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

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

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

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:


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

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

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

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

Ambitiøse finske initiativer vil opkoble den arktiske jernbane til Tyskland

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

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

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

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

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

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

Videnskaben om at gøre en ende
på fattigdom og geopolitik

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Reserve og infrastrukturprojekterne

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump til Putin – Lad os mødes snart

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 20. marts, 2018 – Præsident Trump har netop trukket tæppet væk under den skøre lady, Theresa May, og den endnu mere skøre udenrigsminister Boris Johnson. Alt imens disse afdankede forsvarere af det døende, britiske imperium beskylder Rusland for krigshandlinger, beskyldninger, der typisk ikke er baseret på nogen beviser, ringede Trump i dag og talte med den netop genvalgte præsident Vladimir Putin. Trump ikke alene lykønskede Putin for hans valgsejr, men annoncerede til den amerikanske presse, at han og Putin »sandsynligvis vil mødes i en ikke så fjern fremtid« for at diskutere forholdsregler for at forhindre et våbenkapløb og finde fredelige løsninger på kriserne i Ukraine, Syrien og Nordkorea. Kremls udskrift af samtalen lød, at de to ledere »talte for at udvikle praktisk samarbejde inden for forskellige felter, inkl. bestræbelser for at sikre strategisk stabilitet og bekæmpe internatonal terrorisme, med særlig vægt på betydningen af koordinerede bestræbelser på at begrænse et våbenkapløb.« Kreml tilføjede: »Samtalen om økonomisk samarbejde afslørede en interesse i at styrke det. Energi blev diskuteret særskilt.«

Her til aften vil briterne bide i gulvtæppet. Ikke alene har Trump ødelagt deres kneb med at beskylde Rusland for et kemisk krigsangreb på britisk jord; men også svindelnummeret med »Russiagate« i USA, som køres direkte af MI6-agenten Christopher Steele og hans agenter internt i USA, er kollapset. Nu står aktørerne i dette kupforsøg mod den amerikanske regering – inkl. John Brennan, James Clapper, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton og flere nyligt fyrede FBI-operatører – over for mulige anklager om kriminelle handlinger for det mest åbenlyse forræderi i moderne amerikansk historie, alt sammen på vegne af Det britiske Imperium.

For at gøre det hele værre for den ynkelige, håbefulde »M« og hendes kohorte, har »BoJo«-Labour-leder Jeremy Corbyn, der efter al sandsynlighed ville vinde et valg mod May, hvis det blev afholdt nu, krævet, at May fremlægger beviser (hvis der eksisterer nogen) for den nervegift, der blev brugt i Skripal-angrebet, over for russerne og (ligesom præsident Trump) insisteret på, at forhandlinger med russerne er absolut nødvendigt. I et BBC-interview her til morgen mindede han også landet om de katastrofale resultater af Tony Blairs tidligere forfalskede efterretninger om Iraks masseødelæggelsesvåben.

Og, for lige at banke sømmet dybere ind, så bekræftede talsperson for Det Hvide Hus Sarah Sanders, at nervegiftangrebet i UK slet ikke blev nævnt i telefonsamtalen mellem Trump og Putin!

Det nye paradigme er ved at komme i fokus på globalt plan: ikke alene lykønskede Trump Putin med at vinde seks år mere på posten, men sagde også, at det var godt, at Kina har ophævet begrænsninger af embedsperioder – for, sagde han, Xi Jinping er en storslået leder.

I dag talte Xi Jinping for den afsluttende forsamling i den 13. Nationale Folkekongres og udtrykte tillid til, at den kinesiske foryngelse vil fortsætte og ekspandere, med Kina, der bidrager endnu mere til global regeringsførelse og global udvikling gennem den Nye Silkevej. »Lad solskinnet fra et fællesskab for en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden oplyse verden«, sluttede han.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i dag, at præsidenterne Trump, Putin og Xi viser sandt lederskab for verden, alt imens Det britiske Imperiums desperate handlinger er begyndt at give bagslag. Tidligere har britiske imperieintriger været støttet af svage, amerikanske ledere, der endda stillede sig i spidsen for håndhævelse af britisk politik, som i krigen i Indokina, Irakkrigen og krigen i Libyen, samt i de radikale politikker for det ’frie marked’, som holdt de tidligere koloninationer økonomisk tilbagestående samtidig med at ødelægge de industrialiserede nationer i Europa og Nordamerika.

Men Trump har nægtet at lade sig udnytte af den »særlige relation« og har i stedet fremført, at imperieopdelingen i Øst og Vest skal være forbi. I sin besejring af kupmagerne kan han også gennemføre sit løfte om at vende USA tilbage til det Amerikanske System for fysisk økonomi og opgive den fejlslagne, britiske »frie markedsmodel« til fordel for en dirigeret kreditpolitik i Hamiltons tradition til genopbygning af Amerikas industrielle infrastruktur. Situationen er stadig ekstremt farlig, men aldrig har vi været så tæt på at afslutte selve eksistensen af Imperium, én gang for alle.

Foto: Trump og Putin hilser på hinanden på APEC-topmødets første dag. 10. nov., 2017, De Nang, Vietnam. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LPAC’s featurevideo om Transaqua-projektet:


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

Radio France International citerer EIR’s Claudio Celani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Der er gode udsigter forude; Spræng det bort, som ligger i vejen!

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, USA, 12. marts, 2018 – Netop nu finder der udviklinger sted inden for sikkerhed og økonomi, som giver verden dramatisk gode udsigter, mens der på samme tid stadig er operationer imod menneskeheden, om det så skyldes ondskab eller fej uvidenhed. Tiden er inde til at sprænge det bort, som ligger i vejen.

Der er fortsat fremskridt mht. Nordkorea. I dag og i morgen besøger sydkoreanske topudsendinge Kina, Japan og Rusland med førstehåndsbriefinger fra deres møde i Pyongyang for 10 dage siden, og fra deres møde med præsident Trump den 8. marts, hvor han annoncerede sin aftale om at mødes med den nordkoreanske leder, Kim Jong-un. I dag mødtes præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing med Chung Eui-yong, direktør for Sydkoreas Nationale Sikkerhedsafdeling. Xi takkede for Sydkoreas og det internationale samfunds arbejde og for deres fremtidige indsats. I morgen vil Chung være i Moskva til briefinger; og i Tokyo vil Sydkoreas direktør for National Efterretning briefe premierminister Shinzo Abe.

