12. december 2015 – I løbet af det seneste døgn har kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard optrådt på TV og i radio og talt imod Bush/Obama-politikken for regimeskift, der netop nu er i gang imod Syriens præsident Assad. På National Public Radio (NPR) her til morgen konkluderede Gabbard: »Hvis Assads syriske regering bliver væltet, vil ISIS og al-Qaeda og disse andre grupper tage magten i hele Syrien og skabe en endnu større humanitær krise, så de mennesker, der er flygtet fra Syrien, fortsat ikke vil have noget hjem der. De vil forsat ikke se nogen fred og stabilitet, og truslen mod resten af verden vil være endnu større.«

Gabbard tilbageviste værten Steve Simons linje om, at syrere skulle være flygtet ud af deres land for at undfly Assad, hvilket er den linje, som forfølges af London/Team Obama. Hun sagde: »Hvis vi ser på tidslinjen, så begyndte folk at forlade – folk begyndte at forlade landet, da borgerkrigen gik i gang. Og meget af dette er blevet drevet af den finansiering, udstyring og bevæbning, som er udført af lande som USA, Saudi Arabien, Qatar og Tyrkiet. Og det har været, og er fortsat, en meget grim borgerkrig, hvilket er en af grundene til, at jeg er fortaler for at standse og afslutte denne borgerkrig, så vi kan fokusere vore ressourcer omkring overvindelsen af ISIS.«

I går aftes, på Fox TV News’ program med Greta van Susteren, afviste Gabbard spørgsmålet om, at Assad-regeringen skulle købe ISIS-olie på det sorte marked, som en afledningsmanøvre. »Det er vigtigt at huske på, hvem, der er vores fjende.« Hun sagde, man skulle se tilbage på San Bernadino, på hvem det var, der fløj flyene ind i tvillingetårnene, samt andre terrorhandlinger. Disse mennesker var ikke kæmpere på mission fra den syriske præsident Assad! Gabbard, der er veteran fra Irakkrigen og har rank af major i Hawaiis Nationalgarde, gentog, at vi præcist ved, hvem disse mennesker er – al-Qaeda, al-Nusra og ISIS. Med hensyn til påstandene om, at Syrien skulle købe olie fra ISIS, sagde hun, at »de rapporter, der kommer frem, er et gennemskueligt forsøg på at aflede kritik bort fra Tyrkiet«, som er et hovedtransitsted for salg af ISIS-olien. Erdogans søn og svigersøn profiterer af det. Faktum er, at, hvad enten Syrien køber noget olie eller ej, så har det minimal virkning i sammenligning med Tyrkiets åbne grænse med Syrien, som giver mulighed for, at udenlandske kæmpere, våben, ammunition, penge og olie kommer ind i terroristgrupper.

10. december, 2015 – Den tidligere leder af det amerikanske forsvars efterretningstjeneste (Defense Intelligence Agency), den bramfri generalløjtnant Michael Flynn, var blandt hovedtalerne ved en RT–konference (Russia Today) i Moskva i torsdags, hvor han understregede behovet for et samarbejde mellem USA, Rusland og andre lande med henblik på at besejre Islamisk Stat.

Konferencen højtideligholdt 10-årsdagen for grundlæggelsen af RT som Ruslands internationale nyheds-Tv-station. RT har over samme tidsrum opbygget et publikum på 700 millioner mennesker til dets engelsk-, spansk- og arabisksprogede udsendelser, som det blev bemærket af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin i hans lykønsknings-budskab til konferencen.

Gen. Flynns deltagelse i konferencen sendte i sig selv et budskab om, at seriøse personer i USA’s og Ruslands regeringsinstitutioner har planer om at etablere, som deres fælles sag, besejringen af et internationalt terror-apparat, der i henhold til gen. Flynns estimat sandsynligvis tæller 30.000 plus udenlandske krigere fra 80 forskellige lande i sine syriske og irakiske rækker.

