that idea, Hamilton’s ideas spread
very rapidly through Friedrich List, who spent a lot of time in
the United States and was a leading Hamiltonian in the 1820s and
1830s, and then was in the middle of the unification of Germany
for the first time in the Customs Union of Germany in the middle
of the 19th Century.  This spread through Bismarck’s policies,
who knew that he was a Hamiltonian, later in the 19th Century.
They spread through the Japanese adopting and learning a lot of
the works of Hamilton; late in the 19th Century inviting
Hamiltonian economists from the United States to come over and
advise them.  This kept being repeated in Korea again.  China has
taken this far beyond, because as you said, they’re not only
applying those policies, but they’re also as they always say
doing them with Chinese characteristics.  Particularly now with
Xi Jinping as the President of China, he has really defined and
enshrined in their Constitution the principle of what a country’s
leadership is judged for is its ability to strive for the common
welfare, the common aims of the population; what we call in the
Constitution, the General Welfare.  That has really had a very
distinctive effect on Chinese policy in the country and also on
the policy of the Belt and Road Initiative which Xi Jinping
launched, but was really already underway before he made the
formal speech three and a half years ago.  Already the
investments by big Chinese commercial banks outside China, in
these projects of energy, mining, but also a lot of
infrastructure projects.  These big investments were already
underway in 2011, 2012; then he made the announcement in 2013,
which was so very close to the policy of the World Land-Bridge
which had been promoted by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche since the
later 1980s.  And since that time, that has really been
recognized in China; they call Helga the Silk Road Lady.  This
policy of the common welfare is clearly one reflected in the way
that they’ve eliminated almost entirely down to the last few tens
of millions of people, they’ve almost entirely eradicated extreme
poverty in China.  I just heard the World Bank chairman the day
before yesterday praising that to the skies and saying it’s the
one model for the world.  He said the World Bank has been trying
to do this for so many decades, to eradicate poverty, without
making too much progress.  China has done it, and now they are
seeking to help do it in Africa and other places.  They want to
invest in the Middle East in reconstruction.  But this is really
the test that you are acting for the general good, for the common
welfare, which is what our Constitution commits us to.
So, in that sense, they’ve gone beyond, and in the process,
really developed a lot of technological breakthroughs in
infrastructure; and that’s where you find them.  That’s where
Roosevelt found them.  The projects of the 1930s, which many
people think of as just creating a lot of work for people, and
building a lot of airports and roads and bridges and things like
that; those projects — especially the hydro-electric projects
and especially the Tennessee Valley Authority — were
technological breakthroughs at the time.  They built dams,
navigation systems, hydropower systems technologically in ways
which not only hadn’t been done, but had been denied that they
could be done even right up to that time.  John F Kennedy spoke
about this later, that experts were saying that you couldn’t
build dams that were simultaneously for water management, for
navigation, and for hydropower.  The TVA did 57 such dams.  So,
they completely transformed an area of the country.  These
breakthroughs were made in all of this infrastructure building in
such a way, that the productivity of the U.S. economy leaped up in
the 1930s at the fastest rate of the last 150 years.  A close
second was the 1940s, including the war mobilization.
So that’s what China is experiencing now, as they make these
kinds of investments; and they’re doing it with a very common
welfare orientation.

OGDEN:  Wonderful!  So, thank you very much, Paul.  I’m
going to let you go before we finish the remainder of our show.
But I think you’ve made it very clear that we are uniquely
positioned to inform and ultimately shape this counterproposal
and what must ultimately become the infrastructure and general
economic policy of this Presidency.  So, I know we have a lot of
work to do.  Thank you for joining us, Paul.

GALLAGHER:  Thank you.  I’m sure you’ll talk about the
necessity to bring this up from the bottom as well; from the
local elected officials, from the state legislatures in
particular and apply it to the election campaign.  I think it’s
probably true what Chairman Shuster said, which is that work on
this legislation will be going on until the summer.  I think
that’s definitely true.  It will become a part of the election
campaign, no question.  If we can get candidates out there and
local elected officials out there who are for the Four Laws,
we’re going to shape this.  So, thanks for the opportunity and
having me on, and have a good time.