I dag sagde den sydkoreanske præsident Moon Jae-in, »Vi har nu en dyrebar chance for at atomafruste Koreahalvøen, etablere en permanent fredsorden og bygge en kurs for fælles fremgang for Syd- og Nordkorea. Hvis det lykkes os, vil der komme dramatiske forandringer i verdenshistorien, og Republikken Korea vil have spillet den ledende rolle«.

Den økonomiske sammenhæng for dette initiativ for fred i Østasien og globalt blev fremlagt i denne weekend i Beijing på de To Sessioners konvent (Folkekongressen og det Kinesiske Folks Konference for Politisk Konsultation) af handelsminister Zhong Shan i dennes arbejdsrapport og pressekonference. Han talte om den enorme indvirkning, som Bælte & Vej Initiativet (BVI) har haft, og på hvilket 140 lande har responderet, og især om udsigterne for Afrika. Blandt de særlige punkter, som Zhong fremlagde, var, at BVI nu frembringer en ny, global infrastrukturplatform. Dette vil blive forstærket gennem Kinas Internationale Importudstilling, den første nogensinde, i Shanghai til november. Zhang talte også om, hvordan nye innovationscentre vil blive etableret under BVI, som »skinnende perler« i Silkevejens perlekæde.

I Afrika vil BVI søge overensstemmelse med den Afrikanske Union og regionale multinationale programmer og bidrage til Afrikas evne til selvforstærkende vækst. I mellemtiden bliver der koordinering blandt nationale regeringsministerier, plus private og offentlige tredjepartskilder for resurser til jobskabelse og fattigdomsreduktion. Særlige kinesiske projekter omfatter »Happy Home«, »Anti-fattigdomsprojekterne« og »Sundheds-genrejsnings-projekterne«.

Dette kommer alt sammen på et tidspunkt, hvor præsident Vladimir Putin har opfordret til diskussioner om en ny sikkerhedsarkitektur. De nye, strategiske våben, han annoncerede den 1. marts, repræsenter spring inden for videnskab og teknologi for udvikling, såvel som drabskapacitet, som gør geopolitisk, »begrænset krig« umulig.

Det er en ny æra. Hvem kan modsætte sig forhandlinger om sikkerhed, økonomisk samarbejde og fred? Kun det mest depraverede, undermenneskelige væsen. Et eksempel er de 68 afdankede medlemmer af Obama-administrationen, der dannede deres gruppe »National Security Action« i sidste måned, for at arbejde for at afsætte Trump, verbalt angribe Kina og Rusland og forevige krig og ødelæggelse i demokratiets navn.

»Latterliggørelse« er, hvad de fortjener, anbefalede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag, der ligeledes opfordrede til at sprænge alle de Demokrater, som begår krigsmagervirksomhed, usandfærdighed og elementær inkompetence. »Vi befinder os ved et bemærkelsesværdigt vendepunkt«, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, »og disse mennesker enten reagerer ikke, eller også forsøger de at dække over det«. Det samme gælder deres modparter, de neokonservative Republikanere. Diane Sare, medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, udtrykte det således, »De rørte pulversaften sammen; så drak de den selv«.

Tiden er for længst overskredet for Mueller-operationen til at stoppe, og for Trump til at blive frigjort til at gøre det job, præsidenten blev valgt til at gøre. Der er ingen sikkerhed uden økonomiske aftaler, og vi kan få dette med LaRouches Fire Love og med den transatlantiske sektor, der omsider slutter sig til den Nye Silkevej.

Foto: Mødet mellem den nordkoreanske leder og højtplacerede regeringsfolk og Sydkoreas særlige delegation fandt sted i det Koreanske Arbejderpartis hovedbygning i Pyongyang den 5. marts, 2018. Kilde: KOCIS ( 

Rapport over forundersøgelser til jernbaneforbindelse
til den arktiske korridor næsten klar

Torsdag, 1. marts, 2018 – Til EUObserver sagde vicegeneraldirektør i det finske Transportministeriums afdeling for netværk: »Vi udgiver en foreløbig rapport over forundersøgelserne til jernbaneforbindelsen til det Arktiske Hav (Ishavet) inden for få dage.« EIR fra 2. feb., 2018, rapporterede om den norske havn, der ligger længst mod øst, Kirkenes, som er stedet, hvor de nordlige finske regioner søger at forbinde deres finske arktiske jernbaneprojekt.[1] »Denne jernbane ville være forbundet til Julemandens berømte hjemby, Rovaniemi, i Finland mod syd, som nu er de finske jernbaners nordlige endestation. Det arktiske jernbaneprojekt ville åbne en jernbanetransportforbindelse til et stort minedriftsområde i det nordlige Finland og Sverige, hvis produkter herfra kunne udskibes mod nord til den atlantiske og nordlige søvej, i stedet for via det Baltiske Hav (Østersøen)«, rapporterede EIR.

Skibe kunne losse fragt i Kirkenes, som så kunne transporteres med tog via 500 km jernbanespor, som vil blive lagt fra Norge til Finland, dernæst gennem Finland, videre gennem en tunnel til Estland og dernæst videre sydpå. Tunnelen, der bliver verdens længste, når den er bygget, kommer til at løbe under den Finske Bugts 80 km.

Peter Vesterbacka, en finsk forretningsmand, der nu leder bestræbelserne på at rejse midler til projektet fra kineserne, sagde, »Jeg forventer, at de kinesiske investorer vil dække to tredjedele, alt imens nordeuropæisk pension [sic] sandsynligvis vil dække det meste af resten af €15 mia.«, iflg. EUObservers online-avis. Han sagde også, »Vi ønsker at åbne forbindelsen den 24. dec., 2024.«

Foto: Fragtskibe fra Asien vil losse i Kirkenes eller andetsteds i det nordlige Norge på Ishavets kyster, og således spare tusinder af sømil.

