NYHEDSORIENTERING JULI 2016:
Sidste chance for at stoppe
europæisk bankkrak og krig

I kølvandet på den britiske beslutning om at forlade EU står ikke blot Det Britiske Imperium og EU’s drømme om et imperium for fald, men hele det defekte paradigme, den vestlige verden har været præget af. Deutsche Banks krise er en sammenbrudskrise for hele finanssystemet, og Deutsche Bank må reddes for at undgå kaos – men samtidigt må banken bringes tilbage til Alfred Herrhausens politik for realøkonomisk vækst. Frigivelsen af de 28 sider må betyde afsløringen af Saudi-Arabiens og Storbritanniens støtte til international terrorisme og en fælles front med Rusland for at udrydde den. Chilcot-kommissionens rapport om Storbritanniens deltagelse i Irakkrigen afslører ikke blot Tony Blair som en løgner, men er en opfordring til et skifte fra det vestlige paradigme for permanent krig tilbage til respekt for FN og national suverænitet. Det mislykkede kupforsøg i Tyrkiet, som kom efter tyrkiske tilnærmelser til Rusland, vil fremskynde Erdogans planer om total magt, men kan være med til at stoppe hjælpen til IS gennem Tyrkiet. Udtalelsen fra Den Internationale Voldgiftsdomstol i Haag øger faren for krig i Det Sydkinesiske Hav. Danmark og Europa må gå med i Kinas og Ruslands nye paradigme for fredelig sameksistens og fælles udvikling.

Dette er en redigeret version af en briefing af Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet, den 18. juli 2016. Den kan høres på http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13685

Download (PDF, Unknown)




LaRouches indflydelse: Glass-Steagalls
voksende styrke i USA og også Europa

25. juli 2016 (Leder) – Interessante kommentarer på begge sider Atlanten i løbet af weekenden reflekterede den voksende sandsynlighed for en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-princippet i den nærmeste fremtid – og som er af afgørende betydning for de transatlantiske økonomier.

Den førende finansavis på det europæiske kontinent, Handelsblatt, udgav den 22. juli en artikel skrevet af avisens Washington-korrespondent, og som udtrykte Glass-Steagalls voksende styrke: »Adskil, hvad ikke bør være sammenføjet«, hvilket vil sige, at man skal adskille almindelig, kommerciel bankvirksomhed med indskud og udlån fra spekulation i værdipapirer.

Handelsblatt tog udgangspunkt i de amerikanske politiske partiers valgplatforme, men støttede af egen kraft Glass-Steagall. Korrespondenten Frank Wiebe skrev, at debatten om genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall ikke er ny i USA, men, »siden Trump og Republikanerne tog spørgsmålet op igen, har Wall Street pludselig taget det alvorligt. Hidtil har Wall Street været overbevist om, at det, på trods af den store støtte til konceptet, sluttelig ikke ville være muligt at skaffe et politisk flertal for det. Nu er de ikke længere så sikre.«

Og i USA skrev en Clinton-demokratisk superdelegeret og mangeårig kampagne-toprådgiver, Elaine Kamarck, på sin Brookings Institute-blog, at noget hen efter Glass-Steagall måtte blive vedtaget af den nye Kongres og præsident. Hillary Clinton var modstander af Glass-Steagall, sagde Kamarck,

Men ved at gå med til at placere en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall i Demokraternes valgplatform, signalerede Hillary Clinton, at også hun ville støtte det … Der har hidtil i Kongressen ikke været megen interesse for dette. Men hvis der var noget, som etablissementet hørte højt og tydeligt i primærvalgene i 2016, så var det, at millioner af amerikanere mener, at de er ofre for Wall Street, og at den næste præsident hellere må høre efter.

Tabet af Wall Streets kontrol betyder, at stiftende redaktør af EIR, Lyndon LaRouches syv år lange kampagne, der kræver Glass-Steagall som den dør, der vil åbne for en politik med statskredit til genoplivelse af den økonomiske produktivitet i USA og Europa, har vundet voksende indflydelse.

Handelsblatts støtte har også spredt spørgsmålet til Tyskland og Europa. »Ville der være begrundelse for at genindføre Glass-Steagall?«, spørger Wiebe. Det nuværende system giver en universel bank flere muligheder, men

Hvad der er vigtigere, så ville konceptet med en bankopdeling sandsynligvis gøre det finansielle system mere sikkert. Det afgørende punkt er, at storbankerne er for store, og at en opdeling ville gøre dem mindre igen. Argumentet er gyldigt for Europa, hvor meget store banker befinder sig i relativt små stater, mere, end det gælder for USA. Deutsche Bank-forretningsmodellen, hvor en stor investeringsbank sidder på fundamentet af en ikke særlig stærk traditionel bank, diskuteres om og om igen.

Da Lyndon LaRouche påbegyndte sin kampagne for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall i 2009, var de eneste amerikanere eller europæere, der kendte til lovens navn, de Wall Street-folk, der var lovens banemænd. LaRouches indsigt i fremtiden var af afgørende betydning for at vælge denne kamp. Han vidste, at de transatlantiske økonomiers eneste fremtid, deres eneste chance for at genoplive statskredit, produktion og produktivitet efter Hamiltons principper, gik via Glass-Steagall, der ville sætte gigantbankerne på Wall Street og i City of London i globaliseringens æra, på deres rette plads.

At afværge endnu et generelt finansielt kollaps og truslen om verdenskrig kræver, at man nu griber denne fremtid.

Foto: USA: Det var den nyvalgte præsident Franklin D. Roosevelt, der til finansoligarkiets (Wall Street og City of London) rædsel fik Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven vedtaget i 1933. På dette foto fra 1935 ses FDR underskrive og dermed sætte i kraft, Loven om Social Sikkerhed (Social Security Act).

Social Security Act var en lovgivning for social velfærd, der skabte det sociale sikkerhedssystem i USA. Selv om programmet er blevet ændret siden loven blev vedtaget, så var lovens oprindelige formål det at sørge for statshjælp til dem, der ikke kunne arbejde.   

 




Lyndon LaRouche:
Produktivitetsraterne skal i vejret – i modsat
fald overlever hverken USA eller Europa

25. juli, 2016 (Leder) – London/Wall Street-banksystemet har kurs mod et krak, og den grundlæggende årsag er den fuldstændige stagnation af den økonomiske vækst, men navnlig stagnationen i produktiviteten i de europæiske og amerikanske økonomier.

Den amerikanske finansminister Jack Lew bragte sit embede i miskredit ved det nyligt afsluttede G20-møde i Kina, da han opfordrede de andre lande til at gøre alt, hvad der stod i deres magt, for at øge deres økonomiske vækst, men sagde, at den amerikanske økonomi ikke behøver nye forholdsregler til kreditudstedelse eller investering. Den økonomiske vækst i USA er så lav, at Lew har behov for at bruge europæisk nulvækst til at puste sig selv op. Kina – hvis økonomiske fremgang og kredit har holdt verden oppe i et årti, og hvis økonomiske vækst er fire gange den amerikanske – sagde sandheden ved dette møde: »Situationen i den globale økonomi er dyster«, som Kinas handelsminister sagde.

Kina fortsætter med at skabe store mængder kombineret offentlig og privat kreditudstedelse (estimeret til $240 milliarder alene i juni) til investeringer såvel i Kina, langs med det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte og den Maritime Silkevej, samt i Afrika, Mellemøsten og Sydamerika – såvel som også til sit rumforsknings- og teknologiprogram, det mest dynamiske i verden i dag. Men de finansielle kræfter i London og på Wall Street, der gør verdensøkonomien »dyster«, skramler fortsat henimod et nyt finansielt krak med en økonomi, der ikke har nogen kapitalinvestering, er uden produktivitet og uden profit.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, lagde ikke i fingrene imellem i sin kommentar til Lews forsvar for en død økonomi. »At sætte den form for standard betyder i virkeligheden fallit«, sagde LaRouche.

Den politik må lukkes ned. Produktivitetsraterne for de realøkonomiske aktiviteter skal i vejret igen – ellers vil det hele eksplodere. USA og Europa vil ikke overleve. De kan overleve, hvis man gør, hvad der skal gøres. Og det er at sørge for, at videnskab bliver motoren for økonomiens reelle produktivitet.

Det er ligeledes videnskab, der vil være motor for menneskers og husstandes reelle indkomststigninger.

Studier af USA’s økonomiske historie kalder perioden 1935-1970 for »amerikansk produktivitets guldalder« på grund af den totale produktivitets vedvarende vækstfaktor – en vækst i produktiviteten, der kan tilskrives teknologiske fremskridt snarere end blot anvendelse af flere arbejdstimer og mere kapital. Væksten kulminerede under Franklin Roosevelts New Deal og de store infrastrukturprojekter med benævnelsen »De Fire Hjørner«, der voksede med 3,3 % om året. Det voksede stadig med lige under 3 % om året i 1960’erne under JFK, med det måske vigtigste infrastrukturprojekt af dem alle, nemlig NASA’s Apolloprogram, der bragte mennesket til Månen med et potentiale til at nå endnu længere ud.

IMF, den Europæiske Centralbank og USA’s Nationale Kontor for Økonomisk Forskning taler konstant om den totale produktivitets vækstfaktor og følger den nøje, alt imens de overhovedet ikke er i stand til at frembringe en sådan vækstfaktor. IMF har netop rapporteret, at, i årtierne under Bush og Obama var denne vækstfaktor i USA var 0,5 % om året, og at nu, i 2016, er den omkring nul. I »højproduktive« Tyskland, har den også været på 0,5 % om året.

Kina, som sagde sandheden ved G20 om den globale økonomis »dystre tilstand«, har haft en vækstfaktor i den totale produktivitet på 3,1 % om året siden 2004, ifølge den seneste undersøgelse, der er foretaget ved Harvard. Det er, hvad den Nye Silkevej og det kinesiske måneprogram skaber.

LaRouche har siden 2013 udtrykt dette behov som »de fire love«: Genindfør Glass/Steagall-bankregulering (begge de politiske partier er nu, på papiret, enige med ham). Skab statslige institutioner til udstedelse af ny kredit, der er rettet mod vækst i produktiviteten. Invester i de mest højteknologiske infrastrukturprojekter, med rumforskning i spidsen. Fokusér på at skabe gennembrud i videnskabens fremskudte grænse, som er videnskab og teknologi inden for termonuklear fusion, inklusive fusionskraft og fissions/fusions-fremdrift til rejser i rummet.

»I modsat fald vil det hele eksplodere. USA og Europa vil ikke overleve.«

Kinas forpligtende engagement mht. at forøge hele befolkningens arbejdskrafts produktive evne, som eksemplificeres i bygningen af De Tre Slugters dæmning, som ses afbildet her, har resulteret i en vækstrate fire gange så stor, som den aktuelle vækstrate i USA.




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 21. juli 2016:
Kupforsøget efter rapprochement mellem Tyrkiet og Rusland//
og den tjetjenske vinkel
Se også 2. del

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: 2. del:

Lyd:




Sammen med hvilket Tyskland kan Europa få en fremtid?

19. juli 2016 (Leder) – I de seneste to uger har vi – som en uopsættelig aktion, der skal gennemføres nu, i denne økonomiske og kulturelle krise – fremlagt Lyndon og Helga LaRouches forslag til at redde Deutsche Bank fra overhængende bankerot, og til at afværge krig. Fordi Tysklands økonomi er den eneste, der har et produktivt potentiale til at redde vraget af Europa ved at koble sig til Kinas storslåede projekt for den Nye Silkevej til udvikling af Eurasien, Mellemøsten og Afrika.

I modsat fald får vi krig med Kina, eller med Rusland. Obamas Hvide Hus forsøger støt og roligt at fremprovokere krigskonfrontationer med både Rusland og Kina og kræver, at Europa fremmer disse provokationer gennem NATO. Hvis terrorsplinterne fra Obamas krige i Mellemøsten og Libyen er i færd med at bombe Europa ind i en tilstand af chok, så har de hans sympati, så længe, de fortsat går med i militære konfrontationer med Rusland og Kina. Hillary Clinton er lige så fast besluttet på denne krigspolitik.

Der er, især efter Brexit, ingen tvivl om, at Tyskland er Europas fremtid. Men hvis det er Angela Merkels og Wolfgang Schäubles Tyskland, forfalsket med det endnu mere krigeriske Grønne Parti, så får vi verdenskrig.

Derfor foreslog hr. og fr. LaRouche: Det må være Tyskland i Alfred Herrhausens ånd, den myrdede leder af den engang produktive, men nu elendige og kriminelle kæmpe, Deutsche Bank. Mere specifikt den Alfred Herrhausen, der i 1989 var i færd med at lancere en udviklingsbank til at løfte Polen og det sovjetiske Østeuropa økonomisk, mens Sovjetunionen kollapsede – og han blev myrdet.

Herrhausens plan dengang for Deutsche Bank og Tyskland, var et paradigme for, hvad Tyskland atter kan blive, såvel som også for Europas fremtid nu.

Det transatlantiske banksystem og finansielle system er ved at falde fra hinanden. Det er offer for sine egne medlemmer, de City of London-centrerede europæiske storbanker og Wall Street-storbankerne, der har knust de reelle, produktive økonomier under sig i løbet af årtiers globalisering. Det, der udløser det umiddelbart forestående krak, er ikke simplet hen italienske bankers dårlige lån, eller ejendomsfonde i London, der lukker, eller at de store tyske og schweiziske banker er i vanskeligheder, og ikke engang ECB’s og Federal Reserves sindssyge politik; men derimod ødelæggelsen af de underliggende økonomiers produktivitet hen over årtier, mens kasinoet voksede på toppen af dem.

Hvis man skal genkapitalisere de fallerede storbanker i Europa, må de tvinges til at afskrive deres kasinoer som totale tab og genvedtage de produktive formål, som Herrhausens lederskab af Deutsche Bank var indbegrebet af. Så kan man skabe statskreditter på samme måde, som Kina har været alene om at gøre i dette århundrede, til den form for projekter, der genopliver menneskers og økonomiers produktivitet.

I løbet af de to uger, hvor vi har fremlagt dette uopsættelige forslag fra LaRouche, har der været betydningsfulde gennembrud i USA. »Det saudiske kapitel« af 11. september-historien er blevet tvunget offentliggjort.

En genindførelse af Glass-Steagall er inkorporeret i valgplatformene hos både Demokrater og Republikanere.

Men den rette måde at kæmpe for en Glass/Steagall-reorganisering af bankerne på, er ved at bruge den »vægtstang«, som er LaRouches forslag. Så bliver denne kamp en kamp for Europas, og også USA’s, fremtid. 

  

 




»Drama Infernale« … og LaRouches initiativ for Deutsche Bank er eneste udvej

17. juli 2016 (Leder) – Verden konfronteres med et Drama Infernale, lyder overskriften til lederartiklen i økonomisektionen af søndagens udgave af det tyske Welt am Sonntag. Ikke alene står det italienske banksystem umiddelbart foran en nedsmeltning, med 360 milliard euro i uerholdelige lån, men hele det europæiske finansielle system er ligeledes bankerot – med den derivat-tyngede Deutsche Bank øverst på listen – rapporterer de nervøst.

Men virkeligheden er langt værre, end selv denne oprørte redegørelse indikerer. Hele det transatlantiske finansielle system er gået op i limningen, bemærkede Lyndon LaRouche i en diskussion med sine medarbejdere i weekenden, og det blev viderebragt ved begyndelsen af udsendelsen den 16. juli, i Dialog med Manhattan Projektet. Dennis Speed fra LPAC opsummerede her LaRouches bemærkninger:

»Systemet giver ikke mulighed for et eneste sikkert punkt. Forlad jer ikke på nogen rationel respons fra nogen gruppe. Dette her står på randen af en generel, global krise. Derfor er folks adfærd den, at de går totalt i panik; man vil ikke få nogen rationel respons på dette tidspunkt. Forsøg ikke at forlade jer på nogen, forsøg ikke at udvælge nogen person. Dette er en nødsituation med et problem, der haster, og vi må håndtere det ud fra dette standpunkt.«

Denne nødaktion er centreret omkring LaRouches krav om at bruge en engangs-redning til at reorganisere Deutsche Bank, baseret den myrdede bankier Alfred Herrhausens principper, for at indlede en transformation, med baggrund i en konkurs, af hele det transatlantiske finansielle system og udløse reel, menneskelig produktivitet.

I en yderligere diskussion i søndags udtalte LaRouche:

»Vi må have en positiv politik med en hyperaktiv produktivitet. Man må skabe produktivitet, reel produktivitet, ikke, at nogen holder på deres penge, eller deres penge til at spekulere for. Og spørgsmålet er: Vil vi skabe de elementer af produktivitet, som behøves for at komme fri af det, der er sket med os, gennem folk, der har forsøgt at undertrykke ting og gå uden om ting hele vejen? Dér kommer problemet ind. Hvis man ikke hævder en politik, baseret på disse principper, vil man igen havne i det samme, gamle rod.«

»Vi må vinde indflydelse på alle personer«, fortsatte LaRouche, »for hvis der ikke er enighed mht. hvad det er, man skal varetage, så får vi anarki. Og det betyder at gå tilbage til nulpunktet, eller under nulpunktet. Det er problemet. Det er spørgsmålet. Dette er, hvad man må respondere til. Hvis man ikke responderer til det, er man ingenting, så har man totalt smidt enhver fornuft ud. Og dette er den eneste måde at håndtere dette på.«

I vores internationale kampagne for at gennemføre LaRouches dramatiske Deutsche Bank-initiativ, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, løber vi ind i uventede grader af raseri i befolkningen i hele Europa, imod Deutsche Bank og alle bankierer, et raseri, som står i vejen for deres forståelse af LaRouches krav.

»I Tyskland havde vi en uventet, virkelig uventet bølge af had mod Deutsche Bank«,

bemærkede Zepp-LaRouche.

»Konservative industrifolk, mangeårige tilhængere (som man aldrig ville have forventet ville sige noget sådant), de reagerede totalt voldsomt og sagde: ’Lad dem gå bankerot! Luk dem ned! Hvorfor skulle vi bruge én krone mere på at redde disse kriminelle slyngler?’ Og jeg mener, at det er det, folk ikke rigtig kæmper sig igennem.

For Herrhausen-princippet handler ikke bare om at redde Deutsche Bank; det er, at man har en pistol for panden og siger: Enten accepterer I paradigmeskiftet, eller også går I alle ned, og vi gå ned med jer. Men hvis I vil overleve, må I acceptere dette skifte. Og hvis vi havde en international kampagne – som vi har lidt af – men hvis vi havde en virkelig kampagne, ville presset blive større på den tyske regering, som er dér, hvor presset må ende.«

Lyndon LaRouche understregede ligeledes betydningen af politikken for reorganisering af Deutsche Bank:

»Understreg det igen, for det er historien. Det er præcist, hvad I må håndtere, og det er, hvad I må kæmpe imod.«      

     

  

  




RADIO SCHILLER den 18. juli 2016:
Deutsche Bank handlingsplan//
Offentliggørelsen af de 28-sider om Saudi-arabiens rolle bag terror//
Terror i Nice//
Kupforsøget i Tyrkiet

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




Europæiske banker ved ’Sidste Udkald’ før kollaps

16. juli 2016»Deutsche Bank må reddes, for verdensfredens skyld«, Helga Zepp-LaRouches chokerende advarsel om det kaos, der lurer bag Deutsche Banks krav om en ny, europæisk TARP-bailout, er i raketfart blevet cirkuleret til højtplacerede bankierer, økonomer og medier i hele Tyskland, Østrig og Italien. En af disse bankierer bekræftede over for Zepp-LaRouche i en diskussion over telefon den 15. juli, at hendes fremsatte krav, der placerer de London-centrerede europæiske banker »i allersidste øjeblik« før et kollaps, er korrekt, og mange bankierer ved det. I interviews til medierne »kaster de sand i offentlighedens øjne«, sagde han, med de ved, hvad der snart vil udløses over dem.