OGDEN:  Thank you, and we’ll talk to you again soon.  What
Paul said is absolutely correct.  This is the ultimate principle
or thought behind the campaign to win the future.  This is the
LaRouche PAC election mobilization in 2018.  We’ve already had a
number of state legislators endorse this campaign.  We’re really
on the ground in various places, including in West Virginia;
doing some very significant meetings with people who are involved
in the China-West Virginia deals.  We’ve also mobilized in a very
big way in the Midwest, which was key to the Trump election
victory.  We know that these former industrial states really are
the most significant in swinging these elections and creating the
constituency blocs around this idea of the LaRouche Four Economic
Laws and everything that you just heard Paul go through.  This is
the urgent necessity as we mobilize around this kind of program.
I think everything that you just heard from Paul, makes it very
clear that we are uniquely well-positioned to shape this entire
discussion.  I think the opportunity is even greater now than it
was previously.
Now, let me just go over a few things that I think will make
it very clear to you that there is an opportunity for a moment of
awakening, you could say, among people who have recognized that
everything that we’ve been committed to for the last several
decades up to this point has completely failed.  There were two
very informative or entertaining articles over the last week and
a half, which point to exactly this; indicate exactly this
opportunity for people to perhaps open their minds and begin a
more sober and serious discussion around the true principles of
economics.  One of these is an article which appeared in
Bloomberg, this was {Bloomberg Business Week} I believe.  The
title of this article was “What if China Is Exempt from the Laws
of Economics?”  This is by a fellow named Michael Schuman, but
the subtitle is “Beijing’s policymakers seem to be doing a lot of
things right — and that may upend much of basic economic
thinking, especially our faith in the power of free markets.”
So, here are a couple of excerpts from that article.  He
says:
“Over my two decades of writing about economics, I’ve
devised a list of simple maxims that I’ve found generally hold
true….
“But recently, my faith in this corpus of collected wisdom
has been badly shaken. By China.
“The more I apply my rules of economics to China, the more
they seem to go awry. China should be mired in meager growth,
even gripped by financial crisis, according to my maxims. But
obviously it’s not. In fact, much of what’s going on right now in
that country runs counter to what we know — or think we know —
about economics. Simply, if Beijing’s policymakers are right,
then a lot of basic economic thinking is wrong — especially our
certainty in the power of free markets, our ingrained bias
against state intervention, and our ideas about fostering
innovation and entrepreneurship.
“On the surface, that probably sounds ridiculous. How could
one country possibly defy the laws that have governed economies
everywhere else?…
“Yet as China marches forward, we can no longer dismiss the
possibility that it’s rewriting the rulebook. Beijing’s
policymakers are just plain ignoring what most economists would
recommend at this point in its development. And, so far, they’re
getting away with it….
“… Perhaps China really is refashioning capitalism.
“Perhaps. I, for one, am still clinging to my maxims….
“… Maybe my rules of economics will hold firm after all.
But thanks to China, I’m prepared to edit them.”
Now, it’s not that China is rewriting the rule book.  I
think that what you just heard from Paul is that it’s the West,
it’s the United States under the influence of British free market
ideology; this free-market school economics.  It’s the United
States and the West which have been playing by the wrong rulebook
for decades, if not generations.  We’ve neglected the rulebook
that we originally wrote.  It was Alexander Hamilton, it was our
first Treasury Secretary; that’s why it’s called the American
System of economics.  Other countries have applied these
principles of Hamiltonian economics and experienced the same
phenomenal growth that we experienced under the influence of
Hamiltonian policy.  That is exactly what China is experiencing
right now.  It’s leaving these economists scratching their heads,
but perhaps they merely have to open a few history books.
I think as you can tell from that Bloomberg article, it’s
beginning to dawn on people.  “Gee!  Maybe we’ve been wrong.
Maybe we’ve been duped by this British free trade, free market
ideology.  Perhaps that’s why our economies are in shambles right
now.”
Here’s another article.  This is in the {New York Times
Magazine}.  It came out earlier this week.  This one is very
interesting and goes through a lot of the history you just heard
Paul elaborate on.  This is called “The Rise of China and the
Fall of the ‘Free Trade’ Myth.”  The subhead is “China’s economic
success lays bare an uncomfortable historical truth.  No one who
preaches free trade really practices it.”  So, here’s an excerpt
from the article:
“[T]o grasp China’s economic achievement, and its
ramifications, it is imperative to ask: Why has a market economy
directed by a Communist state become the world’s second-largest?