[1] Se EIR, Ulf Sandmark: »China Offers New Silk Road To Northern Europe Through the Arctic Back Door« 

EIR interviewer europæiske og kinesiske
talspersoner for fusionsenergi i København

København, 1. marts, 2018 – I forbindelse med det første europæiske Big Science Forum 2018 i København den 27.-28. feb., fik EIR’s kontor i København mulighed for at få flere betydningsfulde interviews om forskellige facetter af ITER’s tokamak fusionsenergi-projekt (ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), der er under opførelse i Frankrig. ITER-samarbejdet omfatter EU, USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien, Korea og Japan – hvilket svarer til mere end halvdelen af verdens befolkning.

ITER’s mål er at bygge en eksperimental reaktor, der kan opnå Q=10, dvs., at selve reaktoren vil producere ti gange så meget energi som output, i forhold til input-energien, i 2025 (eksklusiv energiforbrug uden for reaktoren), selv om det ikke vil blive forbundet til elektricitetsnettet. Det er det næste skridt i demonstrations-kraftværket, eller DEMO. En vigtig ting, som ITER-tokamakken vil blive brugt til, er at studere en »brændende plasma« – selve plasmas egen evne til at være med til at opvarme reaktionen i tillæg til udefrakommende varmekilder.

Tre af EIR’s interviews er på engelsk: med kommunikationsdirektøren for Fusion for Energy, EU’s gren af projektet; med dr. Luo Delong, generaldirektør for ITER, Kina; og så med en fransk industriel højteknologileverandør af ITER-komponenter.

Big Science Business Forum 2018 var et stort initiativ, som Danmarks Uddannelses- og Forskningsministerium har taget, med det formål at skabe det, LaRouche har kaldt en »videnskabelig drivkraft«; dvs., den videnskabelige forsknings evne til at skabe økonomisk vækst i den overordnede økonomi. Forummet samlede for første gang folk fra hele Europa. Under denne konference blev det muligt for de syv Big Science-institutioner, såsom Fusion for Energy, den Europæiske Rumorganisation (ESA), CERN-acceleratoren, et par andre neutron- og røntgen-acceleratorer, det Europæiske Molekylærbiologiske Laboratorium, det Sydeuropæiske Observatorium, mindre, tilknyttede institutioner i Europa og de high-tech-industrier, som i øjeblikket leverer, eller har potentiale til at kunne levere, komponenter eller ideer, at mødes og udveksle ideer om deres fremtidige investeringsplaner og indgå konkrete aftaler med industrien. Alle var overraskede, da flere end 1.000 mennesker tilmeldte sig arrangementet.

Flere af talerne, der repræsenterede de syv store forskningsinstitutioner, understregede, at menneskelig nysgerrighed, fascination, inspiration og motivering var afgørende for at forfølge stor videnskab og bekræftede således LaRouches centrale idé om, at menneskelig kreativitet er udgangspunktet for videnskab, teknologi, økonomi og vores civilisation som helhed.

Den danske forsknings- og uddannelsesminister Søren Pind indledte sin tale med at sige, at denne konference var »et kig ind i fremtiden«. Portugals Carlos Moedas, EU-kommissær for forskning, videnskab og innovation, sagde, at de tilstedeværende også måtte være politiske – og tale for politikere og vælgere om, hvorfor, det er vigtigt at investere i ’Stor Videnskab’ (Big Science). Som et negativt eksempel nævnte han eksemplet om en accelerator, der skulle have været bygget i Houston, USA, men som fik sit budget beskåret af USA’s Kongres. Fordi den nødvendige politiske vilje ikke eksisterede i USA, blev ekspertisen centreret omkring Europa.

En anden interessant, politisk pointe, som blev rejst af flere af talerne på konferencen, var betydningen af at fortsætte det videnskabelige samarbejde med lande som Rusland, på trods af politiske spændinger.

Ud over de engelsksprogede interviews lavede EIR fire korte, dansksprogede interviews med Big Science Denmark og tre high-tech industrileverandører om den effekt, Big Science har haft på at øge deres teknologiske niveau.

EIR-Danmarks YouTube-kanals Big Science interviews er udlagt på det danske Schiller Instituts website:

Efterfølgende vil nogle af talerne på Big Science Business Forum 2018’s plenarmøde også blive udlagt samme sted.

Foto: EIR’s korrespondent i København Michelle Rasmussen interviewer dr. Luo Delong, generaldirektør for ITER, Kina.   

Putin leverede en meget fremsynet Tale til Nationen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vil italiensk valg og muligt SPD-nej
til stor koalition i Tyskland starte
finanskaos på søndag?
Politisk Orientering 1. marts. 2018
v/ formand Tom Gillesberg

»Velkommen til disse tider, hvor den sibiriske kulde strømmer ind over Europa og, kunne man da håbe på, kunne have den effekt, at folk lige kunne slå lidt koldt vand i blodet og tænke sig om et par gange og måske nogen tilmed kunne få kolde fødder over denne her konfrontationspolitik, som Claus Hjort Frederiksen og andre folk, der bare marcherer i takt til de kommandoer, der kommer ud fra London; at de lige kunne begynde at tænke sig om og sige, vil vi virkelig tage en fuld konfrontation med Rusland og Kina, for, hvis vi vælger a gøre det, så kan det kun ende med én ting, og det er atomkrig og den sandsynlige udryddelse af menneskeheden … Man kan ikke tage en ’let lille krig’ med Rusland eller med Kina, og så slutter det igen; det kan i sagens natur kun blive ved, fordi Rusland og Kina kommer ikke til at kapitulere og blive loyale, vestlige lakajer, det har de gjort klart for lang tid siden. Det har både Xi Jinping og Putin igen og igen signaleret. Senest i dag holdt Putin sin store tale til nationen i Rusland, hvor selvfølgelig, ved siden af alt det andet, hvordan sikrer vi økonomisk fremgang for den russiske befolkning og sørger for, at russerne kan være et glad folkefærd; men med i alt det her var så også en gennemgang af de meget aktive tiltag, man har gang i, inkl. nye typer af atomvåben, for at sikre, at ingen skulle få den tåbelige idé, at man kunne angribe Rusland og slippe af sted med det …«



EIR-interviews om videnskab og industri, inkl. fusionskraft, fra
Big Science Business Forum 2018 i København.
EIR interviews about science and industry, incl. fusion energy, etc. from
Big Science Business Forum 2018 in Copenhagen

København, 1. marts, 2018 – I forbindelse med det første europæiske Big Science Forum 2018 i København den 27.-28. feb., fik EIR’s kontor i København mulighed for at få flere betydningsfulde interviews om forskellige facetter af ITER’s tokamak fusionsenergi-projekt (ITER: International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), der er under opførelse i Frankrig. ITER-samarbejdet omfatter EU, USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien, Korea og Japan – hvilket svarer til mere end halvdelen af verdens befolkning.