En anden kilde sagde til EIR’s europæiske kontor i Wiesbaden, Tyskland, at behovet for at vende tilbage til Deutsche Banks myrdede, tidligere formand Alfred Herrhausens »traditionelle dyder« inden for bankpraksis, gentagent blev bragt på bane under bankens nylige generalforsamling for aktionærerne i takt med, at bankens marked og øvrige kapitalisering styrtdykkede.  Zepp-LaRouches appel, der bygger på hendes mand, Lyndons LaRouches forslag, kræver, at Deutsche Bank skal genkapitaliseres med statslige midler, men at den skal udrenses ved at afskrive dens enorme mængde af giftige værdipapirer og ved at vende tilbage til Herrhausens politik for bankpraksis til industriudvikling og produktivitet.

Endnu en højtplaceret finansperson udtalte sig offentligt om den ekstreme fare for en europæisk nedsmeltning. Philipp Hildebrand, næstformand for Black Rock (der ejer 5 % af Deutsche Banks kollapsede aktier), sagde til Tageszeitung den 13. juli, at den nuværende krise i de europæiske banker er ekstremt farlig og »kunne føre til det værste«. Hildebrand søgte at lokalisere udløseren for nedsmeltningen væk fra Deutsche Bank og Tyskland, i Italien.

Men Deutsche Bank har et presserende behov for genkapitalisering. Samtidig med, at bankens cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau kom med sine forslag til euro-bailout, og Angela Merkel og hendes finansminister Wolfgang Schäuble benægtede, at det skulle være nødvendigt at gøre noget, fik Deutsche Bank omkring 1 milliard euro i ny kapital fra Qatars kongefamilie, hvilket gør dem til den største aktieindehaver (10 %), foran Black Rock.

Ydermere har Deutsche Banks supervisionsbestyrelse skaffet sig af med Georg Thoma – der havde presset på for at få forebyggende undersøgelser og udrensninger af bankens illegale/umoralske aktiviteter – og har netop erstattet ham med Qatars fremstillede kandidat, Frankfurt-advokaten Stefan Simon.

Kilder i den amerikanske bankverden siger, at Deutsche Bank har behov for, ikke 1 milliard euro i ny kapital, men 7 – 10 milliard euro. Handelsblatt rapporterede den 15. juli, at Tysklands andenstørste bank, Commerzbank, også er i vanskeligheder. Den har måttet rapportere indtægter, der styrtdykkede hen over det seneste år med enorme marginer, 10 – 15 %, afhængig af bankafdeling. Den europæiske Centralbanks nulrentepolitik har bragt denne forhenværende kraftstation for lån til industrien ud på afgrundens rand.

EIR kæmper for de handlinger, som LaRouche foreslår, i både Tyskland og Italien, som er krisens centrale fokusområder. EIR’s og LaRouche-bevægelsens kamp for at genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingsloven i USA er ligeledes af afgørende betydning.

Og i Danmark er det naturligvis Schiller Instituttet, er fører an i denne kamp for en bankopdeling, også i Danmark.  

 




Red Deutsche Bank
– red Europa og verden fra totalt, økonomisk kaos! 
Med Helga Zepp-LaRouches fascinerende analyse
af de seneste 30 års politik.
Dansk udskrift.

Den største fare, lige bortset fra en direkte Tredje Verdenskrig, ville være, at den transatlantiske sektor styrtede ud i kaos. Derfor fremkom min mand – der har en unik rekord for at have ret, mht. økonomisk forecasting, og mht. at komme med forslag til, hvordan en situation kan løses – med denne meget overraskende kommentar: at Deutsche Bank, frem for alle banker, skulle udvælges og reddes, denne ene, sidste gang, men ikke uden betingelser: De må omgående sættes under en form for konkursbehandling. En ledelseskomité bør have ansvaret. Og dernæst må banken have en ny forretningsplan, der må gå tilbage til den filosofi, som blev praktiseret af Alfred Herrhausen, der var den sidste, moralske bankier i hele Europa, og som havde en helt anden filosofi.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 

 

 




Red Deutsche Bank for at finde en løsning, der vil redde menneskeheden!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 15. juli 2016

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror, det er almindelig kendt blandt absolut alle i det internationale finansielle samfund, og i alle regeringer og blandt alle relevante personer i politiske stillinger i den transatlantiske sektor, at det, jeg nu siger her, er absolut sandt. Med andre ord: bankiererne og de ansvarlige personer i det internationale finansielle system alle er klar over, at dette system er absolut bankerot; håbløst bankerot. Det står umiddelbart foran en nedsmeltning, i langt større skala end den, der fandt sted i 2008, af den meget simple grund, at alle de indikatorer, der var til stede, før Lehman Brothers og AIG gik ned, er til stede nu, men i langt større skala.

[Vi arbejder på en dansk oversættelse af hele webcastet. Bliv på kanalen!]  

Engelsk udskrift:

SAVE DEUTSCHE BANK TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WILL SAVE MANKIND!

LaRouche PAC International Webcast Friday, July 15, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 15th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin
Deniston; and we're joined by a very special guest, via video,
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Helga Zepp-LaRouche is the founder of
the Schiller Institute, and also Chairwoman of the German BüSo
(Bürgerrechtsbewegung Solidaritä¤t, Civil Rights Movement
Solidarity) political party.
        Helga LaRouche is joining us tonight to discuss the
initiative that she and Mr. Lyndon LaRouche have taken this week
to act in a very decisive manner to avert World War III and a
global economic blow-out. This concerns the situation that
Deutsche Bank now finds itself in.
        I would like to begin by reading a Statement that Mrs.
LaRouche issued a few days ago, on July 12th of this week. We
will then follow that Statement by a discussion with Mrs.
LaRouche herself. In the Statement that Mrs. LaRouche issued,
titled "Deutsche Bank Must be Rescued, for the Sake of World
Peace," Helga wrote the following:
        "The imminent threat of the bankruptcy of Deutsche Bank is
certainly not the only potential trigger for a new systemic
crisis of the trans-Atlantic banking system, which would be
orders of magnitude more deadly than the 2008 crisis, but it does
offer a unique lever to prevent a collapse into chaos.
        "Behind the SOS launched by the chief economist of Deutsche
Bank, David Folkerts-Landau, for an EU program of EU¬150 billion
to recapitalize the banks, lurks the danger openly discussed in
international financial media, that the entire European banking
system is {de facto} insolvent, and is sitting on a mountain of
at least EU¬2 trillion of non-performing loans. Deutsche Bank is
the international bank, with a total of EU¬55 trillions of
outstanding derivative contracts and a leverage factor of 40:1,
even outdoes Lehman Brothers at the time of its collapse, and
therefore represents the most dangerous Achilles heel of the
system. Half of Deutsche Bank's balance sheet, which has
plummeted 48% in the past 12 months and is down to only 8% of its
peak value, is made up of Level-3 derivatives, i.e., derivatives
amounting to circa EU¬800 billion without a market valuation.
        "It probably came as a surprise to many that Lyndon LaRouche
called today for Deutsche Bank to be saved through a one-time
increase in its capital base, because of the systemic
implications of its threatened bankruptcy. Neither the German
government with its GDP of EU¬4 trillion, nor the EU with a GDP
of EU¬18 trillion, would be able to control the domino effect of
a disorderly bankruptcy.
        "The one-time capital injection, LaRouche explained, is only
an emergency measure which needs to be followed by an immediate
reorientation of the bank, back to its tradition which prevailed
until 1989 under the leadership of Alfred Herrhausen. To actually
oversee such an operation, a management committee must be set up
to verify the legitimacy and the implications of the obligations,
and finalize its work within a given timeframe. That committee
should also draw up a new business plan, based on Herrhausen's
banking philosophy and exclusively oriented to the interests of
the real economy of Germany.
        "Alfred Herrhausen was the last actually creative, moral
industrial banker of Germany. He defended, among other things,
the cancellation of the unpayable debt of developing countries,
as well as the long-term credit financing of well-defined
development projects. In December 1989, he planned to present in
New York a plan for the industrialization of Poland, which was
consistent with the criteria used by the Kreditanstalt für
Wiederaufbau (KfW) for the post-1945 reconstruction of Germany,
and would have offered a completely different perspective than
the so-called 'reform policy,' or 'shock therapy', of Jeffrey
Sachs…."
        Helga completes this Statement by saying:
        "Herrhausen's assassination has gone unpunished. However,
there exists 'the dreaded might, that judges what is hid from
sight,' which is the subject of Friedrich Schiller's poem {Die
Kraniche des Ibykus}. The Erinyes have begun their dreadful
dance.
        It is now incumbent upon all those who, in addition to the
family, have suffered from the assassination of Herrhausen, upon
the representatives of the Mittelstand, of the German economy and
the institutional representatives of the German population, to
honor his legacy and to seize the tremendous opportunity which is
now offered to save Germany."
        With that said, Helga, would you like to follow up at all
with any opening statements?

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that it is absolutely
known to everybody in the international financial community and
to all governments and all relevant people in political positions
in the trans-Atlantic sector, that what I'm saying there is
absolutely true. In other words: the bankers and [those]
responsible for the international financial system all know that
this system is absolutely bankrupt, hopelessly bankrupt. It's
about to blow up in a much, much bigger way than 2008, for the
very simple reason that all indicators which were there before
Lehman Brothers and AIG went under, are there, but much more.
        The famous instrument box which they were using, or
pretending to use, in 2008, has been used up: quantitative
easing, zero interest rate, negative interest rate, helicopter
money. Right now you have the situation — and we have this from
extremely reliable contacts in the banking community who agree
with us — where all the central banks are printing money, paper
money, like crazy, because they know perfectly well that
helicopter money is not just electronic, but if you would have a
banking run right now, the whole thing would evaporate within a
very short period of time, in hours.
        This is a situation where if you have an uncontrolled,
chaotic collapse, which is right now eminently possible, because
you have several [inaud 0:07.39]. Not only Deutsche Bank.
You have the Italian Banking sector about to blow. You have the
British situation after the Brexit. The entire European banking
system is absolutely bankrupt. If you had an uncontrolled
collapse, well, as one banker told us, after he read this
statement of mine, he said, "If this is not remedied in the short
term, we are looking towards a Europe of chaos, disorder, and
revolution."
        The biggest danger, apart from World War III directly, would
be a plunge of the trans-Atlantic sector into chaos. Therefore,
my husband — who has a unique record of being right, in terms of
forecasting, and being unique, in terms of coming up for
proposals how to remedy the situation — made this very
surprising comment: that Deutsche Bank, of all banks, should be
singled out, they should be saved, one last time, but not without
conditions: They must immediately be put in a sort of
receivership. A management commission should be in charge. And
then they need a new business plan, which must go back to the
philosophy of Alfred Herrhausen, who was the last moral banker in
all of Europe, and who had a completely different philosophy.
        We had all kinds of reactions about that. It turned out the
banks are much more hated than meets the public eye. People said,
"Let these banks go bankrupt! Why don't you just close them down?
Nationalize them! Bankrupt them!" You had an outpouring of anger
coming from people you would not expect it — conservative
industrialists, politicians who normally are not speaking in
radical tones at all — but what came out was an explosion of
anger.
        It is very easy to be angry about the situation. If this
thing collapses in an uncontrolled fashion, all the life-savings
of people will be ruined. The majority of the people will have to
pay, and this will be associated with poverty. Millions of people
dying. This is not a joke.
        It's not enough to be "against" something; even if banks
have behaved completely criminal and immoral. Deutsche Bank is
spending right now such enormous amounts of money on legal fines
for illegal activity from LIBOR swindles, all kinds of shady
operations, so that they had to write down their profit warnings.
It's not the question of "doing a favor" to Deutsche Bank. Not at
all! The question is: you must find leverage; how to bring this
thing in order, before the whole thing ends up in a collapse,
causing an absolute uncontrollable situation.
        That is why the reference to Alfred Herrhausen is really
extremely important, because he was the head of Deutsche Bank. He
was a banker. Deutsche Bank had a different policy, and
therefore, when you say, "We have to back to the philosophy of
Alfred Herrhausen," at least the older generation knows exactly
what that means. Therefore, I think we should really spread this
and force people to put pressure on the situation, that this is
being done. You have to "unwind" the outstanding derivatives. You
have to deal with the situation that Deutsche Bank has EU¬55
trillion in outstanding derivatives. Half of their balance sheet
is without market valuation, which means that it's practically
worth nothing, because you can't really sell it.
        If you have an uncontrolled collapse, then that could be
really what brings down the whole thing in a chaotic way. If you
go the way Mr. LaRouche has proposed, then you can have an
orderly resolution of this bankrupt system, and replace it with
one which is in the interest of the people. So, it's not just a
technical proposal. Several people, in response to my statement,
said, "This is probably the very last chance we have to prevent a
catastrophe."

        OGDEN: I would like to get a little bit more into the
significance of the role played by Alfred Herrhausen in a moment;
but before we get to that, Helga, maybe you also say a little bit
more about what the strategic context of this intervention is,
especially from the standpoint of the role that [inaud 13:06]
play, not only as the only viable economy in Europe right now,
but also the emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has placed on the
relationship between Germany and Russia, being the only means by
which we can prevent the outbreak of a thermonuclear conflict.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, people have now all kinds of proposals,
like "Tobin Tax," "tax the speculators" — all these proposals
are floating around. What they don't consider, is that when we're
taking about banking, we're not talking about money or financial
questions; we're taking about the physical pre-condition for a
society to exist. Fortunately, the German economy, despite all of
these paradigm shifts which have occurred in the last 25 years to
the worse, the German economy is still an economic powerhouse.
You still have a very large concentration of very productive
middle-level industry. Middle-level industry is normally where
all the patterns are made, the technological innovation occurs.
That is really the backbone of the productive economy.
        The question is: this German economy, without which all of
Europe would not function, absolutely must be protected, and not
only be protected, because right now, it is already many, many
small firms which are in danger. There are other factors, like
the crazy [nuclear] energy exit of Mrs. Merkel, which has
increased the price of energy tremendously, but the German
economy is sort of weakened; but it is still the absolute crucial
factor because in Germany you have a lot of the industrial
potential which is needed not only for all of Europe, but in
order to get the whole question of Eurasian cooperation on a
sound ground, you need the German economy. The whole question of
the German-Russian cooperation, German-Chinese cooperation in the
development of the Eurasian Silk Road, is absolutely crucial.
        So, the question is the productivity. And what has happened
with the paradigm shift of all the successors of Herrhausen — I
don't want to name all of them — but all of them went into this
high-risk maximization of profit no matter what. Ackermann wanted
25% profit, preferably every month; and they went into these
completely crazy derivative operations, so that Deutsche Bank is
today {the} leading bank in terms of derivative exposure. With
$55 trillion in outstanding derivatives, that's with a GDP of the
German economy of $4 trillion a year; it's more than 10 times
more, even 12 times more the GDP of the German economy. So
Deutsche Bank long has stopped to be Deutsche Bank; it's now
operating from London, from New York. It has become one of the
most aggressive investment banks in the world. But if it goes
bankrupt, which it could at any moment; and that's why the chief
economist Mr. Folkerts-Landau put out every day since Sunday, he
put out an urgent call saying this recapitalization of the
European banks must occur, or else calamity will happen. If
Deutsche Bank would go under, the German economy — and with it,
all European economies — would collapse; and therefore, it's not
a question of choice. Obviously, to just put out more bail-out
packages per se, as the ECB [European Central Bank] and the EU
Commission have done in the past, is completely useless because
it makes the problem worse. Right now, it has reached the limit;
because after helicopter money, what else do you want to do?
        It is not a choice; it is a life and death question, not
only for Germany, but really for the entire trans-Atlantic
sector.