Or, to rephrase the question: Why shouldn’t it have? Why
shouldn’t China’s rise have happened the way it did, with
state-led economic planning, industrial subsidies and little or
no regard for the rules of ‘free trade’?…
“Indeed, economic history reveals that great economic powers
have always become great because of activist states. Regardless
of the mystical properties claimed for it, the invisible hand of
self-interest depends on the visible and often heavy hand of
government. To take only one instance, British gunboats helped
impose free trade on 19th-century China — a lesson not lost on
the Chinese…. The philosophical father of economic
protectionism is, in fact, Alexander Hamilton, the founder of the
American financial system, whose pupils included the Germans, the
Japanese and, indirectly, the Chinese.”
After some history, he lays out the case of Germany, and
this one is interesting to focus on.  He says:
“… Unified in 1871, Germany was scrambling to catch up
with industrialized Britain. To do so, it borrowed from recipes
of national development proposed by Hamilton soon after the
Americans broke free of their British overlords. In his ‘Report
on the Subject of Manufactures’, submitted to Congress in 1791,
Hamilton used the potent term ‘infant’ industries to argue for
economic protectionism.
“… In his view, infant nations needed room to maneuver
before they could compete with established industrial powers. The
United States embraced many of Hamilton’s recommendations; the
beneficiaries were, first, the textile and iron industries and
then steel.
“It was Hamilton’s formula, rather than free trade, that
made the United States the world’s fastest-growing economy in the
19th century and into the 1920s. And that formula was embraced by
other nations coming late to international economic competition.
Hamilton’s most influential student was a German economist named
Friedrich List, who lived in the United States from 1825 until
the 1830s and wrote a book titled {Outlines of American Political
Economy}. On his return to Germany, List attacked the free-market
gospel preached by Britain as sheer opportunism…. Applying
List’s lessons, Germany moved with spectacular speed from an
agrarian to an industrial economy.
“… Closely following Germany’s example, Japan heavily
subsidized its first factories ….
“… South Korea, too, found solutions for its problems in
Friedrich List rather than Adam Smith. The country’s leader, Park
Chung-hee … was also deeply familiar with German theories of
protectionism. (The economist Robert Wade reported coming across
whole shelves of books by List in Seoul bookstores in the
1970s.)…
“But little did I know that Hamilton (and List) would
achieve their greatest influence in post-Mao China. ‘The rise of
China resembles that of the United States a century ago,’ the
Chinese scholar Hu Angang writes. He is not exaggerating.”
Now, that’s a very interesting article to appear at this
moment.  I’m not saying that everything the author says in his
analysis is entirely accurate, or that all of the conclusions
that he draws are necessarily correct.  But what he does make
clear is that what made America great was the policies of
Alexander Hamilton.  And what’s making China great today are
those very same Hamiltonian policies.  This realization shows you
that we have a very fertile field for the reception of our
so-called Four Laws campaign — Lyndon LaRouche’s revival of
Hamiltonian policies.  The fight which Lyndon LaRouche has led
for decades to liberate the United States from this imposed free
market, free trade hoax; this British ideology.  To return us to
the principles of Alexander Hamilton.  What he did simultaneously
abroad to educate these other nations on the policies of the
American System and Hamiltonian economic policies.  That’s where
China got this from; that’s where you can credit the great
Chinese economic miracle of the last 15 years.  Do not write out
of the equation the role that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have
played as spokesmen for this great Hamiltonian tradition, and
urgently with updates and a profound scientific depth that Lyndon
LaRouche has brought to this discussion.  But the time is now,
and the field is very fertile for the reception of this idea that
the time has come for a Hamiltonian coalition of nations.  We
must join hand-in-hand with China to do exactly that; to bring
development to all the nations on the planet using these
American, but universal, economic principles.