ITER’s mål er at bygge en eksperimental reaktor, der kan opnå Q=10, dvs., at selve reaktoren vil producere ti gange så meget energi som output, i forhold til input-energien, i 2025 (eksklusiv energiforbrug uden for reaktoren), selv om det ikke vil blive forbundet til elektricitetsnettet. Det er det næste skridt i demonstrations-kraftværket, eller DEMO. En vigtig ting, som ITER-tokamakken vil blive brugt til, er at studere en »brændende plasma« – selve plasmas egen evne til at være med til at opvarme reaktionen i tillæg til udefrakommende varmekilder.

Tre af EIR’s interviews er på engelsk: med kommunikationsdirektøren for Fusion for Energy, EU’s gren af projektet; med dr. Luo Delong, generaldirektør for ITER, Kina; og så med en fransk industriel højteknologileverandør af ITER-komponenter.

Big Science Business Forum 2018 var et stort initiativ, som Danmarks Uddannelses- og Forskningsministerium har taget, med det formål at skabe det, LaRouche har kaldt en »videnskabelig drivkraft«; dvs., den videnskabelige forsknings evne til at skabe økonomisk vækst i den overordnede økonomi. Forummet samlede for første gang folk fra hele Europa. Under denne konference blev det muligt for de syv Big Science-institutioner, såsom Fusion for Energy, den Europæiske Rumorganisation (ESA), CERN-acceleratoren, et par andre neutron- og røntgen-acceleratorer, det Europæiske Molekylærbiologiske Laboratorium, det Sydeuropæiske Observatorium, mindre, tilknyttede institutioner i Europa og de high-tech-industrier, som i øjeblikket leverer, eller har potentiale til at kunne levere, komponenter eller ideer, at mødes og udveksle ideer om deres fremtidige investeringsplaner og indgå konkrete aftaler med industrien. Alle var overraskede, da flere end 1.000 mennesker tilmeldte sig arrangementet.

Flere af talerne, der repræsenterede de syv store forskningsinstitutioner, understregede, at menneskelig nysgerrighed, fascination, inspiration og motivering var afgørende for at forfølge stor videnskab og bekræftede således LaRouches centrale idé om, at menneskelig kreativitet er udgangspunktet for videnskab, teknologi, økonomi og vores civilisation som helhed.

Den danske forsknings- og uddannelsesminister Søren Pind indledte sin tale med at sige, at denne konference var »et kig ind i fremtiden«. Portugals Carlos Moedas, EU-kommissær for forskning, videnskab og innovation, sagde, at de tilstedeværende også måtte være politiske – og tale for politikere og vælgere om, hvorfor, det er vigtigt at investere i ’Stor Videnskab’ (Big Science). Som et negativt eksempel nævnte han eksemplet om en accelerator, der skulle have været bygget i Houston, USA, men som fik sit budget beskåret af USA’s Kongres. Fordi den nødvendige politiske vilje ikke eksisterede i USA, blev ekspertisen centreret omkring Europa.

En anden interessant, politisk pointe, som blev rejst af flere af talerne på konferencen, var betydningen af at fortsætte det videnskabelige samarbejde med lande som Rusland, på trods af politiske spændinger.

Ud over de engelsksprogede interviews lavede EIR fire korte, dansksprogede interviews med Big Science Denmark og tre high-tech industrileverandører om den effekt, Big Science har haft på at øge deres teknologiske niveau.

EIR-Danmarks YouTube-kanals Big Science interviews er udlagt på det danske Schiller Instituts website:

Efterfølgende vil nogle af talerne på Big Science Business Forum 2018’s plenarmøde også blive udlagt samme sted.

Foto: EIR’s korrespondent i København Michelle Rasmussen interviewer dr. Luo Delong, generaldirektør for ITER, Kina.   