        OGDEN: Now, you have emphasized that the circumstances
around the assassination of Alfred Herrhausen continue to be a
crime that the truth has not yet been told fully about. It's
something that in the United States, we can relate to the
assassination of John F. Kennedy, in terms of the magnitude of
what this meant for the turning point in the policy of Germany at
that time. Obviously, it was in the context of the collapse of
the Berlin Wall in the beginning of November 1989, and just less
than one month later, at the very end of November, November 30th,
Herrhausen was assassinated in a very sophisticated attack on his
convoy as he was travelling from his home to the Deutsche Bank
headquarters. You said, Helga, in an article that you wrote in
1992 titled, "New Evidence Emerges in the Herrhausen
Assassination Case," you said, "The key to the motive behind
Herrhausen's assassination lies in 11 pages of a speech he was to
deliver in the United States only four days after he was
ambushed. The speech contained Herrhausen's vision of a new kind
of relationship between eastern and western Europe, which would
have fundamentally altered the world's future course." And then
you have a quotation from the speech, which I think is shocking
when we go back and read that today, in consideration of what Mr.
LaRouche and you were also both advocating for at that time. What
he said, or what he was to say, in that speech that was never
delivered, was the following:
        "There should be assurances that the new credit will flow
into specific, promising projects. It is therefore advisable that
the export guarantees which the German Federal government wants
to expand, be tied primarily to specific projects. In this
connection, at this year's annual meeting of the IMF and World
Bank in Washington, I proposed setting up a development bank on
the spot; i.e., in Warsaw. Its task would be to bundle the aid
and to channel it according to strict efficiency criteria. My
vision is that such an institution could function somewhat like
the Deutsche Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau, which traces its
origins back to the Marshall Plan."
        So, when you compare that speech that Herrhausen was about
to give four days after he was assassinated, to what Lyn said in
his speech in West Germany at the Kempinski Hotel in 1988, when
he forecast the reunification of Germany and the collapse of the
Berlin Wall, he said:
        "Let us say that the United States and western Europe will
cooperate to accomplish the successful rebuilding of the economy
of Poland. There will be interference in the political system of
government, but only a kind of Marshall Plan aid to rebuild
Poland's industry and agriculture. If Germany agrees to this, let
a process aimed at the reunification of the economies of Germany
begin; and let this be the {puntum saliens} for western
cooperation in assisting in the rebuilding of the economy of
Poland."
        So, I think in the context of this speech that Herrhausen
was about to deliver in New York, his cooperation with Helmut
Kohl in terms of the reunification of Germany; and also the fact
that he was on record calling for the debt relief — at least a
partial debt relief, if not a full debt forgiveness of the Third
World countries. He had met with the President of Mexico in 1987;
he had surprised the world by delivering a speech at the World
Bank in 1987 calling for the forgiveness of the debt of the Third
World. All of these are right in parallel with what you and Lyn
were advocating for, going all the way back to 1975, back to the
Operation Juarez and also with this Marshall Plan Productive
Triangle proposal at the fall of the Berlin Wall. So, I think
that certainly puts his assassination in the correct context to
understand {qui bono}. Who benefitted from the fact that he was
killed?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think I would to take it a little bit
back, because this is not just a question of a murder which
occurred 27 years ago. I want to recall what the period was,
because most people have forgotten that Germany was not always
unified; that the Berlin Wall came down. But this was one of the
most traumatic developments in the post-war period. You remember
that you had the peaceful demonstrations in the G.D.R. [East
Germany], the Monday demonstrations; the Warsaw Pact still
existed, and it was not clear what would happen. Would this lead
to another 1956 like in Hungary, or a new Prague Spring, where
Russian or Soviet tanks come? Then the wall came down, and Mr.
LaRouche had this idea about the German unification which you
referenced, which he presented in the Kempinski Hotel in 1988; so
we had a plan. We put out immediately this proposal for the
German unification, to have a mission; to have the Productive
Triangle to take the region from Paris, Berlin, Vienna — the
economic powerhouse of the world at that time — and develop
corridors into eastern Europe to transform Europe. We were the
only ones who had any idea, because we were the only ones who
even had an inkling that the Soviet Union would collapse; which
Mr. LaRouche had already pronosed in 1984. He said, if the Soviet
Union sticks to their military policy of the Ogarkov plan, which
was basically the idea to gain world dominance; then they will
collapse in five years. And I can assure you, not even the German
government had any idea that unification would be real; even if
that was the primary political goal of the entire post-war
period. Then the Wall came down; and in the official documents
which the German government published ten years later, they
admitted they had no contingency plan for the case of German
unification. Can you imagine that? That was the policy goal
number one to have German unification; and they had no plan. But
we did have a plan.
        So, then developments became extremely traumatic. On the
28th of November, Helmut Kohl did probably the most important
step in his entire political career by putting forward the
10-point program. This was not yet a program for German
unification, but it was a medium-term plan for the moving closer
together of the two German states; the West German and East
German states in a federation. But he did that without consulting
the Allies, and he did it without even consulting the liberal
coalition partner, Mr. Genscher; but it was a first baby step in
the direction of two German sovereignties. We know now that
Francois Mitterand put an ultimatum to Kohl and said, either you
give up the German D-mark and its being replaced by a European
common currency — what became the euro — or we will not agree
to German unification.
        Two days after Kohl had put out this 10-point program,
Herrhausen was assassinated. Everybody in the German elite at
that point — and we talked to many people at that time — said
this is not just an assassination, but since Herrhausen was the
closest advisor to Kohl, this was a message to Kohl. Don't stick
your head out; do not dare to pursue and assert sovereignty.
Because Germany in the entire post-war period was an occupied
country; and at that time the saying went, "The best-kept public
secret of NATO is that Germany is an occupied country and will
remain an occupied country." So by Kohl making this tiny baby
step in the direction of sovereignty with the 10-point program,
that obviously was the contributing factor why this assassination
occurred. As you said, if Herrhausen would have made this speech
in New York in the following week, you would have had a proposal
coming from the leading banker which was practically in principle
identical to what Mr. LaRouche and I proposed at the time;
namely, that the unified Germany should take Poland as an example
for the economic transformation of all the other countries of the
Comecon.
        Then naturally, everything went haywire. The following EU
summit in the beginning of December in Strasburg, everybody
started to attack Kohl; and in an interview later, he said these
were the darkest hours of his life. The circumstances were such
that despite the fact that Kohl knew that the euro would not
function, he said this is against German interests; and he knew
absolutely that you cannot have a European common currency
without political union. So, he knew it wouldn't function; he
knew it was against German interests. But he was forced by the
circumstances to accept it, because you had Bush, Sr. who had the
policy of containment of Germany in the EU. It is well
established that originally Bush was against the German
unification; and only because such more experienced political
advisors like Brent Scowcroft told him if you are now against
German unification, then the United States will lose all
influence in Europe, so we have to basically agree to it. But
let's make sure Germany gets contained. And that is what led to
the infamous EU Maastricht agreement, which was the beginning of
turning the EU into an imperial adjunct of the Anglo-American
system. Helmut Schmidt, the late German Chancellor, in an equally
surprising interview recently before he died, said the whole
Ukraine crisis, which is right now what could be the trigger
point for a war with Russia; really started at the Maastricht
agreement, because this is when the EU decided to do exactly what
NATO has been doing ever since. Namely, to go for an eastward
expansion and move the EU and NATO just up to the borders of
Russia.
        So, the decision which was made in these really traumatic
weeks and month, set the course; and if Herrhausen had been alive
and advised Kohl, these conceptions could have been implemented
and history would not be at the point where we are now. So, the
Herrhausen assassination not only meant the lost chance of 1989;
everybody agreed at that time this was an historic chance that
happens at best once a century. I called the star hour of
Germany, because if you had the unified Germany developing a
peace plan for the 21st Century together with Russia, the whole
world would look completely different. But as I said, all the
successes of Herrhausen went in the direction of high-risk
speculation, globalization, money for money's sake, the rich
become richer, the poor become poorer, and all the problems we
have today. All the problems we have today are not just caused by
this one assassination, but the assassination is symptomatic for
the paradigm shift to the worse.
        It's a murder which is unpunished; the so-called murderers,
the third generation of the Red Army Faction probably never
existed. There was even in the first German TV channel a
documentary which said there has never been any evidence that any
of the persons who supposedly were the murderers, ever really
existed. So, the {qui bono} — well, it's the financial oligarchy
which profited; and it really has the smell of something quite
different — of an intelligence operation — as many of the
leading figures who did not fit the Yalta norm were assassinated.
But with the Herrhausen case, as you said, for Germany this is as
important in terms of paradigm shift as the assassination was of
John F. Kennedy.
        And right now, when the entire banking system is absolutely
at the verge of collapse, it is the last moment to do justice and
really go back to the policies of Herrhausen. Even so, almost
nobody knows anymore what real industrial banking is, because
they are so money-greedy and absolutely suckers for the latest
profit, that it would be a real uphill battle. But that battle
must be fought if Europe and Germany and the rest of the
trans-Atlantic sector are to survive; and probably beyond that,
much of the world.

        BEN DENISTON: Well, I think just looking at this transition
period, I know that you and Mr. LaRouche had both made a warning
that I think is very appropriate just to state in this context.
That around the fall of the Wall, this lost chance of '89, you
had explicitly said to the world, if we attempt this bankrupt,
collapsing Soviet system with an equally bankrupt trans-Atlantic
system, you're going to head to a collapse that's worse than
what's happening now. I'm paraphrasing you; you might know more
exactly how you stated it. But it seems like that really bridges
this whole process from '89 to what we're seeing today as the
culmination, the expression of what you warned of at that time. I
think a challenge we have is to get across the importance of
acting now on the level needed to make this shift we're talking
about. What Lyn has laid out with this reform program for
Deutsche Bank is the beginning out of this new paradigm. I think
it's important to see it as an intervention in this whole
collapse process you both had warned about and forecast this
would be the consequence of failing to act then. That should give
us greater impetus to know how important it is to act now while
we still have the chance.

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I remember that at that time, you had the
problem of the Bush administration, Margaret Thatcher, Francois
Mitterand, who absolutely really ganged up to prevent Germany
from assuming any such role of having an independent policy;
especially in respect to Russia. They were always saying, "Oh,
the West has won over communism." The only other person outside
of us who totally contradicted them was John Paul II, the Pope of
the time; who said, the people who now are triumphant and say the
market economy is winning over communism, are absolutely wrong.
If you don't believe it, look at the condition of the Third
World, to see that the West has not won; because the moral
condition of the developing countries speaks to the contrary.
        Naturally, that is all the more true today; because if you
look at the inhuman treatment of the refugee crisis, for example.
They are still coming by the hundreds, every week by the
thousands, over the Mediterranean; drowning. Even more are
starving and dying of thirst and lack of water trying to cross
the Sahara. That is also the condition of this system. The system
is what causes all of this; and therefore, it is absolutely high
time that we come to the question of how can we — as a human
civilization — give us an economy and a financial system which
is adequate to human beings? And I think it's very important that
we go back to the question of what is actually the creation of
wealth? Is it what Margaret Thatcher said, is it the ability to
buy cheap and sell expensive? The famous speaking of Margaret
Thatcher being the daughter of a grocery trader, or is it the
possession of raw materials? Or is it the control of the
financial system? No; it's not. The only source of wealth is the
creative power of the human being; and when that creative power
is applied, then you have scientific and technological progress.
That is then leading to an increase of productivity in the
economy.
        That has been the battle between the American Revolution and
the British Empire; between the free-traders and people like
Alexander Hamilton who insisted that it is the creative power of
labor which causes the well-being and the living standard and the
longevity of the people. That was the philosophy of Friedrich
List, the great German economist, who is now the most famous
economist in China, by the way. That was the policy of Friedrich
List and Henry C. Carey, the advisor of Lincoln; who both advised
and through such people as Wilhelm von Kardoff, who was the
head of the German industrial association in the time of
Bismarck. Who changed the mind of Bismarck from being a
free-trader into being an absolute believer in a protectionist
system and the idea that you have to further the productivity and
creativity of your own population as the only source of wealth.
        So, there is a lot of history involved; and what we are
really talking about is taking Germany back to the ideas of
Bismarck, of Friedrich List, of Henry C. Carey, of Dr. William
Lautenbach, who in 1932 presented a plan to the Friedrich List
Organization in Germany which was identical with what Roosevelt
had proposed with the New Deal and the Reconstruction Finance
Corporation, Glass-Steagall, Bretton Woods. That was all in these
proposals by Dr. William Lautenbach, who as history knows,
unfortunately were not taken up; but instead you had Hjalmar
Schacht, you had Hitler, you had before Mussolini, Franco,
Petain, and you are in bed with fascists.
        The question today is, can we, in time, go back to those
conceptions which have proven to be productive and valuable for
the economy; or are we plunging into a catastrophe of new fascism
and new wars? So, on this question of Deutsche Bank, most people
are so in the day-to-day making money, profits, and balance
sheets, and having dollar notes coming out of their eyes, that
they have forgotten that there is something much more important
about human life. And that is the happiness of people; the common
good of people.
        The reason why in this call to honor the memory of
Herrhausen, using this crisis of Deutsche Bank now as a real
paradigm shift to go back to these policies; why I mentioned the
great poem by Friedrich Schiller "The Cranes of Ibykus." And by
the way, I would really urge our audience right now, who probably
are not familiar with that poem, we have at translation which we
can put on the website so it's easily accessible. But this poem
is so powerful; it's written by Friedrich Schiller. It discusses
not only the murder of the beloved poet Ibykus, but more
importantly even, it discusses the power of nemesis; the power of
natural law, which is a power which works in reality. It's not
that God punishes every little thief who steals something
immediately by chopping off his hand; but it is a power which
revenges great injustice. And this poem discusses this in a very
beautiful way by resorting to the Greek nemesis, this idea which
was used in great Greek dramas to demonstrate this principle of
the Erinyes. That there is this power that revenges this murder
and other injustices; that there is a higher power than the
arbitrariness of people's will. The poem is very, very powerful.
As a matter of fact, I would even urge you to learn German, just
to read and understand that poem; because it teaches something
about history. I think right now the Erinyes, those goddesses of
revenge which Friedrich Schiller has in this poem marching in the
amphitheater — in circles — they are bringing forward this
higher power by the prism of the poem. It's a very, very powerful
way of reminding people that there is a higher power than what
people think when they read the daily newspaper. So, please make
the effort. Read it; in English if you have to, but read it in
German because there is another dimension to history than what
people think. And only if you bring this forward this inner
strength, this inner power which people have almost lost in the
trans-Atlantic sector because people small. They feel impotent,
they feel helpless. But what we have to unleash is exactly this
inner strength so that people really become truly human again,
and take the history and the destiny in their own hands. And
that's exactly what the message is of Friedrich Schiller; who
always thought that man is greater than his destiny by resorting
to these kinds of inner powers and higher authorities than the
laws of money.

        OGDEN: Well, you cited the Ibykus principle in your keynote
speech to the conference that you hosted three weeks ago in
Berlin; this extraordinary conference. But I thought in that
context also, you made it very clear that history is working
according to a higher law. That conference came just days after
the Brexit vote which shocked everybody and threw all of Europe
in disarray. But you said, this is the Erinyes principle in
action. Tony Blair lied to get us into the Iraq War. The Iraq War
set off a series of regime-change operations in the Middle East
that have completely destabilized this region. That has, in turn,
created this refugee crisis; and now you have the Brexit and the
disintegration of Europe as the Erinyes beginning their dreadful
dance, as you said in this statement once again.
        I think that's also highly relevant in the context of the
anticipated news today, where people have read in the press that
the 28 pages, which we have fought for years to force the release
of these 28 pages; the reports are in the press that these very
well could be released today. In what form, we don't know; how
heavily redacted, we don't know. But again, this is the Erinyes
acting, and it's our responsibility to understand this as a
principle of history; and to continue to understand that the
moral arc of the Universe may be long, but it does bend toward
justice. I think Martin Luther King also understood what
Friedrich Schiller was getting at in this poem, as you said.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I think that having said that, I want to
come back to the absolute need to find a handle; because right
now the problem is, nobody has a handle on how to intervene with
this financial crisis. And if the proposal of Mr. LaRouche is
taken seriously, you have a way of dealing with the consequences
of avoiding the dangers of an uncontrollable collapse. You have
to untangle this; you have to shut down this derivative system;
you have to shut down the bubble. You have to do it in an orderly
manner, because there's no point to just say let's just close it
down or tax it or whatever. You have to find a skilled level of
how you take management of a bank — in this case, the Deutsche
Bank; you have to put in a supervisory management commission
which has to evaluate the validity and integrity of the
outstanding obligations. Many of the derivatives have much more
than two parties; they have two, three, four, and more parties.
You have to untangle that. You probably have to write down the
nominal value of these outstanding obligations. That way, you can
put a new basis, a new business plan for the bank which is in
cohesion with the idea of credit policy in general. But you have
to start to do that somewhere. The Herrhausen history and
tradition is exactly what makes it very practical. We are not
proposing something completely outlandish, utopian; this was the
policy of Deutsche Bank at one point.
        So therefore, I want to bring it back to this point; and I
would really urge all the people who are watching to make sure
this proposal is being distributed to all institutions which have
anything to do with the economy, with industry, with people in
political positions who should take care of the common good. And
make sure that we get a serious debate. I know that in both
election platforms of the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party, you have the Glass-Steagall law in the platform. Now that
is very good; we will have the conventions in the next weeks.
This is not necessarily the stated position of the candidates;
but it is in the platform. So there is hope that if we mobilize
in the right way, this change can occur before it's too late. But
it's really one second, or maybe a nanosecond before midnight; so
it's not a time for complacency. It's a time for action.
Therefore, I would really urge you to join us; because we have a
beautiful future ahead of us if we do the right thing. If we miss
this moment, it can be the end of civilization; because the war
danger is very real, not only in respect to NATO against Russia,
but also the escalation around the South China Sea. We are not in
a political void, but we are in one of these moments in history
where a lot depends on the individual courage and the individual
action. Therefore, I really ask you to join us to bring history
in a better direction.

        DENISTON: Absolutely.

        OGDEN: Thank you very much for joining us today, Helga. This
was a special broadcast, and I think a very important and timely
one for the American audience. We're going to make the statement
that you wrote on this subject — which I read from in the
beginning of the broadcast — available in the video description
to this video and also on the website. This is absolutely one of
the key pieces of material that people can use to, as you said,
to do outreach to all the key layers in the United States and
elsewhere to put this proposal very seriously on the table. We
will also make the English translation of "The Cranes of Ibykus"
available to our audience as well.
        Would you like to make any final remarks before we close, or
is that a good place to conclude our broadcast?

        ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I just would like to really express my hope
that enough people recognize that we have now a point where
history will be either totally a catastrophe — and most people
are already thinking that; the people who are not completely dead
because of drugs or other problems, they know that we are in a
really unprecedented civilizational crisis. Even worse than any
of the prewar situations of the 20th Century. Just yesterday, one
of the key advisors of the Kremlin said, all the signs are of a
prewar period; and that's true. We are in a prewar period; and
unless we remove the real reason for the dynamic for war, which
is the danger of a collapse of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. Unless we remedy that, I'm almost certain that war will
happen; and if that war would happen, it's the logic of war that
in that case all weapons available will be used. In the case of
thermonuclear weapons, that would be it; there probably would not
anybody to even record what happened, because it would be the
elimination of civilization. And therefore, the remedy of the
financial crisis is not just a banking technical affair; it
really is the question of putting society back on a course where
we all can survive as a human civilization. In a certain sense,
it's what {The Federalist Papers} discussed. Can we give
ourselves a political order which is suitable for man to organize
his own affairs and govern according to the common good? So, it's
a much larger issue; and I'm very optimistic that it can be done.
But it requires an extraordinary effort, and it requires all of
you.

        OGDEN: OK, thank you very much for joining us today, Helga.
Hopefully, we can do this at some point again in the future.
Thank you all for tuning in. Please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com; and take this discussion and take what Mrs.
LaRouche just had to say very much to heart. So, thank you very
much and good night.




Bankkollaps? Lyndon LaRouche understreger:
Gå tilbage til ’Gå’ og Start forfra!
Produktivitet er af primær betydning – Herrhausen-metoden

15. juli 2016 – Her til morgen gentog Deutsche Banks cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau i et interview på CNBC-TV sit krav om en bailout/genkapitalisering for de europæiske banker og sagde, at centralbankens politik er en fiasko og ødelægger kanalen for kredit til SME-sektoren (Små og Mellemstore Entrepriser). Efter en briefing om dette bemærkede LaRouche, at spørgsmålet er meget fornuftigt, men, af de involverede elementer er nogle kendte, mens andre repræsenterer tvivlsspørgsmål. Han pointerede betydningen af Alfred Herrhausen, formand for Deutsche Bank fra 1971 og frem til november 1989, hvor han blev myrdet.

LaRouche sagde, at kapitalisering som sådan ikke er et effektivt instrument for situationen. De tvivlsomme værdier bør annulleres. Det er den eneste måde at komme ud af dette rod på. Det er ligesom at få en syg person til at blive endnu mere syg, og så kalde ham én, der ’med succes er blevet mere syg!’

Det er selve fremgangsmåden, der er problemet. Deduktiv tænkning er altid problemet. Vi står med et svindelnummer, et system, der er et falsum. Så vi må tilbage til ’Gå’ og starte om igen. Man kan ikke forsøge at ’fikse det’. Det er ikke et ’fiks det’-problem.

Overvej det følgende: Hvad er det økonomiske system? Man må følge det, Herrhausen var i færd med at etablere. Han blev myrdet for at annullere denne indsats, der skabte den ødelæggelse, der fulgte. Det var formålet med mordet. Enhver idé om at »forhandle« et skifte vil være et falsum.

Der må komme en annullering af såkaldt rigdom, der ikke er berettiget til at bære dette navn. Se så på, hvad der er tilbage. Find ud af, hvad der skal gøres. Der må være et selvudviklende program for produktivitet. IKKE en proces, hvor man tinger! Man skal ind på en anden kurs. Kursen kan ikke være forhandling. Man må udvirke produktive evner, og udvirke øget produktivitet på permanent basis.

Graden af produktivitet er den primære skabelse. Man kan ikke »tilføje« noget ved at tilføje det. Man skal bygge noget nyt, til en start. Annuller alle former for forhandling. Man skal acceptere Herrhausens program. Accepter hans program, ikke noget i den retning. Motivet for at myrde ham, øjensynligt af de franske og britiske netværk – var at standse dette system. Vores fremgangsmåde må være den, ikke at tale om »forhandlinger gennem tilpasninger«. Vi må eliminere det nuværende koncept om et finanssystem, ikke »udbedre« finanssystemet. Vi ønsker ikke et »blødere system«. Glem alt om penge, og tænk i stedet på økonomi, hvad det gør for økonomi.

Det, som det britiske/franske system gjorde ved at myrde Herrhausen, var for at forhindre en flugt fra svindelen. Man kan ikke »fikse op« noget, der var et falsum fra begyndelsen. I dag må vi komme op med et godt instrument. Afslutte det, der var forkert dengang, og nu.

Det er simpelt: 1) Herrhausen blev myrdet; og 2) briterne og andre systemer var involveret. De gjorde det for at nedlægge alt, der var forbundet med ham. Gerningsmændene havde til hensigt at forhindre Herrhausen, eller noget som ham, i nogensinde at tage styringen. Se lige på, hvem der stadig er der – George Soros, et førende problem, og britisk.  

Foto: Alfred Herrhausen (1930 – 1989), tysk bankier og formand for Deutsche Bank. Var fra 1971 og frem til sin død medlem af bankens bestyrelse. Rådgiver til kansler Helmut Kohl. Ingen er nogen sinde blevet straffet for hans mord.

 




Det afgørende, unikke led i kæden

14. juli, 2016 (Leder) – For 48 timer siden ændrede vi alting i hele vores fremgangsmåde på globalt plan – men mange af jer gik glip af det. Tænk! Mind jer selv om, at det ikke nytter at klage over den overhængende fare for et panik-kollaps af verdens økonomiske system ud i et dødbringende kaos. Og at advarsler mod en termonuklear tilintetgørelseskrig i sig selv ikke vil forhindre det i at ske alligevel – lige så lidt, som de blotte advarsler nogen sinde har forhindret krig i fortiden!