Now, let me just play a very short clip from a broadcast
that Helga Zepp-LaRouche had yesterday.  Because the biggest
problem that you run into — and I think this is something that
you run into as an organizer or as an activist — is that people
fail to make the necessary leap in terms of understanding these
principles because they have an axiomatic problem.  There’s a
disconnect.  The biggest problem that we have when it comes to
economics today is that money is essentially God.  Money has
achieved this status in economics where it is everything to
everyone.  It’s the Genesis of economics; it’s the root, it’s the
prime mover; it’s the measuring rod, it’s the purpose, it’s the
medium.  Money is everything.  And Helga Zepp-LaRouche addressed
exactly this pathology in her webcast yesterday.  And she called
for a public debate on this.  She said, as it begins to dawn on
people who have believed that everything that they had believed
about economics may perhaps have been wrong, we need to question
some of the most basic economic assumptions that we hold dear,
and ask ourselves the question, “What is the ultimate purpose of
an economy and what is the true source of true economic wealth?”
So, here’s Helga LaRouche:

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE

:  I think there is something
fundamentally wrong with the system of the free market, which
after all is not that free, given the fact that all central banks
did was to bail out the banks and keep money pumping for the
benefit of the speculators, so that the rich become richer, and
the poor become more poor, and the middle class is shrinking.
This article by Bloomberg which you referenced earlier, is
very interesting, because the author admits that according to his
theory, China should be collapsing, it should have meager
economic growth, but obviously the contrary is the case.  And he
says that China is doing everything which according to his theory
are terrible, like state intervention, party control, — things
like that — and China is prospering. And actually, he says,
he’s not yet ready to completely overturn his theory, but he’s
willing to make corrections.
There will be a lot more corrections, because I think we
need a public debate, what are the economic criteria for a
functioning economy?  And obviously, the works of my husband,
Lyndon LaRouche, and his development of physical economy, going
back to Leibniz, to Friedrich List, to Henry C. Carey, to Wilhelm
von Kardorff, who was the economic advisor of Bismarck and was
one of the key influences to bring about the industrial
revolution in Germany; as compared to the so-called free market
model, I think we have to have a real debate, what is the cause
of wealth?  Is it money, or is it the idea of the creativity of
the individual, which then leads to scientific and technological
discoveries, which applied in the production process leads to an
increase in productivity, which then leads to more wealth,
longevity, and all of these things.
We need a discussion about that, because the notion of what
is economy, equating that with money, has really become one of
the axiomatic assumptions of a failing system. So we need a
debate about that. [end video]

OGDEN:  So the time has come.  As I said, it’s a very
fertile field, and this is one of the most important reasons why
we’ve now launched a new LaRouche PAC class series, which gets
directly at these principles; not only of economics, but this is
what drives global policy.  What is the purpose of economy?  What
is the true identity of man?  And what should be the
collaborative between peoples and between nations, to what end?
So, I’ll take that as an opportunity before concluding, to remind
our viewers that tomorrow we will have the second class in our
2018 class series.  This class will be titled “The End of
Geopolitics, Part I:  The History of Geopolitics.”  The guest
speaker will be Harley Schlanger.  Again, you can register for
this entire class series, which is called “The End of
Geopolitics.  What Is the New Paradigm?”  The registration is now
open.  If you have not registered for this class series, I
strongly encourage you to.  The link is available on the screen
— lpac.co/np2018.  You can also visit discover.larouchepac.com
which will be the central hub of all of the material for this
class series.  Again, if you’re a registered participant, not
only do you have the opportunity to participate in the live
public forums, such as the inaugural class that was delivered
last Saturday by Helga Zepp-LaRouche, but you also have the
opportunity for an in-depth engagement around the syllabus, the
required reading materials, the homework assignments, the live
feedback from the teachers and from the leaders of the LaRouche
PAC class series, and also some discussion periods which are only
open to registered participants.  Registration has continued to
increase.  We have a large number of registered participants from
all across the United States and elsewhere around the world, too.
So, we’re putting together the educated grouping, the cadre which
will be able to lead this discussion for a new economics, a New
Paradigm.  The field is wide open.  The door is there, and all we
have to do is walk through it.  We are in a unique position to
inform this discussion today; and it is a very urgent debate
which needs to take place as Helga Zepp-LaRouche just said.
So, thank you for joining me here today.  I thank Paul for
joining me.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com; we have a lot
of work to do, and we’ll see you next week.