EIR Interviews European and Chinese Fusion Energy Spokesmen in

COPENHAGEN, March 1 (EIRNS) — In connection with the first
European-wide Big Science Business Forum 2018 in Copenhagen on
Feb. 27-28, {EIR}’s Copenhagen bureau was able to get several
important interviews on different facets of the International
Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) tokamak fusion energy
project, under construction in southern France. The ITER
cooperation includes the EU, U.S., Russia, China, India, Korea
and Japan — more than half of the world’s population.
ITER’s goal is to build an experimental reactor which will
achieve Q=10, that is, that the reactor itself will produce 10
times the output of energy input in 2025 (not including energy
use outside of the reactor), though it will not be connected to
the electricity grid. That is the next step in the demonstration
power plant, or DEMO. One important thing the ITER tokamak will
be used for, is to study a “burning plasma,” — the ability of
the plasma itself to help heat the reaction, in addition to
outside heat sources.
Three of the {EIR} interviews are in English: with the
communications director for Fusion for Energy, the EU arm of the
project; with Dr. Luo Delong, the director general for ITER
China; and also with a very high-technology French industrial
supplier of ITER components.
Big Science Business Forum 2018 was a great initiative taken
by the Danish Ministry for Science and Education, to create what
LaRouche has called a “science-driver,” the ability of scientific
research to generate economic growth in the general economy. It
gathered people, for the first time, on a European-wide basis.
During this conference, the seven Big Science institutions, such
as Fusion for Energy, the European Space Agency, the CERN
accelerator, a couple of other neutron and x-ray accelerators,
the European Molecular Biology Laboratory, the European Southern
Observatory, smaller affiliated institutions in Europe, and the
high-tech industries which either currently, or potentially,
supply components or ideas, were able to meet to exchange ideas
about their future investment plans, and make concrete agreements
with industry. Everyone was surprised when over 1,000 people
registered for the event.
Several of the speakers representing the seven big science institutions underlined that human curiosity, fascination, inspiration and motivation were essential for the pursuit of big science, confirming LaRouche’s central idea that human creativity is the starting point for science, technology, economy and our civilization as a whole.
Danish Minister for Science and Education Søren Pind
prefaced his speech by saying that this conference was a “peek
into the future.” Portugal’s Carlos Moedas, EU Commissioner for
Research, Science and Innovation, said that the people in the
room also had to be political — to address politicians and
voters on why it is important to invest in Big Science. As a
negative example, he used the example of an accelerator that was
supposed to have been built in Houston, but which had its funding
cut by the U.S. Congress. Because the necessary political will
did not exist in the United States, the expertise became centered
in Europe.
Another interesting political point brought up by several
speakers during the conference was the importance of continuing
the scientific cooperation with countries such as Russia, despite
the political tensions.
In addition to the English-language interviews, {EIR}
conducted four short Danish-language interviews with Big Science
Denmark, and three high-tech industrial suppliers, about the
effect Big Science has had on raising their technological levels.
All of the EIRDanmark YouTube channel’s Big Science
interviews are also posted to the website of the Schiller
Institute in Denmark:
Some speeches during the Big Science Business Forum 2018’s
plenary session will also be posted there.


EIR (Executive Intelligence Review, Michelle Rasmussen) lavede følgende interviews den 27. februar 2018:

In English:
På engelsk

Fusion for Energy, Stavros Chatzipanagiotou

Fusion and China, ITER China, Luo Delong

Fusion and Industry, CNIM, Jean-Claude Cercassi, French ITER component supplier

På dansk
In Danish:

Big Science Danmark og tre firmaer

Nogle taler fra Plenary Session I:

Fusion for Energy
Richard Cobben, Head of ITER’s Delivery Department

Masseskyderier: Et spejl af nationens moralske pessimisme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baltica Jernbanerute vedtaget; forbinder de tre baltiske stater

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

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

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

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

Kina til Vesten: I stedet for at være
misundelig på Bælte & Vej – Så gå med!

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, USA, 20. feb., 2018 – En artikel i dagens udgave af den kinesiske avis Global Times kommer med den nyttige gentagelse af det, der har været den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinpings konstante budskab til Vesten: Gå sammen med os i Bælte & Vej Initiativet, og alle parter vil vinde!

Global Times’ kronik afviser de endeløse bagvaskelser af Kina for dets rolle i at hjælpe Afrika med at udvikle sig gennem Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som værende »næret af misundelse«. Og artiklen foreslår, at »tiden måske er inde til, at de vestlige lande øger indsatsen« og går med i udviklingen af Afrika – og implicit, i hele verden.

I betragtning af denne indlysende kendsgerning – at alle parter står til at drage fordel af et Nyt Paradigme for samarbejde og fælles udviklingsinitiativer – så klør kvalificerede iagttagere i Kina og andre Bælte & Vej-lande sig i hovedet i vantro over det systemiske, selvmorderiske vanvid, der synes at feje hen over Vesten. Denne, det Gamle Paradigmes manglende evne til at konfrontere virkeligheden, blev udstillet i fuld technicolor på den nylige München Sikkerhedskonference; i de endeløse bagvaskelser imod Rusland og Kina og truslerne om at »begrænse« dem; i de fortsatte krigsprovokationer omkring Syrien og Koreahalvøen; i Tysklands manglende evne til at frembringe en ny, levedygtig regering, og frem for alt, i det britiskkørte Russiagate-cirkus, der fortsætter med at dominere de vestlige medier.

Journalisten Finian Cunningham, der skriver i RT om München Sikkerhedskonferencen, indfangede kernen i det: »At denne overfladiske og spinkle sag [de 13 anklageskrifter for indblanding i valget] af amerikanske politikere bliver holdt frem som en ’krigshandling’ fra Rusland mod USA, er latterligt. Vanvid har i sandhed overtaget den gængse, amerikanske debat.« Cunningham fortsatte, at »mange alternative, rationelle iagttagere i USA og Europa kan se, at Russiagate-narrativen er ved at kollapse som følge af manglende beviser.«

Det er korrekt. Det står klart, at den britiske Mueller-operation er i opløsning, og at den stadig kæmper for at komme sig over den afsløring, som LaRouche-bevægelsen stod i spidsen for med sit Mueller-dossier. Kongresmedlem Devin Nunes, der ikke venter på, at Mueller et al. skal tage initiativet på ny, har netop åbnet en ny flanke: han har udstedt et brev til et dusin eller flere unavngivne, nuværende og tidligere folkevalgte, som instruerer dem til at besvare 10 højst ubehagelige og kompromitterende spørgsmål om, hvornår de kendte til Steele-dossieret, hvem, de cirkulerede det til, og så videre – i modsat fald vil de blive indstævnet til at gøre det.

Men, nyttige, som disse træfninger er, så er de ikke tilstrækkelige. De gør det ikke ud for en vinderstrategi for fuldt og helt at gøre en ende på geopolitik i 2018 og i stedet skabe et Nyt Paradigme, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche gentagne gange har erklæret, må ske. Denne strategi fordrer, at vi vinder en krig om ideer, som modvægt til selve den hypotese, der ligger under den geopolitiske nulsumsspils-verdensanskuelse, med samt dens bestialske menneskebegreb. Det er disse ideer, der har ført os til flere verdenskrige og til den nuværende trussel om en ny, denne gang endegyldig, verdenskrig.