Det, Lyndon LaRouche netop har gjort, er at pege på det afgørende, unikke led i kæden, der, hvis I griber fat i DET, og trækker i DET, lige akkurat vil være i stand til at trække Europa væk fra klippekanten – og som, i absolut sidste øjeblik, kan afbøje denne historiske, tankeløse, automat-lignende march ud over afgrunden.

Skub dette til side for hellere at overveje det i morgen, og I er færdige! Der vil ikke være noget i morgen – hverken for jer, eller for nogen andre.

Alle disse overvejelser er forklaret i Helga Zepp-LaRouches udtalelse d. 12. juli, »Deutsche Bank må reddes, for verdensfredens skyld!« 

Men der er mange mennesker, der ikke taget denne udtalelse til hjerte og indledt den omgående kovending, der er påkrævet.

Zepp-LaRouches udtalelse må studeres og genlæses i detaljer. Men for at rekapitulere nogle punkter for vores formål her: Frankrig, Italien og andre europæiske stater er totalt bankerot; Europa har inden for få dage kurs mod en nedsmeltning, som, under de nuværende omstændigheder, vil føre til krig. Tysklands derivat-tyngede Deutsche Bank kan meget vel blive udløseren af en sådan nedsmeltning, der omfatter hele Europa. Men det er paradoksalt nok Tyskland, der stadig har den potentielle økonomiske produktivitet, der kunne føre Europa tilbage mod sikkerhed. Og, hvis Deutsche Bank blev reddet fra kollaps, og man omgående vendte om og slog ind på den politik, som Alfred Herrhausens kurs stod for, ville DB blive hovedkraften i organiseringen af et sådant tysk opsving.  

Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, at regeringen skal forøge Deutsche Banks kapitalgrundlag, der skal ledsages af en omgående ændring af bankens politik tilbage til den politik i Hamiltons tradition, som Alfred Herrhausen førte. Samtidigt må der udpeges en ledelseskomité, der kan finkæmme og reorganisere bankens aktiver.

I løbet af de seneste to dage er mange af vore venner eksploderet i raseri over dette livreddende forslag fra Lyndon og Helga LaRouche og har spruttet, at de store banker er vore fjender, og at vi er modstandere af bailouts. Men, som Diane Sare fra LaRouche PAC Komité for Politisk Strategi påpegede i går, så er det letkøbt blot at aflire en liste af korrekte »holdninger«. Men hvad får man ud af det, andet end et pas til et Trotskistisk Paradis? Langt sværere [er det] at forstå og gribe den ene, sidste chance, som historien tilbyder, og som vi nu må gøre.

De, der myrdede Herrhausen, skabte en fortsat grusomhed, der ikke er sluttet den dag i dag; de, der gjorde det, må fjernes, ellers er der ingen løsning. Før eller siden vil noget, man har undladt at gøre, komme tilbage og ramme én.

Foto: USA's første finansminister Alexander Hamilton foran USA's Finansministerium i Washington, D.C.

 

Helga Zepp-LaRouche vil være hovedgæst

ved LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast.

Vi udlægger video samt et engelsk udskrift lørdag morgen.

Bliv på kanalen!

 

 

 




Nødaktion over for Deutsche Bank eneste måde at redde Europa og verden

14. juli 2016 (Leder) – Selv, mens tåber som Angela Merkel og Wolfgang Schäuble holder fast ved, at både de italienske banker og Tysklands største bank, Deutsche Bank, ikke er i alvorlige vanskeligheder, udvider cheføkonom for Deutsche Bank, David Folkerts-Landau, sin tidligere advarsel om, at hele EU-banksystemet er på randen af kollaps. Han lagde i vid udstrækning skylden for dette på den Europæiske Centralbanks præsident Mario Draghis Quantitative Easing, QE (kvantitative lempelser; ’pengetrykning’) – med ubegrænset opkøb af skrantende obligationer – og med nedsættelsen af rentesatserne til negative værdier. »Europa er alvorligt syg«, sagde han i et interview med Die Welt og tilføjede, at en hurtig kur krævedes og i særdeleshed forholdsregler, der atter giver gnisten til økonomisk vækst, for uden vækst kan bankkrisen ikke overvindes.

Folkerts-Landau sagde, at levestandarden i hele Europa er alvorligt truet, og at dette er en væsentlig årsag til den hastige vækst af anti-EU-følelser i hele Europa.

Lyndon LaRouche har direkte interveneret i denne krise og påpeget den faktiske årsag til denne krise, der udspiller sig – nemlig, det politiske mord i 1989 på formand for Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen, som LaRouche identificerede som den sidste tyske bankier, der forstod bankernes nødvendige rolle i skabelse af kredit til realøkonomien. Siden dette mord er Deutsche Bank, og tysk bankvirksomhed generelt, blevet overtaget af briterne, både rent bogstaveligt i den betydning, at briterne nu ejer Deutsche Bank, og også mht. at skifte over til spekulation snarere end produktiv investering.

Se: Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Deutsche Bank må reddes for verdensfredens skyld!

De fleste transatlantiske nationers økonomier er implicit bankerot, sagde LaRouche i en diskussion onsdag med sin Komite for Politisk Strategi. Men den tyske økonomi har i sig midlerne til at redde de europæiske økonomier, og videre endnu, pga. den historiske tyske helligelse til investeringer i videnskab og teknologi. Skulle Deutsche Bank gå hen og kollapse, advarede han, ville resultatet blive ikke alene et økonomisk sammenbrud i hele Europa, men også krig – global krig.

Alt imens en genkapitalisering af Deutsche Bank derfor haster, så må det ikke blive et spørgsmål om penge per se, i sig selv, men derimod en reorganisering af bankens enorme eksponering til stort set værdiløse derivater og dårlige lån, samt en tilbagevenden til produktiv investering sådan, som Herrhausen havde tænkt. Den tyske økonomi kunne dernæst levere den nødvendige margin for at bringe den europæiske økonomi tilbage til skabelsen af reel profit.

Krigsfaren kunne ikke være mere åbenlys end den er i dag. En af Putins toprådgivere, Sergei Karaganov, sagde til Der Spiegel i dag, at den udstrakte NATO-deployering af styrker på den russiske grænse, som blev yderligere implementeret ved NATO-topmødet i Warszawa i sidste uge, er en militær provokation, og at, »hvis NATO indleder en overskridelse – imod en atommagt som os selv – vil de blive straffet.«

På samme tid responderede Kinas ambassadør til USA, Cui Tiankai, i tirsdags til de multiple militære trusler mod Kina siden Obamas »omdrejningspunkt Asien« og den amerikanske intervention imod Kinas suverænitet i det Sydkinesiske Hav og sagde: »At sende disse hangarskibe og bombefly er en manifestation af loven, ’magt er ret’. Kina må derfor gøre modstand mod det og afvise det. Dette sker i den sande ånd af international lov. Og hvis det kan ske for os, kan det ske for hvem som helst.«

Der findes ingen delvise forholdsregler, der kan håndtere den eksistentielle økonomiske og strategiske krise, der nu konfronterer menneskeheden. Der må komme en kreativ løsning, baseret på nye principper, og som hviler på den forståelse, at ethvert menneske har et kreativt potentiale til at bidrage til menneskehedens fælles mål. En afslutning af geopolitik, og af den dyriske filosofi, der lyder »alle mod alle«, mellem individer og mellem nationer, haster, er mulig og nødvendig.  

Foto: Den Europæiske Centrabanks bygning.  




Glass-Steagall:
Europa på randen af total finansiel nedsmeltning

12. juli 2016 (Leder) – Europa konfronteres med tre mekanismer, der kunne udløse en nedsmeltning, et sammenbrud, af det transatlantiske finansielle system, og enhver af disse mekanismer kunne detonere, hvad øjeblik, det skal være. Og så er de endda på ingen måde de eneste kilder til det transatlantiske, London/Wall Street-ledede systems kollaps.

For det første er de italienske banker på randen af kollaps. Man har offentligt indrømmet, at de førende italienske banker har for 360 milliarder euro gæld, der er i betalingsstandsning – og uofficielle estimater sætter tallet langt højere. Men, som den italienske premierminister Renzi korrekt har advaret om, så er krisen omkring Deutsche Bank »hundrede gange værre«. DB sidder med aktuelle derivater til $72,8 billioner og har et bjerg af insolvent gæld. I søndags krævede DB’s cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau en omgående haste-bailout af de europæiske storbanker til 150 milliarder euro – med start i hans egen DB. Iflg. EU-love, der trådte i kraft 1. januar, skal banker først gennemgå en bailin (ekspropriering af visse typer indeståender), før de kan få en bailout (statslig redningspakke), og dette udgør i sig selv en sikker udløser af en systemisk nedsmeltning.

Fra mandag at regne konfronteredes Londons store ejendomsfonde med et stormløb fra investorerne, i kølvandet på Brexit-afstemningen, og udsigten til et umiddelbart forestående sammenbrud af hele den britiske ejendomsboble er meget virkelig. I en klar panik over den accelererende disintegration vred det regerende Konservative Parti armen om på den ene af de to tilbageværende kandidater til partiformandsposten for at trække sig som kandidat, således, at Theresa May kunne blive installeret som premierminister på onsdag – for at have en regering på plads til at håndtere den fremstormende krise.

Dette umiddelbart forestående, systemiske krak kan ikke adskilles fra den voksende fare for atomkrig i kølvandet på NATO-topmødet for statsoverhoveder i Warszawa i sidste uge.

Det er præcist pga. denne kombinerede fare for et kollaps ud i kaos og en potentiel udslettelseskrig, at Lyndon LaRouche har krævet en engangs-bailout af de tyske banker for at standse blødningen længe nok til at lancere et reelt skifte i politikken, baseret på hans egne Fire Love for, hvordan verdensøkonomien skal genoplives gennem kreditter, der er rettet mod at forbedre arbejdskraftens produktive evne, gennem investering i infrastruktur, fremskudt, videnskabelig grænseforskning, der anføres af en massiv udvidelse af rumprogrammet, og lignede tiltag. LaRouche advarede kolleger den 10. juli om, at, hvis Tyskland tager et styrtdyk ud i kaos, er krig umiddelbart overhængende. Tyskland sidder inde med nøglen til en ny europæisk politik over for Rusland, baseret på strategisk og økonomisk samarbejde, og hvis dette forhold spoleres, vil konsekvenserne blive katastrofale.

Tiden er inde til at se den nuværende krises virkelighed i øjnene, krævede LaRouche, og til at handle på basis af denne nødsituation, som krisen kræver det.

Læs: LaRouches Fire Love til at redde USA (og verden …) 

 

SUPPLERENDE MATERIALE:

Italienske banker og Deutsche Bank fører an i den transatlantiske sektors krak

11. juli 2016 – Pressen i den transatlantiske verden er fuld af dækning af krisen i Deutsche Bank og de italienske banker, som understreger betydningen af Lyndon LaRouches intervention, hvor han kræver en engang-bailout af Tyskland for at forhindre kaos i Europa, men baseret på behovet for gennemgribende ændringer i banksystemet for at forcere kreditter ind i realøkonomien og lukke derivativerne og andre spekulative bobler ned.

Russia Today har David Folkerts-Landaus interview med Welt am Sonntag, hvor cheføkonomen for Deutsche Bank (DB) krævede en haste-bailout til 150 milliarder euro, og det citerer også udtalelser fra Lorenzo Bini Smaghi, formand for Societe Generale, hvor han advarer om, at den italienske bankkrise kan brede sig til hele EU. DB-aktier er faldet 48 % i løbet af de seneste 12 måneder, Societe Generales aktier er faldet 63 %, og Bloombergs Europa-index over 500 banker og finansielle serviceselskaber er faldet med 33 %, det laveste i syv år. En tidslinje i Bloomberg-artiklen har titlen, »Deutsche Banks episke kollaps«, og som gør det ganske klart, at det europæiske banksystem nu står på randen af et umiddelbart krak.

RT har også en nylig, underskrevet kronik af George Soros, hvor han erklærer, at EU’s kollaps er blevet »næsten uundgåeligt« siden Brexit-valget.

»Det katastrofale scenario, som mange har frygtet, har materialiseret sig og gør en disintegration af EU praktisk talt uigenkaldelig«, skrev han for Project Syndicate (som han financierer kraftigt). Han tilføjede, at det finansielle kollaps i UK i kølvandet på Brexit var det værste i tre årtier. »Det europæiske projekts blotte overlevelse er indsatsen i forhandlingerne om, hvordan Brexit kommer til at forløbe.« RT’s dækninger bemærker, at Marine LePen mødtes med den franske præsident Hollande og pressede på for at få en folkeafstemning om en «Frexit«, men blev afvist.

Reuters har også en omfattende dækning af Folkerts-Landau-interviewet. Cityam, en online finans-publikation, bemærkede, at italienske banker sidder med insolvent gæld til 360 milliarder euro, og aktier i samtlige italienske storbanker og andre banker i Middelhavsområdet – Unicredit, Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, Banco Popolare og Intesa San Paolo (Portugal) – er faldet med 25 % siden Brexit-valget. Michael Hewson fra CMC Markets UK citeredes for at sige, »hvis Italien går ned, vil det tage resten af Europa med sig«.

The Street havde følgende hovedoverskrift tilbage den 5. juli, »Vil Deutsche Bank initiere den næste finansielle krise? Aktier kunne være på vej til nul«. Artiklen nævnte paralleller til Lehman Brothers og viste, at DB er i en langt værre tilstand end Lehman var mod slutningen. IMF advarede om, at det største overløb fra DB vil ramme Frankrig, UK og USA, der »har den største grad af overløb fra omverden, målt ud fra den gennemsnitlige procent af kapitaltab hos andre banksystemer pga. chokket i banksektoren i oprindelseslandet«. En grafisk fremstilling i Wall Street Journal, der nævnes af The Street, viser bank-til-bank-forbindelserne i Deutsche Bank. DB er belånt med over 40:1, langt værre end Lehmans 31:1 på tidpunktet for dens kollaps; og DB’s aktuelle portefølje af derivater udgør $72,8 billioner, hvilket er 13 % af alle globale, udestående derivater. »Hvis domino-effekten opstår, vil Tyskland, med sit BNP på $4 billioner eller EU med sit BNP på $18 billioner ikke være i en position, hvor de kan få kontrol over det.«

New Europe online har hovedoverskriften, »Hvorfor Deutsche Bank er den farligste bank i verden«, og spørger, hvad prisen ville være for den tyske regerings bailout, versus konsekvenserne af at lade det nedsmelte med systemiske implikationer.

Bloomberg har også advaret om, at Londons ejedomsmarked er ved at krakke, og dette er endnu en konsekvens af Brexit. Standard Life Investments annoncerede, at fra og med i dag, vil de suspendere deres UK Ejendomsfond for at afværge investorer, der kræver deres penge tilbage. Dette udløser allerede smitte, med flere andre store ejendomsinvestorers meddelelse om lignede fastfrysninger af klienternes midler, og med endnu andre, der simpelt hen meddeler, at de trækker sig ud af eksisterende handler om prima ejendomsprojekter i London.

Samlet set er tilstandene i Italien, Deutsche Bank og ejendomsmarkedet i London mere end tilstrækkelige til at eksplodere hele den transatlantiske finansielle sektor. Det er præcis pga. denne allerede igangværende krise, at nødforanstaltninger, nøjagtigt i overensstemmelse med LaRouches krav, omgående må vedtages.     




RADIO SCHILLER 12. juli 2016:
Lyndon LaRouche har krævet en engangs-bailout
af de tyske banker for at redde hele Europa

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen




Lyndon LaRouche: »Vi må hjælpe Tyskland,
for uden at opretholde et stabilt tysk system,
kan vi ikke forhindre krig!«

11. juli 2016 (Leder) – Det transatlantiske finansielle system befinder sig på et punkt, hvor der er umiddelbar fare for et sammenbrud, og det, der er sket blot det seneste døgn, er, at den italienske premierminister Renzi på en fælles pressekonference med den svenske statsminister har erklæret, at, alt imens de italienske banker har store problemer og behøver en bail-out, så er dette af mindre betydning i forhold til de europæiske storbanker, der står over for et massivt sammenbrud af derivater. Han refererede meget specifikt til Deutsche Bank, der har en eksponering til derivater til en værdi af $75 billioner, og som af alle betegnes som den største enkeltkilde til et nyt systemisk sammenbrud.

Renzi lagde pres på Merkel og især den tyske finansminister Schäuble for at overgive sig og tillade Italien at opgive kravene til bail-in, der har været gældende i Europa siden 1. januar, for at kunne udføre en bailout af Monte dei Paschi og andre italienske banker.

Hvad der siden da faktisk er sket er, at Deutsche Bank offentligt har opfordret til en massiv europæisk bank-bailout, hvor man selvfølgelig begynder med sig selv, og de kræver grundlæggende set en i det mindste midlertidig annullering af reglerne for bail-in. Dette er en erklæring fra Deutsche Banks cheføkonom David Folkerts-Landau i Welt am Sonntag i søndags. Han siger, at banken har brug for en bail-out på EU150 milliarder for at genkapitalisere, og at det må gøres uden at ekspropriere obligationsindehaverne og indskyderne.

Som respons på disse dramatiske udviklinger udsendte den amerikanske, politiske økonom Lyndon LaRouche et dramatisk krav om handling:

»Det, som vi præcist må gøre, er at støtte en midlertidig reorganisering af disse bankers økonomi, og dette må vi sikre for at standse blødningen. Med andre ord, så er pointen den at stoppe blødningen, og integrere og introducere vilkår, der vil gøre det muligt for os at opretholde en sådan operation.«

»Man må med andre ord skabe, for hele den tyske økonomi er en afgørende faktor. Det er noget rod. Vi ved alle, at det er noget rod. Det har været noget rod; det blev til noget rod … Schäuble og så videre har gjort det til noget rod! Det ved vi. Men vi vil ikke lukke den tyske økonomi ned på baggrund af det faktum, at vi har en flok skurke, eller mistænkte skurke, der sidder i visse stillinger. Det, vi vil gøre, er, at vi vil løse det her; vi fixer det, og vi bakker det op, for en enkelt gangs skyld.«

»Ryd op i det hele, og etabler et program, der vil sikre, at Tysklands banksystem fungerer. Når det først er gjort, kan man arbejde videre derfra!«

En sådan engangs-manøvre vil nødvendigvis involvere en annullering af disse $75 billioner i derivater og så at gå over til en bankopdeling og den slags ting, der ville gøre kredit til realøkonomien mulig.

LaRouche uddybede: »Man er nødt til at kvalificere det yderligere og sige, at vi gør det som en engangs-operation, for at redde økonomien. Og det er det.«

»Dette er en redning af økonomien, og til trods for alle de fejl, der er begået, vil vi gøre det for en enkelt gangs skyld, fordi vi vil prøve at redde Tysklands økonomi. Og det er, hvad der står på spil. Og Schäuble er ikke nogen nyttig person, heller ikke Merkel.«

»Vi må hjælpe Tyskland, for uden opretholdelse af et stabilt tysk system, kan vi ikke forhindre krig!«

»Det, vi behøver, er et program, der udsteder kredit til den tyske økonomi, en éngangskredit til tysk økonomi. Og man må præsentere det på den måde, og fremstille det for folk på den måde, for at give dem tiltro til det, de gør, og sige til dem, at de ikke skal gentage, hvad de gjorde tidligere. Det er pointen.«

»Man må sige til den tyske økonomi, ’Hør, I har begået fejl, alvorlige fejl. Nu vil vi redde jer, men I må selv adlyde; I må gå i gang med jobbet og gøre, hvad I må gøre, og forsøg ikke at snyde mere’.«

»Jeg siger, at Tyskland er et nødstilfælde. Vi må organisere det her sådan, så Tyskland kan komme ud af dette problem. Og antage, at organisationerne i tysk økonomi vil operere på en sådan måde, at slaget vindes.«

»Og Schäuble er jo egentlig ikke på højde med mit niveau på det område … Men fokusér essentielt på de betingelser, der må tilvejebringes, og som gør dette her muligt. I må have et system, der vil sikre den tyske økonomi, den finansielle økonomi, og det må I gøre; og I må få det til at fungere. Hvis ikke, vil I få kaos.«

LaRouche refererede til 1989-perioden, da Berlinmuren faldt og Tyskland gik i retning af en genforening, og regeringen Helmut Kohl søgte at genoplive de økonomiske og politiske bånd til Østeuropa og det, der snart skulle blive til Rusland efter Sovjetunionen.