I et interview med RT i forbindelse med konferencen sagde Flynn, at ”Jeg står i et forum sammen med russisk TV, helt ærligt, for at stå frem og sige til verden: ’Hør her, vi er nødt til at gøre mere som internationalt samfund’” for at besejre denne fjende, ”og vi er nødt til at have en følelse af en påtrængende nødvendighed”. Han opfordrede russerne og amerikanerne til at finde ud af at tilpasse deres strategier og angav nogle af sine egne tanker om, hvad det indebærer.

Islamisk Stat er vokset ud over blot at være en regional trussel; det er en global trussel, som vi har set det i Paris og San Bernadino i Californien, understregede Flynn. Ligesom der også har været direkte trusler inden for Ruslands grænser.

”Jeg tror, at små ting, såsom at dele efterretninger, arbejde sammen, at få hinanden indenfor i vore respektive operationscentre, kan skabe en begyndende forståelse for, hvor de militære muligheder ligger – men vi er også nødt til at have nogle andre strategiske målsætninger, der i praksis virker gensidigt understøttende”, sagde Flynn.

Af konferencens øvrige internationale deltagere, hvis præsentationer endnu ikke er nedfældet, kan nævnes den tidligere tjekkiske vicepremier- og udenrigsminister Cyril Svoboda; samt den ”tyske statsmand og forhenværende vicepræsident for OSCE, Willy Wimmer”.

Lyndon LaRouche: Men pointen her er altid, at menneskeslægten ikke er en (automatisk) selvudviklende personlighed. Menneskehedens skæbne er forbedring af menneskets evner, i den betydning, at mennesket kan forudse menneskehedens evner til at opnå virkninger, som menneskeheden ellers ikke ville være i stand til at præstere. Dette er noget, der går op til et højere niveau end det, vi tænker på som givne kendsgerninger, eller givne former for kendsgerninger.

Alt, hvad der et vigtigt omkring menneskeheden, kan reduceres til kravet om, at menneskeheden må udvikles til et højere niveau af selvudvikling. Menneskeheden skaber ikke selvudvikling, men menneskeheden kilder potentialet for selvudvikling. Og det er, hvad vi kalder opdagelsen af kreativitet. Og det bedste eksempel på dette, det enkle tilfælde på dette, er Einstein. Einstein gjorde præcist, hvad der måtte gøres: At opdage, hvad fremtiden er, at opdage, hvad menneskehedens muligheder er, for at virkeliggøre intet mindre end noget bedre, som kan forstås i denne sammenhæng. Det er, hvad Brunelleschi gjorde. Det er sådan, det fungerer, og det er den eneste måde, det faktisk virker på tilfredsstillende måde.

Med andre ord, så kommer menneskeheden ikke og siger, »Jeg er et stort geni«. Kommer frem og siger, »Jeg er et stort geni«. Hvad betyder det? Ved hvilken standard opdager man, hvad dette såkaldte geni er? Man ser på Einstein, og man ser på hans største række af udviklinger, og man ser det samme. Man ser det samme tidligere, i Brunelleschis arbejde. Det er alt sammen det samme. Det er begrebet om menneskehedens udødelighed, at altid gå op til et højere niveau af kreativitet, ikke inden for den eksisterende opfattelse af menneskeheden, men i en opfattelse ud over, for mennesket, ud over menneskehedens tilegnede kundskaber, på det tidspunkt.

Det er fremtiden, skabelsen af fremtiden på et højere niveau. Dette kommer ikke fra mennesket selv. Det kommer fra menneskehedens skæbne som en agent for opdagelse, der når op på et højere niveau end menneskeheden nogen sinde før har nået.

——————-

Redaktionens bemærkning: Dagens leder fra LaRouche-bevægelsen er hele Lyndon LaRouches Manhattan-diskussion fra lørdag, den 12. december. Vi har desværre ikke kapacitet til at oversætte det hele til dansk, men anbefaler kraftigt, at man læser/hører hele diskussionen, der omhandler LaRouches pointering af unikke, videnskabelige opdagelser, viljemæssigt udført af enkelte individer, som det bærende element i de periodevise revolutioner, der fører den menneskelige kultur fremad til et højere niveau, og altså ikke er noget, der ’sker af sig selv’ som følge af en forud fastlagt ’evolution’. God fornøjelse! (-red.)