Lyndon LaRouche adresserede denne underliggende, mest fundamentale af alle kampe i sin banebrydende artikel fra juli 1994, »Hvordan Bertrand Russell blev en ond mand«[1], som han skrev for Schiller Instituttets Fidelio-magasin blot få måneder efter sin løsladelse fra fængsel, efter fem års indespærring for hænderne af det samme britiske Mueller-apparat, der nu er rettet mod at få ram på præsident Trump. LaRouche skrev:

»Storbritanniens Lord Bertrand Russell har, uden for enhver tvivl, været den mest onde, offentlige person i det nu udrindende [20.] århundrede … Der er intet væsentligt hos Russell, som ikke er en gentagelse af det, der blev skrevet af [Lord Shelburnes lakaj] grundlæggeren af britisk udenrigs-efterretningstjeneste, Jeremy Bentham, for nu mere end to hundrede år siden …

[Dette er] den britiske, filosofiske radikalisme fra Shelburnes lakajer, og fra Huxley-familien og senere fra Russell. Bertrand Russell var, mens han levede, en raceren venetiansk køter af denne Shelburne-type … Forstå dette, og du forstår, hvem Russell er. Forstå Russell på denne måde, og du vil begynde at forstå de seneste 600 års europæiske historie, og verdenshistorie. Så begynder du at forstå de vigtige træk af det nu udrindende, nuværende århundrede.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche påpegede i dag: »Med denne galskab med Muellergate og Russiagate, med dæmoniseringen af Rusland og Kina, er dette kursen mod Tredje Verdenskrig. Den eneste måde at stoppe det på er gennem et Nyt Paradigme i den måde, mennesker tænker på. Og det er, hvad vi bør diskutere med dem. Vi har løsningen med Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love, som er en bydende hastesag, fordi det næste finanskrak kunne indtræffe, hvornår, det skal være. Og vi må optrappe debatten for, at USA skal gå med i Bælte & Vej Initiativet, ikke kun for at genopbygge infrastrukturen i USA, men for at gøre det, som Global Times i dag sagde: Gøre fælles sag med Kina i Afrika, for at bygge dette kontinent.«

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump deltager i et erhvervsarrangement med præsident Xi Jinping i Folkets Store Hal, 9. nov., 2017, i Beijing, Folkerepublikken Kina. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)


Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika

Glæd dig til en optimistisk og konstruktiv løsning på det forfærdelige fattigdoms- og underudviklingsproblem, som denne verdensdel er så hårdt ramt af, og, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche så ofte har nævnt, den eneste humane og retfærdige løsning på det umenneskelige flygtningeproblem, der nu også har ramt Europa.

Vi introducerer her Schiller Instituttets nye, danske  specialrapport,  “Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika; en vision for en økonomisk renæssance”, som er en grundig  indføring i den 246 sider lange, engelske rapport, af rapportens forfattere, Hussein Askary og Jason Ross.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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


Gæst Paul Gallagher.

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

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

(Her følger engelsk udskrift):

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

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

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

PRESIDENT TRUMP:  Do a combination.

SENATOR BROWN:  It needs real dollars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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










Kina i færd med at skabe fusionsindustri gennem sit arbejde med ITER

30. jan., 2018 – Kina har færdigproduceret en højteknologisk komponent til ITER-tokamakken, og i denne uge er den blevet udskibet til byggepladsen i Frankrig. Hver af partnerne i ITER – USA, Rusland, Europa, Kina, Sydkorea, Japan og Indien – er ansvarlig for en række komponenter til det, der vil blive verdens største tokamak-fusionseksperiment.

I hvert af landene har ITER budt på tekniske udfordringer, især mht. præcision og skala, der har udfordret landenes produktionskapacitet. For Kina repræsenterer dets produktion af de fire dampgeneratorer, der netop er afskibet til Frankrig, og som er bygget ud fra landets avancerede nukleare kapaciteter, evnen til at imødekomme internationale standarder for konstruktion af enheder til fusion. I kommentarer i går til Global Times, forklarede Gui Liming, en ekspert i nuklear sikkerhed ved Tsinghua Universitet, at det faktum, at de kinesiske komponenter har imødekommet standarderne og er blevet accepteret af Europa til ITER, »repræsenterer Kinas udvikling i denne industri«. Han sagde, at »Kinesiske foretagender, der er engageret i produktion af tekniske enheder til kernefusion, er konkurrencedygtige i sammenligning med foretagender i de udviklede lande, inklusive USA.«

Kina anser fusion for ikke alene en videnskabelig udfordring, men som en nødvendig energikilde for fremtiden, der fordrer en fremstillingsindustri i verdensklasse, som de nu er begyndt at udvikle.

Foto: Den Eksperimentale Avancerede Superledende Tokamak (EAST) facilitet i Hefei, Anhui-provinsen i Kina.

Schiller Instituttets Specialrapport:
Introduktion: Forlæng den Nye Silkevej
til Vestasien og Afrika; en vision
for en økonomisk renæssance

Vi introducerer her Schiller Instituttets nye, danske  specialrapport,  “Forlæng den Nye Silkevej til Vestasien og Afrika; en vision for en økonomisk renæssance”, som er en grundig  indføring i den 246 sider lange, engelske rapport, af rapportens forfattere, Hussein Askary og Jason Ross.

Glæd dig til en optimistisk og konstruktiv løsning på det forfærdelige fattigdoms- og underudviklingsproblem, som denne verdensdel er så hårdt ramt af, og, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche så ofte har nævnt, den eneste humane og retfærdige løsning på det umenneskelige flygtningeproblem, der nu også har ramt Europa.

Download (PDF, Unknown)


kandidater til USA’s Midtvejsvalg
2018: Kesha Rogers, Texas

Kesha Rogers annoncerer, at hun stiller op som uafhængig kandidat til Texas’ 9. Kongresdistrikt.