»På den tid havde vi tilfældet med en stor leder i den tyske økonomi, der blev myrdet af franskmændene – præsidenten for Deutsche Bank, Alfred Herrhausen. Vi ønsker ikke et nyt Herrhausen-overgreb. Lad tyskerne være frie, og send de andre ud på græs. For det var, hvad der skete. For man havde et tidspunkt her, hvor man havde en ledende person i det ledende embede i tysk politik, og man lukkede det ned, og man fik tingene til at gå i en anden retning, og man ødelagde den indledende fase til den tyske økonomi!«

»Så vi må sige til nogle af folkene i dette område, at de begik en stor fejltagelse, og at de bør være en smule mere generøse i deres håndtering af denne ting.«

 

 




BREXIT-afstemning er langt alvorligere og mere
dødbringende end blot en reaktion. Vi må levere det
nødvendige lederskab for at undgå krig. LaRouchePAC
Internationale Fredags-webcast, 24. juni 2016. Video, engelsk

Det er i dag den 24. juni, 2016 – en særdeles lovende dato. Det er en meget, meget farlig periode, og vi står med ekstraordinære udviklinger på hånden. Det kunne vel næppe være tydeligere netop nu, forskellen mellem sammenstillingen med det døde-og-døende transatlantiske system, centreret omkring den Europæiske Union; og så fremtiden med det Eurasiske System. På den ene side, med det totale sammenbrud og den bogstavelige disintegration af det europæiske system – briternes exit af den Europæiske Union, samt det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale bankerot, der nu afsløres. Og, på den anden side, Vladimir Putins og Xi Jinpings igangværende indsats for en konsolidering og sammensmeltning af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Nye Silkevej, og hele verden centreret omkring Stillehavet, som Lyndon LaRouche i mange årtier har arbejdet hen imod, i form af samarbejde mellem de store nationer Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre. Valget er meget, meget klart.

Engelsk udskrift.

(En oversættelse af første del af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen! -red.)

BREXIT VOTE IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS AND DEADLY THAN MERELY A REACTION.  WE MUST PROVIDE THE LEADERSHIP TO AVOID WAR.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, June 24, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's June 24th, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly
LaRouchePAC Friday evening webcast. I'm joined in the studio by
Ben Deniston from the LaRouchePAC Science Team; and via video, by
three members of our Policy Committee: Diane Sare, from New York
City; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, TX; and Rachel Brinkley, from
Boston, MA.
        Today is June 24th, 2016 — a very auspicious date. It's a
very, very dangerous period, and we have extraordinary
developments on our hands. I think it could not be more clear
right now the distinction between the juxtaposition of the
dead-and-dying trans-Atlantic system, centered in the European
Union; and the future, of the Eurasian system. On one hand, with
the complete breakdown and {literal} disintegration of the
European system — the exit by the British from the European
Union, and the complete bankruptcy which is now being exposed of
the trans-Atlantic financial system. And on the other hand, the
ongoing efforts by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to consolidate
and coalesce the Eurasian Economic Union, the New Silk Road, and
the entire Pacific-centered world that Lyndon LaRouche has been
working towards for many decades in the form of the collaboration
between the great nations of Russia, China, India, and others.
The choice is very, very clear.
        Earlier today we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche. He was
very emphatic to emphasize that the crash that we're now seeing
in the trans-Atlantic financial system must be blamed on Obama.
This is not something which can be construed as a reaction to an
event, but in fact the bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial
system was already a reality before this [Brexit] vote even
occurred. This is not a reaction, he said. This is something
that's much more dangerous, and much more serious, and much more
deadly, especially when you consider the fact that Obama is
continuing to push the world towards the brink of thermonuclear
war with the emerging Eurasian system of Russia and China.
        Mr. LaRouche said we're experiencing a complete change in
the whole fundamental situation. Everything is now going towards
a crash. And it's not because of a reaction to an event, but it
was already pre-determined. Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge
of thermonuclear war, which under the current circumstances Putin
would probably win; but Obama is insane enough to continue to
push the world in that direction." He said, "Putin is currently
in charge, in terms of his role being hegemonic. That was very
clear by the recently concluded events in the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and then the bilateral meetings
that are going to happen this weekend between Putin and Xi
Jinping."
        Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge of something very big.
You must get Obama out! It's very dangerous to have him in office
under these circumstances. Our job is to calmly bring a solution
to this crisis from inside of our role here in the United States,
with Putin playing a key leadership role internationally. We are
in a position," Mr. LaRouche said, "to enter into a phase in
which a solution is possible."
        Now, I want to open up the discussion; I want to invite
Diane to elaborate a little bit more on the role that Obama,
together with David Cameron, played in creating the circumstances
that we are now observing in terms of the aftermath of the
Brexit.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, everyone has heard of the famous
expression "the kiss of death"; and Obama delivered this in
London on April 22nd when he went there for two purposes.  One
was to express his firm support for Great Britain remaining in
the EU; and I'm going to read his exact comments, so that there's
no question on that.  And then also, to celebrate the birthday of
Her Majesty the Queen, whom he says is one of his favorite people
— I'm reading from his remarks; and he said, "And we should be
fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She
is an astonishing person and a real jewel to the world; not just
to the United Kingdom."  And in fact, that has been Mr.
LaRouche's point — that the Queen of England does not see her
realm as the United Kingdom; she's been trying to run a global
dictatorship, and Barack Obama is one of her tools.  And like a
typical malignant narcissist, Obama either intended to crash the
entire system; or is blithely unaware of how despised he is.  So,
at a joint press conference at 10 Downing Street with a British
Prime Minister who is now resigning, David Cameron, Obama admits
he said, "Yes, the Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming
referendum here on whether or not the UK should remain part of
the European Union.  Let me be clear:  Ultimately, this is
something that the British voters have to decide for themselves;
but as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is
to be honest and to let you know what I think.  And speaking
honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep
interest to the United States; because it affects our prospects
as well.  The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a
partner, and the United Kingdom is at its best when it's helping
to lead a strong Europe.  It leverages UK power to be part of the
European Union."  And then he adds:  "Let me be clear.  As I
wrote in the op-ed here today, I don't believe the EU moderates
British influence in the world, it magnifies it.  The EU has
helped to spread British values and practices across the
continent.  The single market brings extraordinary benefits to
the United Kingdom; and that ends up being good for America,
because we're more prosperous when one of our best friends and
closest allies has a strong, stable, and growing economy."
        So presumably, the time between April and this referendum
was enough for people to stop vomiting and make it to the polls,
and vote to get out of the European Union as quickly as possible;
which is what many of them did.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think also, according to what Mr. LaRouche
said — and this is absolutely the case — the crash was already
happening.  It's a faulty view of history to say, "Well, an event
happened, and therefore there was a reaction."  And Mr. LaRouche
is saying, the problem is that people think in terms of
reactions; one thing happens and then another thing happens.  In
fact, Europe was already bankrupt.  Think about what was already
happening.  You had major European banks refusing to put their
money into the ECB; you had negative interest rates at the ECB,
which is an unprecedented, never-before-happened event in the
history of that system.  And you had a complete breakdown of the
ability of both the European and the American workforce to be
able to have productive jobs or anything of that means.  So, we
already were in a complete bankruptcy of this entire
trans-Atlantic financial system; and now today, it is more clear
than ever that the New Paradigm — which is represented by
Vladimir Putin's and Xi Jinping's collaboration; the combination
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road policy
of China, which is based not on an idea of rival blocs or
economic competition or something like that.  It's based on the
idea of a win-win collaboration.  Now's the time for the European
countries and for the United States to finally reject this Obama
paradigm; and say we are going to join this New Paradigm.  And
many other nations in Europe could follow very closely behind
Britain and leave the European Union, since it's now clear that
it's a completely bankrupt institution.

KESHA ROGERS:  And Obama can follow behind Cameron and leave the
United States immediately.  What you're seeing right now, as Mr.
LaRouche once said, is the end of a delusion; an end of a dead
system.  And the end of an era of a zero-growth paradigm; which
has dominated the culture and society for far too long.  And it
actually goes against the true essence of our nature and being as
human beings.  And this is exactly the strategic conception of
man and the fundamental understanding of human beings that Putin
actually understands; and those who are taking this direction of
the New Paradigm forward.  Because it's based in the identity for
the future, of actually creating the future.
        I just wanted to say that tomorrow, there will be several
meetings, including one I'm going to be hosting here around the
space program and the identity of the great mind of Krafft
Ehricke.  The title of the event is going to be "Free Mankind
from Terrorism and War; Embrace Krafft Ehricke's Age of Reason".
I think that's where we are right now; the question is, can we
bring about an age of reason by getting the population to
understand that what they have accepted in terms of the policy of
dictatorship and backward, degenerate culture that we have been
under for the last 15 years.  Namely, with the destructive and
murderous policies of 9/11, that have not to this day been
brought to justice; and 9/11 never ended.  That's why Obama is
continuing to get away with the murderous policies that are
influencing the entire world right now.  That we haven't brought
these crimes to the forefront; that we haven't brought the
perpetrators of these crimes — Obama, the Saudis, the British —
to justice and actually declared that we are going to join with
this New Paradigm.  That's what really has to come across right
now.
        The conception of Krafft Ehricke is very crucial in
understanding what has to be the turning point for the thinking
and identity of our nation, based on its foundation around being
the example of a true Renaissance culture.  When you think about
the Apollo mission, and you think about what we did with the
space program; and why Obama has targetted the space program.  It
wasn't a matter of opinion or a budgetary question; it was a
direct targetting on this potential for human progress and to
continue to promote this zero-growth paradigm.  What we're seeing
right now is that Russia and China are saying that this is not
the direction that we will allow and have mankind to go in; we're
going to actually develop and promote the true conception of what
human destiny actually is.
        So, what you see right now in terms of after this vote
indicating the further breakdown of Europe and the trans-Atlantic
system, which was already in the process on the opposite side,
you have something that is completely remarkable being brought
in.  Putin and Modi — the Prime Minister of India, President Xi
Jinping in China, the SCO summit this weekend, and the signing of
massive agreements for economic cooperation and development,
including space collaboration.  The question is, where is the
United States in this?  The idea that the Renaissance conception
of mankind based on this identity of creating the future and
restoring a moral value to society, is seen directly in what
Russia and China are doing right now; and why this is a critical
call to the moral of the United States to change that and to join
with that direction.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Another important aspect is what is the
solution; what are the new systems.  And the question of the
space collaboration between Russia and China is not just over a
few projects; this is what they emphasized over the last few
days.  They're looking at two things — space travel for one, and
space station collaboration for two; and also with an emphasis on
health and the implications [of space] on human bodies.  So,
these are big questions; these are not just, let's put a rover
and test geology or something.  This is looking at how the
Universe works, how the Solar System works, how the human body
works; and saying that this is going to have implications on
Earth in medicine, to give people a sense that this is how
mankind makes advances.
        This has to be in the context of the question of Alexander
Hamilton, which LaRouche has emphasized, and he recently made the
point that what was it that was important about Hamilton?  He
said, what he did in Philadelphia, what he did in creating the
Constitutional system of the United States.  He knew that it
wasn't just the military victory that would enable the United
States to survive; the intention of the United States was to be a
system that created a better future for every single individual,
not a slave system.  So, he created the inherent economics of
political economy to create that better future; and that is what
the discussion is right now.  This is not just Russia and China
making some oil deals, or a new pipeline or something like that;
it's actually above nations as such.  That's what LaRouche said
about this Brexit vote; it's not just business as usual, this is
not a vote on pragmatic politics.  There's something bigger
acting.  People did not want war; they're tired of Obama's kill
policies which have terrorized the planet through his support for
ISIS, the refugee crisis out of Syria; this is clear.  So, this
is something that's being called for, there's something acting
which is coming from the future.
        The problem with Americans is that they've lost the sense of
how to think about that, about the future.  So, that's our job
right now, to create that discussion and that optimism about how
to do that.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think that's the question now.  What can we
create?  I was just reflecting on the discussion with Mr.
LaRouche earlier and some of his remarks throughout the week, and
I think his emphasis that you can't respond to or interpret
events is really critical at a time like this.  When you're
seeing these types of developments — because the Brexit vote is
one example; these are not events causing the process.  These are
events caused by the process; you have a breakdown process.  This
is an explosive development in that context, but there's already
an ongoing breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system; the cultural
system as much as the monetary system, the whole political
system.  Look at the British imperial ideology.
        But the point is, if you're responding to the events of that
process, you are still contained by that process.  How do you
break free from that process?  It's a question of creativity.
What are you doing to actually bring something fundamentally new
to the world situation?  I think that's why what you're seeing
out of Russia and China now is that; it's something new.  It's
not just a response, crisis management or trying to handle it, or
trying to respond to the events per se.  We're beyond that; the
events per se are death, that's where this thing is going.  Be it
a complete breakdown of the system, or whether it's that drive to
thermonuclear war.  So the question on the table now is, what can
you create?  What can you do that's fundamentally new to create a
new system; to actually generate a new orientation for mankind,
for leading nations, that doesn't come from a response to current
events?  That comes from a new orientation to create in the
future.
        The coverage of this in the media — the markets responding
this way or that way — it's just ridiculous.  The whole thing
has been going down for years; and we've  known it.  The question
now is, not who has the best spin on what mechanism caused what;
that doesn't matter.  The question now is, who's actually got an
insight into what the necessary future has to be?

        SARE:  I just wanted to say along those lines, to really
caution our viewers and anyone who's thinking that the way to
think about this is not to say how do we put together this broken
system; like Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall.  It's over;
and only recognizing that almost every fundamental axiom that
people had about economics in the trans-Atlantic was faulty.  And
I do have to point out that in 1988, Mr. LaRouche called for the
reunification of Germany based on his knowledge of the collapse
of the Soviet Union's economy.  And he made a proposal that the
West would provide food to Poland in return for early steps
toward an early reunification of Germany; and exactly one year
later, the Berlin Wall came down, and one year after that, Berlin
was the capital again and Germany was re-unified.  And he and his
wife both said at that time, the Soviet communist system has
failed; but that does not mean that the free trade trans-Atlantic
system is a success.  This, too, is finished; and it's end will
be much larger and more catastrophic than the disintegration of
the Soviet Union as we saw in '89.  So now we are truly there;
and the point is for the United States to recognize what Rachel
just said about Alexander Hamilton, what's embedded in our own
Constitution.  That that understanding of the intent of our
republic, combined with what Kesha represents in terms of the
space program and a true scientific orientation, is the platform
from which the United States can move to the future.
        And I just want to add — because Ben had sent something out
and I think Kesha, too — there's something circulating on the
web of 30 gigantic projects that China is engaged in building
which are changing the whole planet; these are huge
infrastructure projects.  One of them is a 16-mile long
suspension bridge across the Yangtze River; another is a group of
nuclear power plants; and so on.  I think the most expensive any
of these projects was, was something like $3.4 billion.  The
bridges might have been $1 billion or $750 million or something.
Think about that and think about the bail-out.  The first
bail-out of AIG — and there was more than one; but the first
bail-out of AIG was $80 billion.  Now, $80 billion is probably
more than the sum of what was spent on all of these 30 giant
projects combined.  You will also argue that this is not the same
kind of dollars; just like that's the problem with the metric of
what the space program generated, but I'm just using it as an
example.  Because particularly in the United States and Western
Europe, people have a totally insane view of what constitutes
value and what is money.  And if you just look at something like
this, you can see that the destruction, the degradation and
collapse of the United States has absolutely nothing to with
money per se; because we could have taken that $80 billion from
the AIG bail-out and invested it into high speed rail, nuclear
power, getting back to the Moon, any of these things.  And I
think we've done a number of $80 billion [bail-outs] just for
AIG, but the policy decision was not to do that.  And that's the
point of the insanity; and that's what we have to change, because
money itself has no intrinsic value.  Once you understand that,
you can stop panicking about all the money that's going to be
wiped out if everyone crashes and has their silly irrational
responses, or maybe it's finally rationality setting in.  Money
doesn't matter per se; the question is, what is the direction of
human progress, what is the direction of humankind?  From that
standpoint, we can turn on a dime; not that everything is going
to be repaired instantaneously.  It'll take probably two
generations for the United States to achieve a standard of living
that would be appropriate for this nation.  But nonetheless, the
direction could occur tomorrow; provided we do what Kesha said
first at the beginning, which is that Obama is no longer in
control of running the direction of this country — nor anybody
who thinks like Obama.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's very important that you brought
up this question of the fictitious values at the root of this
entire trans-Atlantic system; because what we're seeing in the
distinction between the bankrupt collapsing system in the
trans-Atlantic Europe-centered area, and then the growth in
China, in Russia, in India, and in that new Eurasian system.
These are not comparable types of systems; this is not one
person's loss is another person's gain or something like that.
These are completely two distinct species of outlook on the
world; and I think that's what we're getting at here.  What we're
experiencing with these crashes within the span of just a few
hours, HSBC lost 10% of its stock value; Standard Charter lost
10% of its stock value; the pound was down to a 31-year low —
lower than it's been since 1985.  But what is all of this?  This
is just the evaporation of fictitious value.
        On the other hand, you have substantial, real growth in the
form of the reconstruction of the New Silk Road, the development
of the vast interior Eurasian continent, the development of new
transport routes, these new development corridors.  Diane, I
think it's appropriate that you brought up the turning point in
1989 with the crash of the Soviet Union, because what we're
experiencing now is something at least of that caliber, if not
far, far greater than the caliber of 1989.  And you're right, Mr.
LaRouche was clear at that point that the Soviet system was
merely the first show to drop; now we're experiencing the second
shoe has dropped.  This system is bankrupt.  And at that time in
1989, is when Lyndon and Helga LaRouche planted the seeds for
what has now emerged as the New Paradigm, as the new Eurasian
economic system.  At that time it was first — in its nascent
form — the Productive Triangle; then it became what was the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.  This was adopted in the form of the New
Silk Road; and now this is being expanded to the World
Land-Bridge.  This is a vision for a global and extraterrestrial
development policy.  But Mr. LaRouche made several trips to
Russia during the 1990s; several trips to India as well.  Mrs.
LaRouche has travelled now multiple times to China in the last
several years.  This is the center; this is Mr. LaRouche's
emphasis on the impetus of leadership, the hegemonic influence at
this time of the creative leadership of the leaders of these
nations.  President Putin, President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister
Modi, and others.

DENISTON:  I think it's worth underscoring that it's still
playing out, too.  We have this SCO summit going on right now, in
which the heads of these nations are going to meet.  After that,
Putin is going to be travelling to China for a heads-of-state
meeting with Xi Jinping.  In this whole process, you're having
these dialogues to solidify — and I think this is really big —
solidify the Eurasian Economic Union cooperation with the New
Silk Road; which I think is a huge step in these very large but
regional projects moving closer to this Eurasian Land-Bridge,
World Land-Bridge perspective that Lyn and Helga have defined.
        So another point of emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has had over
the past weeks, I think is very sobering and represents a very
high level of thinking, is don't assume we know how any of this
is going to play out.  This is a developing, creative process;
there's a lot more things going on right now.  And we should be
orienting towards not trying to assume we know how all these
things are going to be finished, or what the results are going to
be.  This is an ongoing, creative process right now, and this is
how you have to think about it.  In the next days, as was
mentioned, out of the activity we're going to be engaged in over
this weekend which is very significant — both here in the United
States and in Europe — that's going to be a critical escalation.
But then over the next weeks also, we're just going to see a lot
of important developments coming.