——————

Lyndon LaRouche Dialogue with the Manhattan Project, Saturday, December 12, 2015

HUMAN CREATIVE COMPOSITION: ALEXANDER HAMILTON’S MANHATTAN,

BRUNELLESCHI’S DANCING ROPE BRIDGE, AND VERDI’S TUNING IN MUSIC

DENNIS SPEED:  My name is Dennis Speed and on behalf of the
LaRouche Political Action Committee I’d like to welcome you to
today’s meeting.  I believe this is the 27th meeting, but I want
to say this:
Lyn, everybody today, has or has access at least, on the
table in the back, to an {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine
simply entitled “Brunelleschi.”  Now, our Manhattan Project is
over the next week going to go into a new phase, and the music
will be leading that.  And that musical process, which will reach
a certain level, particularly over next Friday, next Saturday,
and Sunday, has already been started here today, by what Diane
just did, especially her last reference to the question of the
Solar System being inside one’s head.
So Lyn, I’d like you to do something today which I’m
requesting, which is an opening statement which takes us past the
noise of the Barack Obama apologizers of this week, such as
Donald Trump and others; and puts us on a different plane so we
can consider this concept you’ve put forward about the unity of
the nation, and the need for people, good people, be they
Republican, Democrat, Independent, or other, to come together and
accomplish what you’ve outlined can be done, which is the
immediate removal of Barack Obama from office, and the immediate
defeat of Wall Street, but by use of these methods that you had
uniquely pioneered. And the Brunelleschi {EIR} just brought this
to my mind.  So I know I don’t usually do that, but I’d like to
ask you for an opening statement, and then we go to Q&A.

LYNDON LAROUCHE:  Yes, I think the important thing that is
for us to consider, is what was actually accomplished with
Nicholas of Cusa, but prior to Nicholas of Cusa, and what
preceded that.  And therefore, once you place your ideas of
judgment in that category, suddenly you find yourself in sort of
a happy state of mind, that you are sure that you’re on the right
ground, you realize that there’s creativity.  And you go through
the Brunelleschi series entirely.  And Brunelleschi is a very
complex question for people to deal with, who are particularly
{ingénues}, because they don’t understand it.
But in the time of Brunelleschi’s leadership, he was {really
a master} in this area.  And that was something on which the
foundation, of modern civilization, has depended, on the great
achievements of Brunelleschi.  And everything else followed from
that.
But that’s a whole story in itself.  It’s something, we’ve
just gone through a choral practice, and the idea of a choral
practice, which you’ve just been doing again, on this afternoon,
and what we do in society in general, are one and the same thing.
There has to be a harmonic agreement which is not simply singing
notes one after the other, but going with the idea that
everything you’ve done up to a certain point, requires that you
make an innovation to the next note; and then to make another
one, again, an innovation to the next note.  And that’s exactly
what Brunelleschi did. And the best illustration, is he composed
or constructed, a harmonic chorus, which was {totally beautiful
music, itself},  absolutely beautiful, in his composition, in
this small area, that he occupied for this subject-matter.  And
this thing set a standard for all wise people, to look up and see
something beautiful.

SPEED:  Thank you, Lyn.  He’s referring to the Pazzi Chapel,
I believe.
And I’d like to have us go to the first question, which is
here.

Q:  My name is J–W–.  And I love that we’re doing notes,
and starting on notes, because my gosh, we’ve got some crazy
notes going on in politics — like Trump and Hillary Clinton.  So
who, as a bipartisan coalition, would you see helpful to bringing
some harmony in our country?