Den 7. december annoncerede Kesha Rogers, medlem af LaRouche Political Action Committee, LPAC, sit kandidatur som uafhængig for Texas’ 9. kongresdistrikt, der i øjeblikket holdes af kongresmedlem Al Green. I en videoerklæring, hvor hun annoncerer sin kampagne, udfordrer Rogers kongresmedlem Greens nylige resolution for Trumps impeachment som spil for galleriet, der intet gør for at adressere de sande behov eller interesser hos befolkningen i det 9. distrikt. I et interview i dag skitserede Rogers hovedelementerne i sin kampagne, som følger:

»Der har ikke været nogen økonomisk opgang i mange af indbyggerne i det 9. distrikts liv, siden finanskrakket i 2008, og mange i distriktet er fortsat fanget i brutal fattigdom, bandevold og narko. På det nationale plan har Wall Street fortsat de samme politikker, der førte til kollapset i 2008, og i hele verden hvisker de informerede bag lukkede døre, at et nyt kollaps er umiddelbart forestående. Vi lider fortsat under, at man forsømmer den nødvendige infrastruktur, der skabte den tragedie, der kendes som Orkanen Harvey. Der er ingen overbevisende vision for fremtiden og de nødvendige videnskabelige og andre former for uddannelse, der må ledsage dette, for vores ungdom.

På den anden side af verden i Kina bliver et helt andet perspektiv for fremtiden virkeliggjort af det store Ét Bælte, én Vej-projekt, det største infrastrukturprojekt, mennesket nogensinde har bygget. Hele nye byer bliver udtænkt og bygget. Højhastighedstog bringer borgerne over store afstande på minimal tid. Vareproduktion finder sted på en moderne platform. Rumforskning er blevet en national prioritet. Og hvad der er vigtigst, så er befolkningen optimistisk med hensyn til fremtiden; nye ideer er genstand for passioneret debat og diskussion. Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har længe forudset dette projekt og ført kampagne for det. Præsident Trump, som kongresmedlem Greene ønsker at afsætte ved en rigsret, udforsker, hvordan USA kan opnå fordel af dette storslåede projekt. For eksempel har Vest Virginia netop fået en investeringspakke på $83,7 mia. som resultat af præsident Trumps forhandlinger med sin ven, præsident Xi Jinping. Houstons borgmester har for nylig også været i Kina for at søge lignende former for investering.

Jeg annoncerer mit kandidatur for Texas’ 9. kongresdistrikt for at bringe lederskab og adressere nødvendige løsninger til de problemer, som ikke alene dette distrikts borgere, men nationen som helhed, står overfor. Mange af jer ved, at dette har været begrundelsen for mine tidligere kampagner og grunden til, at jeg opnåede et betydeligt stemmetal og vandt to primærvalg til Kongressen og fremtvang en 2. valgrunde i en kampagne til USA’s Senat. Jeg stod for det rumprogram, som Obama opgav. Jeg stod for fundamental investering i at bygge fremtidens byer og infrastruktur. Jeg stod for at genintroducere videnskab, klassiske former for musik og kultur og at gøre opdagelser, i vore unge menneskers uddannelse. Jeg stod for at regne ud, hvordan vi skaber en ny, menneskelig renæssance og for at sikre, at alle borgere havde produktive jobs. Der er aktuelt ingen i Washington, der udtaler noget, der tilnærmelsesvis er de løsninger, vi har brug for eller, hvad værre er, de fortsætter med de samme, fejlslagne politikker med endeløse krige, økonomiske bailouts og partiske hårdknuder. Ingen i USA’s Kongres fra nogen af partierne udtaler en positiv vision for USA i verden.

Tiden er kommet til, at nogen træder frem og erklærer, at USA må tilslutte sig det internationale Bælte & Vej Initiativ, der anføres af Kina, og lancere en dristig, ny æra for hurtigt videnskabeligt og kulturelt fremskridt, der atter sætter vort folk i arbejde og opbygger en fremtid, vi kan være stolte af, lige her. Som kongresmedlem vil jeg være placeret til på enestående vis at tage denne kamp til Washington, D.C., og til at sikre, at mine vælgere atter kan være optimistiske og skabe en bedre fremtid. Det er grunden til, at jeg annoncerer mit kandidatur som uafhængig for 9. kongresdistrikt – for at være en fornuftens og optimismens stemme for fremtiden, over de politiske partipamperes skrig og hyl i deres svigt af det amerikanske folk, som der ikke findes noget forsvar for.«

Følg Kesha Rogers her:

Tiden er inde til at forudsige naturkatastrofer og forsvare menneskeheden!

Vi må samarbejde om at forudsige jordskælv og vulkanudbrud; vi må forsvare Jorden mod asteroider og kometer; vi må lære at kontrollere ekstreme vejrfænomener; vi må samarbejde om forsvaret af denne ene menneskehed, vi alle er fælles om.

Af Benjamin L. Deniston

EIR, 10. sept., 2017 – Det sene august og tidlige september har været en omtumlet tid i vores Solsystem. USA, Mexico og Caribien rammes af en række intense orkaner (Harvey, Irma, José og Katia). Forud for disse orkaner udsendte Solen flere eksplosive soludbrud (inklusive den største i over et årti) og afsendte udbrud af plasma direkte mod Jorden, udbrud, der skabte alvorlige, geomagnetiske storme. Ud over orkanerne, blev Mexico rystet af det største jordskælv i over hundrede år – med en styrke på 8,1 og 90 km ud for den sydvestlige kyst.

Disse naturlige begivenheder minder os om menneskehedens sårbarhed over for farerne i vort Solsystem og understreger vor tids strategiske virkelighed: Nationerne må komme sammen for at forsvare Jorden mod disse trusler.

Chiapas-jordskælvet med en styrke på 8,1 har på tragisk vis taget omkring 100 menneskeliv (iflg. tilgængelig information den 10. sept.). Takket være elektriske sensorer og advarselssystemer, fik mange indbyggere en advarsel nogle få tiendedele sekunder, før jordskælvets bølger nåede dem – hvilket gav dem tilstrækkelig med tid til at forlade bygninger eller finde ly. Men hvad, hvis vi kunne udstede advarsler timer, eller endda dage, før store jordskælv indtræffer?

Små grupper af pionérvidenskabsfolk har i årtier helliget sig til at detektere, studere og forstå forvarselssignaler, der fremkommer i timerne, dagene og ugerne før udbruddet af seismiske begivenheder. Disse videnskabsfolk har vist, at forskellige former for elektriske, elektromagnetiske, magnetiske, termiske og andre anomalier og signaler går forud for jordskælv og giver grundlaget for tidlige varslingssystemer, der kunne redde utallige liv.