        ROGERS:  I think it's important what Diane brought up on the
point of the system of monetarism that has dominated the culture
and society, that has actually set mankind backwards from what
the intention of the foundation of our republic actually
represented under the conception of Alexander Hamilton.  That's
really what you have to look at, too, when you think about the
cultural pessimism and the zero-growth paradigm that has
continued to dominate for the past several decades now.  It's
interesting, because people try to say that the targetting of the
space program has to do with not having enough money; we just
have to take these budget cuts.  And that's the same point.  How
much bail-outs have we put on these various financial speculators
and derivatives and so forth that we could not put into the space
program?  The idea was that it was never about the fact there
were not enough financial resources to put into the space
program.  It was in the intention not to invest into the future.
And there were many people who promoted this zero-growth paradigm
that Krafft Ehricke took on directly, who stated that the space
program represented too much of a "false optimism" for the
population; that it actually gave the population a sense of
optimism and a sense of their identity as human beings and a
commitment to the future.  The empire and those promoters of
zero-growth were adamant that they had to put a stop to that.  I
was reading an article from back in 1963 in the {New Atlantic};
it was referenced in a book by Marsha Freeman — "The Conquest of
Space and Stature of Man" by Hannah Arendt.  Hannah Arendt was
one of these major promoters of zero-growth and backwardness; and
she made the point that the fight against the space program is
not that of money, but a question of man being inherently corrupt
and that nothing good could come out of scientific progress.
        And that's the thing right now, is that what Russia and
China and this New Paradigm are promoting that only good can come
out of the nature of mankind's creative mental process in terms
of shaping and defining the future and creating that which has
never been created before.  As we're seeing with the outcome of
what China is doing with their space program.  That used to be
our mission; why we went to the Moon in the first place, and why
President Kennedy made the announcement that we would send a man
to the Moon and bring them back before the decade was out.  It
was our obligation to take on something that was fundamentally
new; that's our creative nature.
        That just puts the question that this monetary system has to
be thrown out the window; a new system of economic value based on
the real conceptions of the creative powers of the human mind has
to be brought in.  And the best conception to bring that about is
the space program.

        BRINKLEY:  Absolutely.  And Mr. LaRouche made the point that
also what do we replace this system with?  The idea has to be a
Eurasian policy; and that's what you see in space, that's what
you see in real economy is what are the mutual interests.
Europe's only chance is to join with this policy; so Obama has
explicitly prevented that.  He's called for everybody on the
planet not to join with Russia and China; he tried to prevent it,
whether it was Japan, Mexico, all the coups going on in South
America right now — Argentina.  Puerto Rico is being destroyed
and murdered by Obama and Wall Street.  LaRouche said this is
also why the [Brexit] vote occurred; Obama's economic policies,
his defense for this doomed system is clear.  Also the question
of Obama said our great ally is Great Britain, and it will be now
and forever.  Well, what are we showing with the 28 pages?  Saudi
Arabia did not act alone; actually this part might not be in the
28 pages, but it's in many other pages that are there to be
released.  Through the BAE deal, Prince Bandar, to be found out
that Great Britain might not be our greatest ally.  And Obama's
defense of Britain, of Wall Street, his continual murder policy,
the fact that somewhere 111-114 Americans commit suicide every
day; that this is Obama's policy. He is a murderer; and he has
got to be removed.  That's the fact; it's an absolutely evil
intention, and he's got to be thrown out.

        SARE:  I'd just like to add along those lines:  One is we
are having our regular Saturday meeting here in Manhattan,
although it's slightly expanded.  I will be keynoting it; and we
have Jason Ross from the Science Team is here and others, to
present these two views.  We also are holding a concert on Sunday
afternoon, dedicated to Sylvia Olden Lee, called "In Praise of
Sylvia Olden Lee", who was one of our very important
collaborators in the Schiller Institute in this fight for the
question of Classical beauty.  And Classical music is something
which can strengthen people, which strengthens our better angels,
as Abraham Lincoln might have said, to actually insure that
justice is done.  And I bring these things up, because here in
the US, you have this really diversionary, silly spectacle of
debates about gun control and Congressmen rolling around on the
floor and things like that; pretending that they're in some kind
of civil rights sit-in, when here you have the murderer-in-chief
— President Obama — presiding over a weekly kill session on
Tuesdays, deciding who he's going to kill.  Then you had
September 11th, which Rachel was alluding to, where close to 3000
Americans were killed; and justice has not been done.  And Obama
— as Bush before him — is covering up for the perpetrators of
othe crime and colluding with them as best we know.
  And I think this is a very important flank for those people
who say, "Well, it's impossible; we only have a couple more
months.  In January, we have a new President anyway."  Well, just
look at what's been happening in the last few weeks, to see how
quickly things can change.  NATO has deployed 50,000 troops in
exercises on the border of Russia.  Do you really think we should
just presume that we're going to safely avoid thermonuclear war
while we have a killer lunatic who is now more desperate than
ever as President of the United States?  I think it's very
important that people stop pretending or picking other so-called
"issues" which are really non-issues; when we have a great crime
which was committed 15 years ago on September 11, 2001, which has
not been addressed.  By addressing this and getting to the truth
of what was involved in this — the Saudi role, the British role,
the Wall Street role, the FBI role, the Bush role, Obama's role;
by addressing that, we have a lever by which to expel the current
President from the White House and hopefully land him safely in
jail where he belongs.  And to change therefore, the direction of
the United States.

        OGDEN:  If Obama was so interested in Britain's staying in
the EU, perhaps as Kesha suggested, he could follow suit after
David Cameron and announce his resignation as well.  To his
credit, David Cameron has announced that he is leaving his post
as Prime Minister before his term is over.

        DENISTON:  Obama might be too big of a narcissist; it'll
take more aggressive action for that one.

OGDEN:  But I do think that absolutely, Diane, what you just said
about the events that are coming up this weekend — both in New
York and then, Kesha, what you're hosting down in Texas — the
emphasis has got to continue to be, what is the creative
intervention that can be made to uplift the American people and
to lead the American people.  That was one thing that really did
stick out when we were speaking with Mr. LaRouche earlier today;
that it's never enough just to have the correct analysis of
events.  Our emphasis has got to be, how do we calmly bring a
solution to the table that will be the solution to this crisis?
And that's what you were saying, Ben, that we're in completely
uncharted territory; this is an unprecedented situation in the
history of mankind.  You have no idea what's going to happen
tomorrow, what's going to happen the next day.  It was almost a
comedy to watch how surprised all the pundits and the investors
and the big masters of universe and everybody were, when they
thought that they were going to sleep last night with the remain
vote having come out on top.  And then they wake up this morning
and lo and behold, it's the completely opposite result.  That
proves to you that these guys have no idea what they're doing.
        Diane, you brought this up in the webcast last week.  Why
would you give anybody any credit, when they had no idea that the
Crash of 2008 was right around the corner?  Why would you put
your trust in these people?  So, you have a completely
unprecedented situation.  The rise of the Eurasian system is not
something which is a fait accompli; this is what's driving the
directionality of the possibility of a thermonuclear war breaking
out.  Granted, the support for the sanctions and for the NATO
maneuvers in Europe is now becoming increasingly less strong; but
that doesn't mean that you're by any means guaranteed that we can
avoid a fate such as that.  So, it's decisive action and it's
creative leadership in the case of what we are able to provide;
and Mr. LaRouche was clear that it's the unique capability of the
members of this Policy Committee to provide that kind of
leadership within the United States.
        So again, I just want to emphasize the importance of these
two events that we have coming up this weekend.  So, I think with
that said, you can watch for coverage of those events as they are
broadcast.  The regular Saturday meeting will be live, available
on the LaRouche PAC website tomorrow for Manhattan; and we
encourage you to participate in that in person if you are in the
area, as well as the events in Texas.  And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com as things rapidly change.
        If you haven't yet, make sure you subscribe to our YouTube
channel; make sure you don't miss any of these critical
discussions.  And also become a regular subscriber to our Daily
Updates which are delivered directly to your inbox via email.
So, thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.




Lyndon LaRouche: Intet kan standse krakket
– Putins rolle, samt en økonomisk vision
efter Hamiltons principper, er afgørende

Det transatlantiske finansielle system vil nedsmelte. Intet kan standse det. Det vides ikke præcis, hvornår krakket kommer, men vi må være forberedt til denne uundgåelige eksplosion. Systemet er uigenkaldeligt ude over et punkt, hvor det kan håndteres eller reformeres. Vi befinder os på randen af et uforudsigeligt krak. Vi må have en ny fremgangsmåde, der må baseres på rationelle kræfter i det transatlantiske område, der kan tage de nødvendige, radikale skridt.

18. juni, 2016 (Leder) – Under en indledende diskussion som forberedelse til LPAC’s fredags-webcast, kom Lyndon LaRouche med følgende kommentarer (parafrase):

Det transatlantiske finansielle system vil nedsmelte. Intet kan standse det. Det vides ikke præcis, hvornår krakket kommer, men vi må være forberedt til denne uundgåelige eksplosion. Systemet er uigenkaldeligt ude over et punkt, hvor det kan håndteres eller reformeres. Vi befinder os på randen af et uforudsigeligt krak. Vi må have en ny fremgangsmåde, der må baseres på rationelle kræfter i det transatlantiske område, der kan tage de nødvendige, radikale skridt.

Putin forstår denne krise, og hans perspektiv, som det reflekteres i hans bemærkninger ved Det Økonomiske Forum i Skt. Petersborg, er uforligneligt. USA og Storbritannien er de mest upålidelige. Det mest risikofyldte væddemål på denne planet udgøres af Obama. Obama vil tabe, punktum. Et helt nyt finanssystem er den eneste mulighed.

Folk, der vil kalde sig intelligente, må indse, at spekulation ikke vil virke. Hele hasardspilssystemet må annulleres. Al hasardspilsgæld må annulleres, og vi må begynde helt forfra – baseret på principper, der er totalt forskellige. Det Britiske [økonomiske] System må bringes til ophør. Det samme er tilfældet med det franske system, efter de Gaulle-perioden. En total, global genopbygning kræves; ingen studehandler. Det amerikansk-europæiske finanssystem er umuligt. Sig »Nej!«. Vi må vende tilbage til et system, der er baseret på fysiske værdier, ikke pengeværdier. Vi må begynde forfra, med Hamiltons økonomiske principper som udgangspunkt.

Foto: Den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin taler til plenarforsamlingen på Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, 17. juni, 2016. Foto: kremlin.ru

Supplerende materiale:

Uddrag af Putins tale til plenarforsamlingen på Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, 17. juni 2016

I øvrigt er de aktuelle, geopolitiske spændinger, til en vis grad, relateret til økonomisk usikkerhed og udtømning af de gamle kilder til vækst. Der er risiko for, at det vil stige, eller endda blive kunstigt fremprovokeret. Det er i vores fælles interesse at finde en kreativ og konstruktiv vej ud af denne situation.

[Der findes] et enormt og voksende potentiale inden for digitale og industrielle teknologier, robotics, energi, bioteknologi, lægevidenskab og endnu andre områder. Opdagelser inden for disse områder kan føre til sande teknologiske revolutioner og til en eksplosiv vækst i arbejdskraftens produktivitet. Dette sker allerede, og det vil uundgåeligt ske …

Vi kan faktisk allerede i dag se forsøg på at sikre eller endda monopolisere fordelene ved næste generations teknologier. Dette er, mener jeg, motivet bag skabelsen af afgrænsede områder med opsatte regler som en barriere for at reducere udvekslingen af banebrydende teknologier …

Man kan kontrollere spredningen af visse teknologier i en vis tid, men i nutidens verden er det nærmest umuligt at holde dem tilbage i et inddæmmet område, også selv om det er et stort område. Men denne indsats kunne føre til, at grundforskning, der nu er åben for den fælles udveksling af viden og information gennem fælles projekter, også indelukkes, hvor der opstilles afspærrende barrierer.

… vi kan kun udvikle os effektivt sammen, ved at opbygge et samarbejde. Vi er overbevist om, at et sådant samarbejde faktisk kan opbygges som en del af et fleksibelt og åbent integrationsmiljø, der opmuntrer til konkurrence inden for videnskabelig forskning og et bredt udvalg af teknologiske løsninger, der gør det muligt for de deltagende lande fuld ud at bruge deres kompetence og deres potentiale …

Vi er bevidste om de imponerende udsigter i forbindelse med samarbejde mellem EAEU [Eurasisk Økonomisk Union] og andre lande og integrationsforbindelser. Flere end 40 stater og internationale organisationer har udtrykt deres ønske om at etablere en frihandelszone med den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union. Vi og vore partnere mener, at EAEU kan blive et af centrene i et større, fremvoksende integrationsområde …

Sammen med vore kinesiske kolleger har vi planlagt at påbegynde officielle forhandlinger så tidligt som i juni måned, om skabelsen af et omfattende handelspartnerskab og økonomisk partnerskab i Eurasien, med deltagelse af staterne i den Europæiske Union og Kina. Jeg forventer, at dette vil blive et af de første skridt hen imod skabelsen af et betydeligt, eurasisk partnerskab. Vi vil helt bestemt genoptage diskussionen om dette betydningsfulde projekt på det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok i begyndelsen af september …

Venner, det projekt, jeg netop har omtalt – projektet for det større Eurasien – er selvfølgelig åbent for Europa, og jeg er overbevist om, at et sådant samarbejde kan blive til gensidig fordel. På trods af alle de velkendte problemer i vore relationer, er den Europæiske Union fortsat Ruslands hovedpartner inden for handel og økonomi …

Jeg forstår også vore europæiske partnere, når de taler om de komplicerede beslutninger for Europa, som blev truffet under forhandlingerne om dannelsen af det transatlantiske partnerskab. Det er indlysende, at Europa har et enormt potentiale, og en satsning på kun én regional forbindelsespartner indsnævrer tydeligvis dets muligheder. Under de omstændigheder er det vanskeligt for Europa at opretholde en balance og bevare et rum for en udbytterig manøvre.

Som de nylige møder med repræsentanter for tyske og franske erhvervskredse har vist, så er europæiske virksomheder villige og rede til at samarbejde med dette land. Politikere bør møde virksomhederne på halvvejen ved at udvise kløgt, samt en vidtskuende fleksibel fremgangsmåde. Vi må atter oprette tillid til de russisk-europæiske relationer og genoprette vores samarbejdsniveau.

Vi husker, hvordan det hele begyndte. Rusland igangsatte ikke det aktuelle sammenbrud, afbrydelse, problemer og sanktioner. Alle vore handlinger har udelukkende været i besvarelse. Men vi bærer ikke nag, som man siger, og vi er rede til at komme vore europæiske partnere i møde på halvvejen. Men dette kan under ingen omstændigheder blive en vej med ensrettet færdsel.

Lad mig gentage, at vi er interesseret i, at europæere går med i projektet for et storslået eurasisk partnerskab. I denne sammenhæng hilser vi den kasakhstanske præsidents initiativ, med at afholde konsultationer mellem den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union og EU, velkommen. I går diskuterede vi dette spørgsmål ved mødet med præsidenten for den Europæiske Kommission.

Det vil yderligere være muligt at genoptage dialogen mellem eksperter på et teknisk niveau, om en bred vifte af spørgsmål, såsom handel, investering, lovgivning inden for teknik og toldadministration. På denne måde kunne vi skabe fundamentet for yderligere samarbejde og partnerskab …

Vi anser det naturligvis for vigtigt at fortsætte samarbejdet omkring betydningsfulde forskningsprojekter, såsom ITER-forsøgskraftværket og den frie elektron-røntgenlaser, for blot at nævne nogle få. En fælles indsats vil gøre det muligt for os virkelig at forøge både Europas og Ruslands teknologiske konkurrencedygtighed. Det rækker at sige, at, i 2015 investerede Rusland 1,2 mia. euro i fælles højteknologiske projekter med Europa …

Et præsidentielt råd for strategisk udvikling og prioritetsprojekter vil blive skabt i den nærmeste fremtid. Deres ydmyge tjener vil stå i spidsen, mens rådspræsidiet vil blive ledet af premierminister Dmitry Medvedev …

Verden har brug for et så magtfuldt land som USA, og det har vi også, men vi har ikke brug for, at det konstant blander sig i vore anliggender, fortæller os, hvordan vi skal leve og forhindrer Europa i at opbygge en relation til os.

 

FRA SPØRGSMÅL & SVAR:

Jeg ønsker ikke at tro på, at vi er på vej hen imod en ny Kold Krig, og jeg er sikker på, at ingen ønsker dette. Vi gør ganske bestemt ikke. Det er ikke nødvendigt. Hovedtankegangen bag udviklingen af internationale relationer er, at, uanset hvor dramatisk, det kan synes at være, så er det ikke tankegangen bag en global konfrontation. Hvad er problemets rod?

Det skal jeg sige jer. Jeg må bringe jer lidt tilbage i tiden. Efter Sovjetunionens kollaps, havde vi en forventning om generel fremgang og generel tillid. Desværre måtte Rusland konfrontere flere udfordringer, for at tale i moderne vendinger: økonomisk, samfundsmæssig og intern politik. Vi fik udfordringer som separatisme, radikalisme, aggressiv international terror, for det var utvivlsomt al-Qaeda-militante, som vi bekæmpede i Kaukasus, det er en åbenlys faktor, og det kan der ikke være to meninger om. Men, i stedet for støtte fra vore partnere i vores kamp mod disse problemer, fik vi ulykkeligvis noget andet – støtte til separatisterne…, efterretningsstøtte, finansiel støtte og regeringsstøtte …

Sovjetunionen eksisterede ikke længere; Warszawa-pagten eksisterede ikke længere. Men af en eller anden grund fortsætter NATO med at udvide sin infrastruktur hen mod Ruslands grænser. Det begyndte længe før i går. Montenegro er ved at blive et NATO-medlem. Hvem truer Montenegro? For vores position bliver totalt ignoreret.

Et andet, lige så vigtigt, eller måske det vigtigste spørgsmål, er den ensidige [fra USA’s side] opsigelse af ABM-traktaten. ABM-traktaten blev engang indgået mellem Sovjetunionen og USA af en meget god grund … Traktaten var udtænkt til at skabe en strategisk balance i verden. Men de droppede imidlertid ensidigt traktaten og sagde venligt, Dette er ikke rettet imod jer. I ønsker at udvikle jeres offensive våben, og vi antager, at det ikke er rettet imod os.

Ved I, hvorfor de sagde sådan? Det er simpelt: der var ingen, der forventede, at Rusland i begyndelsen af 2000, da landet kæmpede med sine interne problemer, var revet itu af interne konflikter, politiske og økonomiske problemer, tortureret af terrorister; at Rusland da ville genopbygge sin forsvarssektor. Der var tydeligvis ingen, der forventede, at vi var i stand til at opretholde vore arsenaler, for slet ikke at tale om at få nye strategiske våben. De tænkte, at de ville opbygge deres missilforsvarsstyrker, mens vore arsenaler skrumpede.

At dette blev gjort under påskud af at bekæmpe den iranske atomtrussel. Hvad er der så blevet af den iranske atomtrussel nu? Der er ikke nogen; men projektet fortsætter. Og sådan er det, skridt for skridt, det ene efter det andet, og så fremdeles.

 Så begyndte de at støtte alle mulige former for ’farvede revolutioner’, inklusive det såkaldte Arabiske Forår. De støttede det ihærdigt. Hvor mange positive syn hørte vi om, hvad det var, der foregik? Hvad førte det til? Kaos.

Jeg er ikke interesseret i at give nogen skylden. Jeg vil ganske enkelt sige, at, hvis denne politik med ensidige handlinger fortsætter, og hvis skridt i den internationale arena, hvor disse skridt er meget følsomme for det internationale samfund, ikke bliver koordineret, så er sådanne konsekvenser uundgåelige. Og modsat, hvis vi lytter til hinanden og taler ud fra en balance mellem interesser, så vil dette ikke ske. Ja, det er en vanskelig proces, processen med at nå til enighed, men det er den eneste vej til acceptable løsninger …

Af hvilken årsag, støttede de kuppet i Ukraine? Jeg har ofte talt om dette. Den interne politiske situation dér er kompliceret, og den opposition, der nu sidder ved magten, ville efter al sandsynlighed være kommet til magten på demokratisk vis, gennem valg. Sådan er det. Vi ville have arbejdet sammen med dem, som vi havde gjort det med den regering, der sad ved magten før præsident Janukovitj.