LAROUCHE:  I think, the point is, why not go from, beginning
with Brunelleschi; And Brunelleschi was actually the founder of
modern science, in many ways.  He did everything, everything
imaginable.  The list of his accomplishments is immense.  But his
building of the Florence Cathedral, that particular construction,
which anyone can see these days, still, this was a magical
development, and it reflects his mind.
And what the small occasion that he struck there, in that
little temple kind of place the Pazzi Chapel, musical temple, is
one of the most beautiful little things ever produced, and it
sets the standards for all kinds of beautiful things, in poetry,
music, and so forth, in general.  And so he is one of the great
geniuses who brought the future of mankind into possibility.

Q: [follow-up]  In our bipartisan coalition that we would
like to see happen in this country, do you see any particular
individual that we could anchor in on, and get some better music
notation?

LAROUCHE:  Well, in terms of my own experience, I search for
these kinds of opportunities.  And by that I mean, when I’m
dealing with something, I don’t like to do something I think is
shabby, or dull, either one.  And therefore I think my impulses
always are, to get some element of beauty, that is, but beauty in
the true sense, not beauty as some kind of construction.  But
when you just try to do the things that you think are the next
things which should happen, which is what Brunelleschi did, in
his practice, If you go back his history.  We’re doing this now,
it’s a big story.
But what he did, he set up whole systems.  Like this idea
that of a rope, if you take a rope and you pull a rope across the
stream, and the rope has a flexibility in it. So the people who
are walking across this rope, from one shore to the other; and
this one of the famous things of Brunelleschi, and his treatment
of “yes, no; yes, no; yes, no,” and so forth, was a typical part
of his whole mental life.  And he used this to induce people, how
to trust a rope system, as you walk as a human being across the
rope, from one shore to the next.  And people were doing that.
In Italy up to the recent time, this thing of the Rope Song, was
a very common feature of the culture.
In other words, you imagine you had two points across a
river.  You create a flexible structure, of the type Brunelleschi
himself made, developed, designed.  And you walk across the
thing, and you find that the rope dances.  And in order to cross
the river, you must dance, in a sense, across the rope.  When you
move on the rope, you change the direction of the rope, in terms
of the walking; and you can think that backwards and forwards,
and that’s what the Italian standard was.  And people up to the
present, or recent time, at least, remembered that song, about
the dancing rope.  Because there’s two points; you have one rope,
with a slack in it, and you’re going to use the slack as like a
piece of music.  So you step on the rope;  now when you make the
next step, you’re going to a different point in the crossing of
the rope.  The effect is that the rope effectively dances,
according to your steps of moving in one direction or the other.
And this is typical of the concept of construction, which
Brunelleschi represented.
And up to recent times, people used to sing that song, of
the Rope Song, created by Brunelleschi.  And this one of the
principal methods of demonstration, of what he was trying to
convey, to the minds of the people who were actually using that
rope to cross a stream.  And that’s still a valid thing today, as
even in my youth, or a little bit later, I was part, you know,
you would sit there and you were thinking, you were thinking the
dancing rope; but just imagining that you were walking from one
step to the next in either direction, in terms of passing over
that rope.  And this idea created an idea in the mind of the
people who were walking across this rope, from one point of
departure to point of arrival.  And this was an Italian theme,
which dominated everything since Brunelleschi, up to a recent
time, of the dancing rope.

Q: [follow-up]  How can we apply that to our bipartisan
issue here, politically, with Trump and Hillary Clinton, and how
can we…?

LAROUCHE:  Very easily, just do it.  The way to do it is,
you go backwards.  What you do is, you construct the experiment.
Now, Brunelleschi did a lot of that.  Everything that he did,
including the whole development of the chapel that he created, he
did everything that way.  And so therefore, everything worked.
He built the whole structure of the tower was based on
creating a shell which had a space, a shell within a shell.  And
I and my wife Helga walked up that system, inside the shell.  You
have also in the Italian music records, the same thing, you have
the choral presentation there.  It was all there.  It’s still all
there.
The problem is, you don’t have a population today which has
that sense of experience.  And the best thing we can do, is to
take Brunelleschi’s old work, including the tower that he built;
and that will give you an education, because you are forced to
follow a certain ropes, with values.  And you realize that your
music is the way the rope moves when you walk across it.  And by
designing that thing as what you can do in music, is the same
thing.  You can change the character of the rope, and that will
change the tune of the walking of the rope, across the stream.