Én af de ledende pionerer inden for dette område er professor Sergey Pulinets, der har fremlagt sit revolutionerende arbejde for EIR, Schiller Instituttet og LaRouche PAC. Professor Pulinets har samarbejdet med sin kollega, prof. Dimitar Ouzounov, i udviklingen af deres lithosfære-atmosfære-ionosfære koblingsmodel. Denne model forklarer fysikken bag jordskælvs-forvarselssignaler og giver den teoretiske ramme for et tidligt jordskælvsvarslingssystem.

Efter vidtgående undersøgelser og demonstrationer, er deres team nu klar til at bringe dette arbejde til aktiv anvendelse – hvis regeringer er rede til at træde frem og støtte udviklingen af tidlige jordskælvsvarslingssystemer.

I øjeblikket bringer lederskabet af Kina, Rusland, Bælte & Vej Initiativet og BRIKS-partnerskabet verden nærmere til det Nye Paradigme, som Helga og Lyndon LaRouche har forudset. Rent strategisk betyder dette, at disse ledende magter, inklusive dem i Europa og USA, må opgive geopolitiske ambitioner og indlede et strategisk samarbejde for at forsvare Jorden og alle dens indvånere mod udfordringer, der truer hele menneskeheden.

Vi må samarbejde om at forudsige jordskælv og vulkanudbrud; vi må forsvare Jorden mod asteroider og kometer; vi må lære at kontrollere ekstreme vejrfænomener; vi må samarbejde om forsvaret af denne ene menneskehed, vi alle er fælles om.

Denne artikel forekommer som lederartikel i EIR fra 15. sept., 2017.

Foto: Soludbrud kan overvåges mht. deres potentiale for at forårsage alvorlige, geomagnetiske begivenheder. Her er en masseudsendelse i koronaen i færd med at sætte af fra Solen. I denne kunstners gengivelse ses Jorden og dens magnetosfæres feltlinjer til højre.(NASA/ESA)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift:

I think you’ll find it fascinating

reflecting on what has happened in the past five years between

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

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

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

This is the vision that leadership, that statesman-like

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

how history is formed.



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

Now, George Washington, President George Washington and

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

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

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

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

the legal process, that we could eliminate the possibility of

these two kinds of Presidents.

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

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

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

we have to have parties intervening in between the process of

selecting Presidential leadership in national government?  Why do

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

agreement among themselves, to create the composition of a

national government!  These things are obscenities, which leaders

of our nation, beginning from the George Washington

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

European kind of government, which is inherently corrupt — by

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

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

know any better!}

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

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

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

Constitution.  We have local governments, within state

governments, under our Constitution.  We have bodies which the

nation creates, to perform functions of the Federal government,

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

They don’t do any damned good!

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

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

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

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

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

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

composition and other local compositions playing their role.

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

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

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

want people diverting the attention of the population, from the

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

where the problem lies!

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

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

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

foolish voters, who now are concerned about voting for the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by financial interests which control the money which gives one

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

selection of its government, its national government, is

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

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


And why should we be spending our time, selecting a

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

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

the way that George Washington, for example, President George

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of the nation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the Andrew Jackson Presidency, one of the most corrupt

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

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

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

Andrew Jackson was a tool of British imperial bankers:  They

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

system, that this could happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

problem lies.

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

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

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

football, baseball, whatever — gambling!  Racketeering,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

right.  [applause]

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

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

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

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

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

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

here, right now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

way:  Glass-Steagall.

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

become increasingly popular, in England, in the continent of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

cancelled.  That means these banks can still have their banking

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

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

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

government is not responsible for this.”

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

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

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

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

but… things like that.

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

Europe, and starting in England and other countries in Europe

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

necessary alternative.  And these guys are having a terrible

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

will do it.

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

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

hyperinflationary debt, which is really beyond even dreaming.  So

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

been systematically destroyed.  Especially since the last three

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

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

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

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

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

immediately, a couple million more highly skilled categories of

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

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

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

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

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

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

banking system, so that under national banking and Federal

government approval, we can conduit credit into creating these


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

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

be cancelled, and the Obama Administration is doing everything

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

destroy food, for fuels.

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

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

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

various phases of this process, which will immediately charge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

when you have very few people who are actually involved in

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

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

not particularly productive, and do not lend any productive value

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

or the other.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

actually productive forms of employment!  Physically productive

forms of employment.

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

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

organization of production in the Central and Western States of

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

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

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

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

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

kind of credit system under a Glass-Steagall type government

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

restart the economy.  And that can be done.

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

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

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

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

and how much their desperation is moderated by the sense of

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

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

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

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

actually rationally, and truly represent {the will of human

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

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

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

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

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

has any comprehension, any qualifications for comprehension of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

need their cooperation in doing that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidency of the United States as was done in establishing the

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

President, and we use our system of government, our

constitutional system of government, we can solve this problem.

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

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

people to follow the direction, and choose to follow the


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

convincing them, this has to be done.

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

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

within which mankind can continue to live safely under the system

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

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

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

going to be {most unpleasant} on this planet!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

convince people.

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

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

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

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

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

minority in society, and with other minorities in society which

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

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

And in particular, get them immediately to understand, that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the kind of fraud that it has always been!

We should have a system of representative government, in

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

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

provide the ideas and the leadership which is needed for the

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

Thank you.  [ovation]  [END VIDEO]


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

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

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

make that available for you.

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

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

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

state of dire economic emergency, perhaps even having gotten

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

in terms of its implementation.

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

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

the two establishment parties — what was the Democratic Party

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

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

century when the two established parties at that time nearly

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

greatest President of our entire history, Abraham Lincoln,


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

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

importance of the leadership of that small minority which he was

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

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

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

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

minority of intellectual leaders, and society as a whole invests

their trust in those whom they are confident have their best

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

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

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

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

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

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

republic such as ours.

Now, speaking of a republic, as my colleague Benjamin

Deniston noted in his {Festschrift} contribution to Mr.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

wish him many more.

Thank you very much for tuning in to this special broadcast

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

entirety. Thank you and good night.