Men nej, de skulle absolut gå frem med et kup, med tab, med udløsning af blodsudgydelser, en borgerkrig, og med at skræmme den russisktalende befolkning i det sydøstlige Ukraine og i Krim. For hvad? Og efter at vi var nødt til, simpelt hen nødt til, at tage forholdsregler for at beskytte visse samfundsgrupper, begyndte de at optrappe situationen, at ophidse til spændinger. Efter min mening, så gøres dette, bl.a., for at retfærdiggøre eksistensen af den Nordatlantiske Blok. De har brug for en ekstern modstander, en ekstern fjende; i modsat fald, hvorfor skulle denne organisation i det hele taget være nødvendig? Der er ingen Warszawa-pagt, ingen Sovjetunion – hvem er det rettet imod?

Hvis vi fortsætter med at handle i overensstemmelse med denne tankegang, med at optrappe [spændinger] og fordoble indsatsen for at skræmme hinanden, så vil det en dag komme til en kold krig. Vores tankegang er fuldstændig anderledes. Den fokuserer på samarbejde og søgen efter kompromis. [Applaus]. (Udskriftet af Putins tale er ikke komplet.)

Putin præsenterer vision for fred og udvikling ved SPIEF

Præsident Vladimir Putin henvendte sig til plenum-sessionen ved Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum (SPIEF) (17. juni 2016) med en slagkraftig politisk og økonomisk vision for Eurasiens fremtid, og som konsekvens deraf for Verden, idet den imødegår Obamas aggressive krigsforberedelser. Han fremførte, at de geopolitiske spændinger i virkeligheden drives af den økonomiske krise. Han appellerede stærkt til EU-nationerne om at afslutte det destruktive sanktionsregime, idet han identificerede det faktum, at de er et resultat af Obamas manipulation. Han pegede på de tyske og franske erhvervsledere, som har åbnet op for en genetablering af relationerne med Rusland, og opfordrede politiske ledere til at mødes med dem på halvvejen, for at reetablere tillid mellem EU og Rusland.

Putin sagde, at Verden, og Rusland, behøver et stærkt USA, men ikke et USA, der blander sig og forhindrer Europa i at bygge bånd. Om TTIP sagde han, at Europa ville blive alvorligt begrænset, hvis det blev bundet til et enkelt regionalt tilknytningsforhold. Han gentog adskillige gange, at hans vision for et ’Stor-Eurasien’ sammen med specielt Kina, var åbent for alle – og i særdeleshed for EU-nationerne.

Han gennemgik i detaljer sin plan for genopbygning af den russiske økonomi, baseret på fremstillingsvirksomhed, anvendelse af teknologier i industrien, 3 millioner nye jobs i små og mellemstore industrivirksomheder i år 2020, og endnu mere fokus på videnskab og teknologi inden for uddannelserne.

Dette er, hvad Obama kalder sin succesfulde ”internationale isolation” af Rusland.

 

 

 

 

 

 




Forlæng Verdenslandbroen ind i Sydvestasien og Afrika:
Afskrift af Hussein Askarys tale på Schiller Instituttets og EIR’s seminar på
Frederiksberg den 18. april 2016

Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background
Slide background

Kommer senere på dansk.

Hussein Askary Speech in Copenhagen to the Schiller Institute-EIR
Seminar “Extend the World Land-Bridge to Southwest Asia and
Africa,” April 18, 2016

{Hussein Askary had fair number of graphics and charts, which he
used to illustrate his presentation.}

TOM GILLESBERG:  The next speaker is somebody very unique
and unusual,  Hussein Askary originally comes from Iraq and had
to get out under very nasty circumstances, as many others.  But
that became a blessing at least for our organization, because
Hussein, through Norway, ended up to become part of the
international LaRouche organization in 1994, and has since then
been contributing quite fantastically to our international work.
And he is one of the authors of the original {New Silk Road
Becomes the World Land-Bridge} report; but then also made a
decision, that this cannot simply stay in the English language,
or Chinese.  This also has to be in the Arabic language.  So
Hussein took it upon himself to translate this into the Arabic
language and then also of course, write some extra parts to it,
which is necessary for the present circumstances in Southwest
Asia to have.
This report just came out.  It was release on March 17, in
Cairo, in a meeting presided over by the Egyptian Transportation
Minister who then introduced Hussein, and the hope of course is
that this will become something read and studied and acted on in
the whole Arabic world, as well as the rest of the world.  So
Hussein?

HUSSEIN ASKARY: You have heard Helga today, giving a very
stern and sobering warning about the state of affairs in the
world, the dangers are very real to the world today. What I am
going to do, and please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not going to
give you a picture of how rosy and nice things are, either in
Southwest Asia, the so-called Middle East, or in Africa, but, as
they say in sports, you have to keep your eye on the ball. What
Helga just said, is that there is a new paradigm in the world,
which can lead to a completely different, and new world order.
And it’s that paradigm, within which myself, the Schiller
Institute, and the people we are talking to, we want to direct
their attention to that new paradigm.
I’m thankful to Leena Malkki for her beautiful singing, and,
especially, the {Aida} aria. It was actually performed at the
opening of the Suez Canal, the second Suez Canal, last year.
The idea of great projects, the idea of great challenges,
like Hela was explaining, this idea of being in space, looking at
the world from space, and, also, the idea of major projects, like
the Suez Canal, like the Three Gorges Dam in China, the New Silk
Road, the effect they have on people, is that they challenge
their imagination, and challenge their creativity, because they
represent major difficulties, major technical problems,
intellectual problems, that have to be solved, before you achieve
these major projects. And that transforms the idea of people. It
also gives people an idea of a creative constructive identity,
and the position of man in the world, on this Earth, and also in
the universe. That is why we try to work on these concepts of the
New Silk Road, the extension of the New Silk Road, to {inspire}
people to think outside of the box, outside of the box of
geopolitics, which Helga was trying to explain. We have to get
out of geopolitics. We have to act {human} again. But that has
practical implications. There are practical problems, and other
issues, and even scientific issues we have to resolve.
So, for those who are not familiar, this is the extension of
the New Silk Road. The New Silk Road has existed as the new
strategic policy of China since 1996, but we want to expand this
into a global collaboration, a blueprint, as Tom said, a concept
for peace and cooperation among nations. We have to connect the
Economic Belt of the Silk Road (the one with the yellow), which
is already being built. As Helga said, the first train arrived
from China to Tehran last month. There are projects going on in
Siberia. So there are trains going from Asia to Europe. There is
no problem with that. We need to extend it into the Southwest
Asia region, the so-called Middle East (I can explain later why I
say Southwest Asia, and not the Middle East), and into Africa,
and of course, into the Americas.
So, you can see that the red lines are where we have the
biggest deficits, the biggest deficits in infrastructure, both
transportation infrastructure, but also in other needs, deficits
in water, and deficits in electricity.
What is different in the Arabic part, which I rewrote
certain parts of it, like the Southwest Asia part, we also added
the Arabian Peninsula, also, to the idea of the connection to the
New Silk Road. This is no longer simply a Silk Road; this is the
World Land-Bridge, which can unite all the continents of the
world.
In 1996, I had the great fortune to work with Helga
Zepp-LaRouche and the team of {EIR} to make the first major study
of the New Silk Road, and it was that one which was adopted by
the Chinese government as the strategic policy of China. It was
also a thick report like this.
This work is being done, mostly in East Asia, Central Asia,
Iran, Turkey, Russia, all these nations are involved, but what is
lacking is the connection to the rest. So it has been 20 years
since that idea emerged, but there was no response from the
countries in the Arab world, for example, or in Africa.
Now, the idea with all these lines is not only about trade.
We want to warn people, that we are not talking about moving
goods from China to Europe. That’s not our concept. That’s a
byproduct. What we mean by the New Silk Road, the World
Land-Bridge, that we need to create development corridors: a
development corridor where you bring power, water, and technology
to areas that are landlocked, that are far from industrial zones,
and, explore the resources, human and natural resources of that
region, to develop new centers of economic activity. Like
landlocked nations, like in Central Asia, or the Great Lakes
region in Africa. That’s the concept. It’s not about trade,
although trade is an important aspect of this.
In 2002, Mr. Lyndon LaRouche, the American economist and
political leader, the husband of Mrs. LaRouche, was in Abu Dhabi,
in a conference about oil, and the role of oil in world politics,
and the future of oil.  And there were many ministers of oil
actually from the Arab countries — the gentleman to the right is
the energy minister of the United Arab Emirates — and Mr.
LaRouche shocked everybody, and said that the Arab countries, or
the Gulf countries, have to gradually stop exporting raw oil, and
actually use raw oil and gas as an industrial product, for
petrochemicals, plastics, where every barrel of oil will give
many times its value, rather than burning it as energy. He said
that you should use your position in the world, as a crossroads
of continents. You have to utilize that position as a crossroads
for world trade, but also, the connection between Africa, Asia
and Europe.
So I added these to the Arabic version, because I think that
this is a very unique area in the world,  not only that its
strategic location is very unique, no other part of the world has
that; you also have two-thirds of the world’s energy resources,
so-called, oil and gas in that region, but also, most
importantly, you have about 450 million people. Most of them are
young people. And actually, many of them have a good education.
You also have nations with a very ancient history and culture,
and a very historical identity, like Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and
so on, and they also have an idea of themselves as becoming key
players in the world, but we hope that they will become key
players in the world in the economic, scientific and cultural
sense.
The problem is that all these advantages have been turned
into disadvantages. So this region has become a center for global
politics, for global geopolitics, and that is why we see the
conditions we have in the whole Middle East region becoming like
this.
Our idea is, now we have this new situation with the Russian
intervention, the prospect, the possibility of having a peaceful
political solution in Syria, the prospect of uniting many powers
to fight ISIS and al-Qaeda, and so on, both in Iraq and Syria,
and also in Libya. But this should be followed, as Helga said, we
need a Marshall Plan, we need an economic development plan, to
establish peace on a true basis.
The reason I joined the Schiller Institute in 1994, was that
I was in Oslo, and I was working as a translator, and there was a
Palestinian children’s delegation coming with Yasser Arafat; and
I was going around with them, and, at that time, you had the Oslo
peace agreement. A week later, I saw a sign that the Schiller
Institute was having a meeting in Oslo. They had a very
interesting title. They said in the meeting that if you don’t
start with the economic development of the Palestinian people,
the people in Jordan, Syria, Israel, and so on, if you don’t base
the peace process on a solid economic basis, this whole thing
will fail. And the peace process is, of course, dead now, both
because of that, but also because of geopolitics which has
prevented reaching a true peace.
So, therefore, to establish true peace, we need an economic
and scientific program. Helga referred to president Xi Jinping’s
visit to the region in January this year. I consider this as an
historic turning point, actually, because at that point, in late
January, Saudi Arabia and Iran were at the point where there was
a big risk of a direct war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, because
of the beheading of a Shi’a clergy in Saudi Arabia, which led to
demonstrations, the burning of the Saudi Embassy in Tehran, and
so on. So the Chinese intervention came at a very crucial point,
where they said, “Look, all these religious conflicts and
problems you have with each other, can lead the whole world into
a disaster. Why don’t we work on our method? We offer you to join
the New Silk Road. We offer economic development, and technology,
and even financing, so we can connect all of your countries which
are in conflict with each other together into this global
process.” And this is very, very important. And nations in the
region have to really grasp that opportunity now, and, instead of
discussing the fate of President Assad, they should discuss what
kinds of economic projects they should work together on.
One of the issues that I didn’t mention, is that, for
example, even as Helga said, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they can
join this, if they stop this other policy, because we also have
one of the largest concentrations of financial power in the Gulf
countries; the so-called sovereign funds of the Gulf Cooperation
Council countries is about $2 trillion. This can be transformed
into credit.
In the report, I propose the establishment of the Arab
Infrastructure Investment Bank. A bank which will be financed by
these rich countries, which would have a capital of $100-200
billion, and that capital will only be earmarked for
infrastructure and development projects.
So every nation has a role in this. And in the report, we
have also added, which is not in the English report, a plan, a
general outline for the reconstruction of Syria, by utilizing
Syria’s position also as a bridge for the Silk Road, both from
Asia, and from Europe, into Africa. We also propose the
construction of a Syrian National Reconstruction Bank, which is
very important. We have a very important chapter in the report
about how nations can internally finance major infrastructure
programs. Because, the big question, which comes all the time
when I am in Arab countries, or in Africa, is, they say “OK. This
sounds good. Who will pay for this? Where will the money come
from?” Actually, you don’t really need money, in that sense. You
can create the money, but you have to know where to use that
money. As Helga said, the central banks in Europe and the United
States are pumping massive amounts of liquidity into the
financial and banking system. But none of that is transformed
into technologies or projects, public projects, or housing
projects, or industrial projects in Europe or anywhere. So money
is being printed, but it is not being used.
But there is a method, which we call the Hamiltonian
national credit system, which every nation can actually
internally generate credit to finance part of its national
development plans, and this is one thing we put in the Syria
plan. Because every time there is a war like in Bosnia, in
Lebanon, and so on, you have donor conferences, where every
nation says that we will give you so much money, 100 million, 50
million, but there is no centralized idea about how to rebuild
the whole country. It all depends on donations, small drops which
come. We want something massive. We want something big. Foreign
governments should contribute to that by exporting technology to
Syria, for example, which Syria cannot afford to build, or afford
to buy, in the current situation.
Also, a part of our plan for Southwest Asia is to fight
against desertification, by managing and creating new water
resources, stopping the expansion of the desert. This is the
Iraqi Green Belt project to stop the effect of sand and dust
storms, which actually is a big problem for many cities in Iraq,
sometimes even reaching into Iran, by building a Green Belt,
planting trees in a large scale, a belt by using both ground
water and water from the rivers.  This is a kind of national
program which can unite the people of Iraq for an idea of their
future together. Not Sunni, Shi’a, Kurdish, Turkish, and so on,
and so forth. These are the kinds of projects, real physical
projects, which will challenge people to work together in a
country like Iraq.
Now, I took this Egyptian model, because in Egypt, you have
a very terrible situation, which is the accumulation of 30 years
of destructive economic and financial policies, mostly caused by
former President Mubarak’s and Anwar Sadat’s collaboration with
the IMF and the World Bank. There should be a shift in the way
Egyptians consider their economy. Because Egypt always waits for
the IMF or the World Bank, the EU or the United States to give
some money so that they can start something new. And usually
money does not go to large scale. Europe, the United States, the
UN, the IMF and the World Bank will {never} finance large
infrastructure projects. That’s the policy.  Small, small, small
is beautiful. That’s what they say.
But in Egypt, with the new leadership in Egypt, you have the
focus on mega-projects, which is a necessity. If you want to save
Egypt’s economy, Egypt’s entire infrastructure has to be built
from scratch again. There should be new industrial and
agricultural centers, which they are focusing on.
Using high technology, they try to attract the highest
levels of technology, and internal financing. You know, President
el-Sisi, when they wanted to build the Suez Canal, there was no
money, as usual, they said. So what he did was something unique.
He went outside the central bank. He went outside the budget, and
said, “I will go on TV, and I will tell the Egyptian people that
we want to build this canal. It’s crucial for our nation. We want
you to give the money.”
In 2013 I wrote a memorandum for Egypt, an Egyptian Economic
Independence Document, I called it. Actually, inside Egypt, you
can raise more than $100 billion, because there are resources
inside Egypt. People, even today, buy dollars. They take part of
their salary, and buy dollars or gold, and keep it at home, so
that financing disappears from the system. It’s not reinvested in
the system. People keep their money because of the unstable
economic situation.
But if you encourage the Egyptian people with this kind of
national development projects, which will put their kids to work,
unemployed young people, they would come out with the money. And
this is what el-Sisi did. I wrote at the time, that they should
build a National Development Bank, not just one fund for the Suez
Canal, as they did. But as soon as President el-Sisi came on TV
and said, “We want to build this canal, but we don’t have the
money. We want the Egyptian people to pay for it.” So they went
out, and in one week they raised $8 billion. And people were
queuing late into the night; I met a banker last year, who said,
“We had to stay open into the night, because people were queuing
at the banks to buy the bonds!” Egyptians are real patriots. They
love their country, but if they are encouraged by good
leadership.
Of course, the Suez Canal is not giving back what was
supposed to be already from the beginning, because world trade
has collapsed. The level of transit in the Suez Canal has gone
down, not because of Egypt’s policy, but because the world
economy is going down. Global trade has been collapsing. But the
idea is to use the Suez Canal as a development zone. And this is
what I got from people in the Suez Canal Authority — that they
are not only thinking about transport of goods, but they want to
utilize that route to build new industrial zones around the
canal, like we showed in the development corridor idea. And, of
course, Egypt has a very key role, both in the Arab world — it’s
the most important Arab country — and also in Africa.
Now Egypt has one big problem — it’s the demographic
problem. People say that Egypt is overpopulated. That’s not true.
Egypt is not overpopulated. Cairo is overcrowded!  Ninety million
people live on only 5% of the land of Egypt; 95% of the land of
Egypt is empty. It’s not used, but it’s not overpopulated. The
United States and Europe have been financing the Egyptian
government with hundreds of millions of dollars for family
planning, so that women will have fewer children. But no projects
were built to expand Egypt’s economic potential to accommodate to
the new generations, so that they can have new agricultural and
urban centers out in the desert!
After I was in Egypt last year, I wrote a report for a major
economic conference in Egypt to attract investment; but these are
the ideas which came out of both the conference, and my
observations about Egypt’s role in the New Silk Road. In Egypt,
people were very negative to the idea of the New Silk Road,
because they said that the transshipment on the Silk Road will
take away trade from the Suez Canal — that shipments will go
from Asia to Europe by land, and we will lose. So there are a lot
of people in Egypt who are actually against the idea. But I was
telling people, “Look. It’s not about trade. If you have economic
development, you will need more Suez Canals to accommodate the
trade. But if the world economy is not growing, there is no
development, there will be no trade. And people will compete on
attracting trade into other areas.”
So the idea is to develop Egypt’s economy, but also
contribute to more development and more trade among nations. And
it’s in utilizing Egypt’s position to connect to Sub-Saharan
Africa, to North Africa, the Middle East, and to the Arabian
Peninsula. Interestingly, after I was in Egypt, last week the
Saudi King was in Egypt, and they decided to build this bridge.
At Sharm el-Sheikh, there is a connection over the Gulf of Aqaba.
I think that the Egyptian President invited the Saudi King to
support the building of this bridge between the Saudi territories
and southern Sinai, which will turn Sinai from an isolated area,
suddenly into becoming the center between two major economies.
There are now big problems in Egypt, because the President
made a terrible mistake by conceding sovereignty over the Tiran
and Sanafir islands to the Saudis. There was a dispute between
the two countries for many years, but President el-Sisi suddenly
declared that they are Saudi islands, and now there is a big
uproar in Egypt. And the mistake was that there was no public
discussion about it. The parliament didn’t have anything to say
about this. So, now there will be a review of the agreement.  But
the idea of this project is very important.
Now, for Egypt to get out of that demographic box, is for
Egypt to expand its economic activities into the desert. This is
the development corridor proposed by Dr. Farouk El-Baz, who is a
space scientist, and he is right now an advisor to the President.
And he designed this idea of creating the new valley, the new
Nile Valley, by building railways, roads, and new urban centers.
I added these green zones, because these are actually becoming
new agricultural areas that the Egyptian government wants to
invest in, by creating new farmlands — they are talking about 4
million acres of land, and settling young people into these
regions, and building new agro-industrial centers. But what is
needed is to extend the development corridor, the black line,
into the economic zones.
This is the Africa Pass. One of our Egyptian friends, an
engineer, presented this at our conference in 2012, it’s the same
idea, connecting Egypt to North Africa, to Europe, and into the
Great Lakes region of Africa. Now, the Great Lakes region
countries, like Rwanda, Burundi, the eastern Congo, Uganda, they
have massive problems of economic development, also because they
are very far from the transport corridors of the world.  We wrote
a series of reports two years ago about the cost of shipment of a
container. The Danish shipping company A.P. Møller-Mærsk has
statistics that the cost of a shipment of a container from
Singapore to Alexandria is $4,000, to Mombasa in eastern Kenya,
it becomes $5,000; but to the capital of Uganda, it goes to
$8,000, because there are no good roads to ship that container!
Into Rwanda and Burundi it reaches $10,600 per container. So they
cannot bear the cost of shipment of containers that maybe have
technology inside them, and machines, and that is a major problem
for these so-called land-locked countries. So you need to have
new lines of transport which will reduce the cost of the
transport.
Now these are ideas which the African nations, the African
Union, have had for many years. There are many very nice plans,
but the attitude of the rest of the world to Africa, because
Africa, by itself, does not have the technology, at least, to
build these projects, and there has been no willingness in
Europe, or the United States, to finance, or contribute to
building the projects proposed in any of these major reports, to
integrate the infrastructure of Africa and enhance economic
development. Because without infrastructure, you cannot have
economic development.
But some of these lines are now coming on the agenda, thanks
to the intervention of the BRICS nations, and also of China. For
example, the Cairo-Cape Town highway idea, President Jacob Zuma
of South Africa, presented this actually twice at the BRICS
summit in 2013 and 2014, and he said, “This is a crucial, a key
element in the development of Africa. We need to work with the
BRICS nations and China, Russia and India to build these
projects.” There are 400 road and rail projects involved in this.
But this is a big challenge, both in terms of financing, and in
terms of technology.
There is also the possibility of connecting the river
systems of Africa for river transport, like in Europe, the
Main-Rhine-Danube Rivers are an important transport artery, and
development artery. In the same way, you can connect the Nile to
the Great Lakes, to the Zambezi River through a number of canals,
and so-called trans-modal transport systems, where you can ship
from rivers to rail, and back to rivers, to lakes, and so on, in
an easy way.
Filling the gap which the United States and Europe have left
for many, many years, now the Chinese–.  Well, in Europe, we
have a very problematic and twisted relationship to poverty, to
poor countries, to underdeveloped countries. Europeans look at
Africa as a burden. It’s a problem. How do we solve this problem?
But the problem is that the whole focus has been on aid,
emergency relief, and so on, and so forth, but that really
doesn’t solve problems. I mean, people talk about genocide. In
Africa, every year there are 4 million children who die. Now,
talk about a war crime.  There are 700,000 children before the
age of five who die every year in Africa.  So, you cannot solve
these problems with small aid projects here and there. You need
to think big. You need to provide those people with adequate
transport, electricity, water systems, and this cannot be done by
so-called aid programs. In Africa 600 million people don’t have
access to electricity, out of 1 billion.
But you look at the Chinese, when they look at an
underdeveloped country, they see an opportunity. They see
potential. They see a “win-win” strategy — new markets, new
areas of development, and they should intervene in that
situation.
It is the same idea that President Franklin Roosevelt of the
United States had. All of his fights with Churchill were exactly
about this problem. Roosevelt told Churchill in the middle of
World War II, that you British are very stupid, because you suck
the blood of the Africans, and you get pennies, you get nothing,
by sucking their blood. But if you develop Africa, as independent
nations, as modern nations, as we did with the United States,
then you will gain much, much more; if you treat them as humans,
if you develop their infrastructure, schools and hospitals.
And this is exactly what the Chinese are thinking about. Out
of the problem, they see an opportunity. Prime Minister Li
Keqiang was in East Africa, and also Nigeria in May 2014, and
immediately said, “We want to help Africa to connect all the
capitals with railways,” which is a big deficit problem. And they
started from East Africa. And now there are projects being built
from Lamu, a new port, into the land-locked South Sudan, into
Uganda, into Rwanda and Burundi. And China is both financing
major parts of this, but also contributing to building it, to
solve the problems of the land-locked countries and the need for
development.
China recently completed, it’s not running yet, but part of
the railway is running, from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. There is an
old railway, which is not functional, built by the French
colonialists, but now there is a new, electrified railway, which
goes from Djibouti to Addis Ababa.
Two interesting things about this railway are, firstly, that
Ethiopia is always associated with famine and food problems. Some
of these problems still exist. These are on the way to being
solved, but to bring food from the ports to inside the country
usually took two months, because of the lack of infrastructure.
So starving people could not have food in time. Even if the food
existed in the port, coming from around the world to Djibouti, it
was almost impossible to bring the food to the people who needed
it. Now, that food can be shipped in 10 hours, to the capital,
and also to other areas. The other interesting fact about this
railway is that China is not just building the railway, and
financing it, but training and educating engineers and workers to
run these systems.
Now, Ethiopia has a massive infrastructure plan for
connecting all the major cities of Ethiopia, with the railway and
roads. The other thing about the railway is that it is all
electrified. And the Ethiopians will use all these new dams they
are building, to electrify the railway. So they don’t need import
oil, and gas and diesel to run the railway system. They will
domestically provide the energy to run the trains.
So, Ethiopia, I am very sure it will never be associated
anymore with famine and poverty. Ethiopia is a great nation, a
very proud nation. They have massive resources, but these
resources have been dormant, have not been utilized. But now,
with the Chinese intervention, and also India is active there,
these resources will be developed.
This is just a metaphorical picture. This is the
Mombasa-Nairobi railway being built by a Chinese and a Kenyan
worker. In Africa, the propaganda goes that the Chinese never let
the locals work in these projects. They bring their own workers,
they bring their own engineers, their own technology, they build
the thing, and then they leave. It’s not true. They always
involve local workers. They train them, because they cannot run
these systems; the locals will have to run these systems
themselves.
But they are also training the labor force in Uganda. They
are building an Army Corps of Engineers, so that the Army can
play a positive role in the development of the country.
Traditionally, the Army Corps of Engineers played a very
important role, even in advanced countries. So this is part of
the same project.
Another important infrastructure project for Africa is
Transaqua. Lake Chad is drying up, which is a known fact, and 30
million people are affected, because they live as fishermen, or
they have grazing land around the lake in Chad and Nigeria, and
Niger. All these countries are affected. There are 30 million
people around that region, and there will be massive migration
actually from the Lake Chad region. So there is an idea called
Transaqua, which was developed by one of our friends, an Italian
engineer, to bring 5% of the water from the Congo River, or the
tributaries of the Congo River, and build a 2,800 km.-long canal
into the Chari River, and then flow downwards into Lake Chad, to
refill the lake; but also to have a new economic zone, and build
the Mombasa-Lagos highway, which was one of the plans I showed
earlier.
So you can transform that part of Africa, which in people’s
minds is a complete jungle, into a new economic zone, but also to
bring water to the Lake Chad region.
Now, there are some other issues I want to address.   One of
the big deficits of course in Africa, is the energy consumption.
And as I said not everybody has that; the average international
level of energy consumption is about 2,800 [kw?] but that’s not
equal.  The only two countries which are exception are South
Africa and Libya, before that.  So the energy needs in Africa are
{enormous}!  I mean Africa has a lot of wealth, but also the
hydropower potential which has never been built.  But the
attitude of the Western countries, like the Obama administration,
they have something called “Power Africa Initiative,” that
certain nations in Africa will get energy provided.  But they’re
not talking about hydropower, they’re not talking about nuclear
power, they’re not talking about coal or gas or so on.  They’re
talking about so-called “renewable” or “sustainable energy.” And
the International Energy Agency has a criteria for access to
energy, which is a modern access to energy is about 100kw-hours
per year per person.  And this diagram shows very ironically,
that that amount will be consumed by an American in three days!
But they expect Africans to live with that for a whole year!
Here’s just one more ironical idea:  My refrigerator can consume
many times as much as an Ethiopian individual.
These are the criteria for President Obama’s Power Africa
plan, that the plan will eventually help these nations come to
this line, while the real needs are that big now, and they will
be that big in a few years.  So, all these ideas to help Africa
from the Obama administration, they’re not adequate!  It’s just a
complete bluff. It does not help, if you just look at the
numbers.
And this is also another irony of the Obama administration
policy. These are the sources of energy for the American people,
the American economy, and these are what the Obama administration
{doesn’t} want you to do.  So it’s “do as we say, not as we do.”
So the United States produced 37% of its energy from coal, that’s
forbidden for Africa; 30% produced by natural gas, that’s a very
suspicious policy, because there’s the carbon problem; 19%
nuclear — absolutely no nuclear for Africa; 7% hydropower — the
United States is very suspicious of hydropower projects, and so
on and so on.  So what is left is solar, so-called geothermal,
and biomass, which the United States produced only 0.1% of its
needs.  But that’s recommended for Africa. [laughter]
So anyway, the idea is that if Africa joins the new paradigm
shift, African nations, they have exactly, in African families
and African individuals, they have exactly the same needs as we
have; as we have in Europe or in the United States.  There is
absolutely no difference.  So they’re trying to convince the
Africans that they should just, maybe, if they’re lucky they
could get a lightbulb at home, so the kids can read, by having a
solar battery.  They will not bite!
I mean, if you bring electricity to a village, what people
will do, is not simply have a lightbulb, if you bring electricity
to a village,  — and one of our friends made a study in India —
is that people will start to want to use new devices.  They have
to have other appliances at home, you need to have a stove, so
women don’t have to many hours and cut trees and come home and
cook with the wood, and suffocate with the smoke.  Farmers will
have to have tractors.  They will need to have workshops which
use electricity; people will want to have TV sets, computers.
They want to build industrial projects.   They will need
refrigeration which is a big problem in Africa, because most of
the food produced in the Sub-Saharan goes wasted because there’s
no refrigeration.
So just to give yourself an illusion that you will provide
every African lightbulb, just forget about it!  Because the needs
of those people are so immense, and they will not give up on
their right to have a living standard which is similar to ours.
Why shouldn’t they have it?  And this is what — here, in the
ideology in Europe and the United States I know, they should not
have this kind of technology, they should not have this kind of
development in Africa, because that’s not “sustainable.” Which is
not true.  It is sustainable, if you provide the tools and the
technology to do that.  Actually in Africa, there are more
resources than in Japan or in the United States and Europe, to
sustain industrial development!
So the problem is in the policy.  The problem is how they
look at Africa, and how they look at the problem of poverty and
so on.   And that has also to change, exactly as we changed with
geopolitics, we have to change our attitude to the problems of
Africa, and have really the right methods to solving them, and
treating African nations as equal to us, and African families as
equal to us, and African individuals as equal to us.
Nobody here will give up their living standard, and live in
the forest — maybe some people who do, there are some Danes and
Norwegians… [laughter]  But we want to have education. We want
to have warm housing, we want to have clean water; we want to
have a future for our kids; we want to have trains which go on
time.  This is what the Africans want.  You know, there’s nothing
different, we’re all one human race!
So, when you design policy and you say, “No, Africans should
have ‘sustainable energy,’ not nuclear power,” then you are
breaking with that idea of a real human family and equality.  So
I think I’ll stop here. [applause]