Q: [follow-up] Sounds good to me.  Thank you very much!
[applause]

Q:  Okay Mr. LaRouche, it’s a pleasure to actually be here,
actually meet with you, and not to mention that singer-songwriter
Mariah Carey will perform here at the Beacon Theater tonight.
And so it’s a pretty wonderful experience, you know, to learn
more of the notes that take you back to high school, with the
music notes that we just pronounced here.
Basically, my name is C–J–, and I’m actually an owner of a
law firm.  And so basically my primary concern is, basically on
regards of Barack Obama, our President, who is supposedly in
violation of the 25th Amendment.  So I wanted to know, basically
in order to require more of my students, and to teach more of my
law students in more with regards to the 25th Amendment; and as
far as the Congress, who, as far as not producing any functioning
or producing any reins, on his behalf as far as not contributing
to him violating the 25th Amendment, and as far as them not per
se doing anything in regards of him moving in directions away
from Constitution, or violating the Constitution.  What do you
think on that?

LAROUCHE:  I looked, as to Obama’s function, was the
beginning of his career.  And I looked quickly at what he was up
to.  I had a large core group was gathered around me on this
business.  And I launched the identification of what Obama meant,
and before the end of the week, I had Obama’s number.  And my
justness on his number was never lessened; I was right from the
beginning.  {He only became worse.}
And if we want to have a civilization, you must remove any
leadership, which corresponds to that of Obama. He is identical
with the idea of a Satanic mentality. I think there are certain
Roman emperors, Nero, for example, who would fit exactly what
Obama represents today.

Q: [follow-up]  Definitely. So do you think that him and the
British Crown are affiliated with each other, as far as
coinciding with each other?

LAROUCHE: They’re identical. The Roman legacy, that is the
ancient Roman legacy, is still the foundation of the British
System.

Q: [follow-up]  Definitely.

LAROUCHE: It’s evil.

Q: [follow-up]  So, what do you think as far as Congress?
And what is their functional role because of him violating the
25th Amendment to the Constitution?

LAROUCHE: It’s obvious. Mankind has to create. Mankind is
not something that is going to be fixed. This is stupid, the way
it’s done. And the ignorance with which people approach the
subject, by habit, by induced habit, is really very destructive.
Because mankind is not a self-determining creature. Mankind
is a response to the potential of not only the Solar System, but
the Galactic System. Now, here mankind is actually, from our own
experience, mankind has progressed in understanding itself by
educating themselves to get these ideas of physical principles,
or what is the effect of physical principles, and to recognize,
that that is the natural tendency. And when you study the
Galactic System as such, and the Galactic System is a very large
and varied system.  It’s an immense thing. We have very limited
actual knowledge of the scope of that principle.
But what we find out, is we find out we can adduce the
destiny of mankind from the standpoint of things like the
Galactic System. But the Galactic System is only {one part} of a
larger system, which is the whole system of the Solar System and
beyond. And so, therefore, mankind, must come to an agreement
with that objective.  And you get that with Kepler, Kepler is a
big change in the system, his accomplishments. Then you go to
another layer, a higher layer of discovery. From Einstein, for
example. Einstein is one of the greatest models for introducing
the concept of what the human mind is properly directed to do.
And we have {not} explored this thing fully. We just know
that mankind is not the stupidity of a single human being. No
single human being, per se, is adequate to be a human being.
Mankind must always, be moving in a direction which goes to
mastering challenges, as Einstein did, in his time; is to find a
creative pathway, to a higher level than mankind has ever known
before.
So mankind is not {sui generis}. Mankind is not something
which creates a Solar System per se, but rather mankind adapts to
the opportunity of the Solar System and beyond; and mankind is
not a self-contained creature. Mankind is a guided creature,
which is guided by the heavenly powers, so to speak; those
heavenly powers which are way beyond anything mankind had known
before. {But}, the crucial thing, if you follow that pathway of
improvements, you are acting in {harmony} with mankind’s destiny.