 

Dias til talen:

20160418_askary_dias1 20160418_askary_dias2 20160418_askary_dias3 20160418_askary_dias4 20160418_askary_dias5 20160418_askary_dias6 20160418_askary_dias7 20160418_askary_dias8 20160418_askary_dias9 20160418_askary_dias10 20160418_askary_dias11 20160418_askary_dias12 20160418_askary_dias13 20160418_askary_dias14 20160418_askary_dias15 20160418_askary_dias16 20160418_askary_dias17 20160418_askary_dias18 20160418_askary_dias19 20160418_askary_dias20 20160418_askary_dias21 20160418_askary_dias22 20160418_askary_dias23 20160418_askary_dias24 20160418_askary_dias25 20160418_askary_dias26 20160418_askary_dias27 20160418_askary_dias28 20160418_askary_dias29 20160418_askary_dias30 20160418_askary_dias31 20160418_askary_dias32 20160418_askary_dias33 20160418_askary_dias34 20160418_askary_dias35 20160418_askary_dias36

 

 

 




Et håb for USA og Europa: Asiens og Ruslands lederskab

21. marts 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Kollapset af de transatlantiske landes finanssystemer er nært forestående. Det er netop blevet signaleret i Den europæiske Centralbanks chefs meddelelse om, at de nu undersøger at kaste »helikopterpenge« ind i bankkonti i hele Europa; og i den tyske Centralbanks chefs eksplosive offentlige udbrud imod denne inflationsskabende plan. Centralbankerne har forsøgt enhver form for bailout i syv år, og finanssystemerne er nu ved randen af et gennemgribende kollaps.

Nationerne må nu dramatisk og omgående ændre deres politik for at redde deres økonomier og befolkninger fra Wall Streets og City of Londons kollaps.

Og der er kun én kurs for ændring, der vil lykkes: den politik, der er modelleret efter præsident Franklin Roosevelts politik – med nedlukning af Wall Streets kasinoer og udstedelse af statslig kredit til produktive formål – men koordineret på globalt plan.

Til at gennemføre dette kan lederskabet kun komme fra Asien: fra Kina, Rusland og Indien.

Kina er i færd med at bygge landbroer tværs over Eurasien og ind i det kollapsede Europa, og endda muligvis ind i USA via Beringstrædet. Inden for to år planlægger Kina at landsætte et rumfartøj på Månens bagside og observere og undersøge universet på måder, der hidtil ikke har været muligt fra Jorden eller fra fartøjer i kredsløb. Kina og Indien er nu verdens mest dynamiske rumnationer.

Kinas »Nye Silkevejspolitik« med udstedelse af kredit og opbygning af broer, der spænder over kontinenter, med ny, økonomisk infrastruktur, står måske også på randen af at bringe økonomisk udvikling til Mellemøsten og Nordafrika. Dette er fundamentet for en varig fred og stabilitet. At føre den Ny Silkevejs udvikling gennem Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og erklære ørkenen krig, er det eneste udviklingsperspektiv for hele denne region. Og det er den eneste basis for at vende Europas »flygtningekrise« omkring.

Vladimir Putins initiativ i Syrien har vendt kursen for anliggender i Mellemøsten hen mod en forhandlet fred og stabilitet, for første gang, siden George W. Bush’ katastrofale krig i Irak.

Dette er lederskab.

Den ganske lille styrke, der har katalyseret dette lederskab, har været LaRouchePAC og Schiller Instituttet. Hen over 30 år er Lyndon og Helga Zepp-LaRouches politik med den »Eurasiske Landbro« blevet Kinas politik, især over for Rusland og Indien. I et gennembrud i sidste uge i Cairo blev det offentligt Egyptens politik, gennem en konference med repræsentant for Schiller Instituttet Hussein Askary og Egyptens transportminister som hovedtalere.

Ved afgørende konferencer 23. marts i Frankfurt og 7. april i New York City vil denne politik blive forelagt europæiske nationer og USA: Gå med i Den nye Silkevej, tag lederskabet i Asien og samarbejd med det, eller gå ind i en håbløs bankerot. Alt afhænger af disse begivenheders succesfulde indflydelse.

 

Foto: Begyndelsen af Silkevejen, Xian, Kina. Kinas nye økonomiske Silkevejs-udviklingspolitik, »Ét bælte, én vej«, er åben for tilslutning fra alle nationer. (CC BY-SA 2.0)      




SPØRGSMÅL OG SVAR
med formand Tom Gillesberg den 10. marts 2016:
Rusland og Ukraine; Hillary Clinton;
Nykredit; finansspekulation;
EU-Tyrkiet; Schiller Partiet

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




POLITISK ORIENTERING den 3. marts 2016:
Schiller Instituttet har foretræde for Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg:
Syrisk våbenhvile er en chance for fred gennem økonomisk udvikling//
Helga Zepp-LaRouche i Indien:
Forlæng Silkevejen til Mellemøsten
Sagen om Nykredit/Totalkredit

Med formand Tom Gillesberg




Video: Den Asiatiske Infrastruktur Investeringsbank (AIIB) præsident Jin Liquns
tale i København den 2. marts 2016

Redrawing the Global Financial Map – Jin Liqun President of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

“How Can the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Contribute to Economic Development and Integration in Asia? What is in it for Europe/Denmark?”

Meeting arranged by Copenhagen University’s Asian Dynamics Initiative, Asia Research Centre, and Copenhagen Business School.

Question by Tom Gillesberg, chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark at ??

Link til København Universitets side om mødet.




Historien udvikler sig til Ruslands og Kinas fordel, ikke Obamas

17. februar 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Efter endnu et fejlslagent »topmøde«-forsøg på at vende ASEAN-landene imod Kina, brugte Barack Obama sin pressekonference den 16. februar på at fordømme og forsøge at nedgøre Rusland, og i særdeleshed den russiske præsident Putins succesrige forandring af situationen i Mellemøsten.

Obamaregeringen forsøger, gennem medierne, at hævde, at våbenhvilen i Syrien, som den amerikanske udenrigsminister John Kerry forhandlede igennem med den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov, vil mislykkes! Dette, fordi Obama ikke kan tolerere de succesrige økonomiske og politiske roller, som Rusland og Kina nu spiller i verden, og sine egne fiaskoer.

Det, som Putins succesrige rolle repræsenterer, er overførslen af indflydelse over menneskelige anliggender fra det britiske imperiesystem – for hvilket Obama har været en villig faktor – og over til de fremvoksende eurasiske nationer.

Det repræsenterer også en næsten 20 år lang succesrig kamp imod al jihadistisk terrorisme, både i Rusland og internationalt – et samarbejde, der uafbrudt er blevet tilbudt USA siden 11. september [2001], og som altid er blevet afvist af Bush og Obama.

Kina og Rusland og Indien er blevet de primære agenter for en ændring af civilisationens fremtid. De europæiske nationer og USA er for en nedadgående kurs, og de vil gå ned, med mindre de radikalt ændrer deres politik for den krise, der omslutter deres banksystemer.

Siden præsident Franklin Roosevelts død har USA befundet sig i en lang nedgangsperiode for økonomisk produktivitet; og siden mordene på JFK og RFK, for et accelererende tab af videnskabeligt og teknologisk fremskridt, og for de fleste af sine borgeres livsbetingelser.

Spørgsmålet drejer sig ikke om, hvad Obama siger; det drejer sig om, hvad man skal gøre med ham. Vil USA være intelligent nok til at gå sammen med Rusland og Kina om samarbejde om rumprogrammer, i internationale kreditbanker, i store infrastrukturprojekter, i overvindelsen af terrorisme, der er fostret af briterne og saudierne? Hvis ikke, vil USA blive ødelagt som magt.

Præsident Putin udøver ikke stor magt, men effektiv magt, og han udøver den med intelligens. Rusland, Kina og Indien styrer i stigende grad planetens fremtidige historie.

Og USA har – Obama! Hvis han blev dumpet nu, så har USA en historisk afprøvet politik for økonomisk genrejsning, der kunne genoprette dets fremtid: FDR’s politik. Luk Wall Streets kasino-banksystem, der er ved at få fallit, ned, og skab dernæst statslig kredit til genindførelse af produktivitet og produktiv beskæftigelse. Det er det eneste alternativ, og det vil ikke ske med Obama i embedet.

 

Foto: Præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Vladimir Putin mødes under G20-mødet i Tyrkiet i 2015.

 




Det transatlantiske finanssystem er færdigt
– Der findes kun en løsning med Rusland og Kina.
Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche

14. februar 2016 – Det kan siges præcis så slagfærdigt: Europas og USA’s finanssystem er allerede dødt, men begravelsen har endnu ikke fundet sted. Der finder bankkrak sted i hobetal, og centralbankernes berømte værktøj viser sig virkningsløse, eller også gør de katastrofen endnu værre. Det er på allerhøjeste tid at gøre en ende på kasinoøkonomien og virkeliggøre et Grand Design for opbygningen af verdensøkonomien, og først og fremmest i Sydvestasien og Afrika! Og samarbejdet med Kina om den Nye Silkevej er den bedste tilgang til dette!

Download (PDF, Unknown)