Q: [follow-up]  I think it’s well said. I very much
appreciate it, Mr. LaRouche. Thank you.

Q: Hi, Mr. LaRouche, my name is C–. I’ve been looking into
Brunelleschi, ever since you mentioned the triad, with
Brunelleschi, Cusa, and Kepler.  And one of the things that stood
out to me when I was looking into the subject, —  you know, with
arches, an arch structure is not stable until you put that last
centerpiece, the keystone. And with domes that were built in that
time they needed the centering, and they were only stable when
the keystone was put in place.
With Brunelleschi’s dome, it never required any of that.  It
was self-standing throughout the entire process.  And there was a
contemporary during that time who described that, because he grew
up watching Brunelleschi do this incredible thing, and he
described it such that the catenary effect allowed for every
brick to be a keystone. I was wondering if you could maybe
elaborate on that?

LAROUCHE: Simply, this is something which I’m very familiar
with. I’ve spent a good deal of time particularly in Italy, when
I was working in that area with some of the people, the Italians
who were gifted Italians at that point; and with their whole
system. And this is something which is natural.
But the point here always is, that mankind is not a
self-developing personality. Mankind has a destiny of
improvement, of man’s powers in terms, that mankind is able to
foresee the powers of mankind, to achieve effects which mankind
would not otherwise be able to accomplish. This is something
which goes to a higher level than what we think of as given facts
or given kinds of facts.
Everything important about mankind can be reduced to the
requirement that mankind {must} develop to a higher level of
self-development. Mankind does not create self-development, but
mankind tickles the potential of self-development. And that’s
what we call the discovery of creativity. And the best example of
that, the simple case of that, is Einstein. Einstein did exactly
what has to be done: To discover what the future is, to discover
what mankind’s options are, to realize nothing less than
something better which you can understand in those terms.  That’s
what Brunelleschi did. That’s the way it works, and that’s the
{only} way it really works satisfactorily.
In other words, mankind does not come out and say, “I’m a
great genius.” And walk out and say, “I’m a great genius.”  What
does that mean? What’s the standard by which you discover what
this so-called alleged genius is? And you look at Einstein, and
you look at his major series of developments, and you see the
same thing. You’ll see the same thing {earlier}, in the work of
Brunelleschi. It’s all the same thing. It’s the immortal
conception of mankind, to always go to a higher level of
creativity, not within the opinion of the existing mankind, but
of a comprehension beyond, for man, beyond mankind’s accessed
knowledge, then.
It’s the future, the creation of the future to a higher
level. This does not come from man itself. It comes from the
destiny of mankind, as a discovering agency, which reaches a
higher level than mankind has ever reached before.

Q: Hi Mr. LaRouche, I’m R– from Bergen County, New Jersey.
I apologize if I am a little bit disorganized today.  But it was
last night that I came across Jeff Steinberg’s excellent
presentation last night [in the Friday Webcast], and an article
from LPAC brought my attention to a new development in the
Congress called H.Res.198, submitted by Mr. Yoho.  And to me, I
would like to get your thoughts on this, but to me this is an
extremely interesting development, where the purpose of the
resolution is to define impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors.
Without reading a lot of it, it says that:  “The absence of
impeachment standards creates an appearance that [as read]
impeachment is a partisan exercise, which undermines its
legitimacy and deters its use; and whereas the impeachment power
in the House of Representatives is a cornerstone safeguard
against Presidential tyranny…” etc. And then they go through
and define the Presidential impeachable offenses, and it’s pretty
amazing when you read down the list, because there’s nothing in
the list that hasn’t been violated numerous times, by the last
two Presidents.  For example, initiating war without
Congressional approval, killing American citizens, failing to
superintend subordinates guilty of chronic Constitutional abuses
— the list goes on and on and on.  You can read through it and
see, there are probably hundreds of instances, in which all of
these conditions have been violated by the last two Presidents.
But it raised to me, the question of why has Congress held
back?  I mean, it looks to me like there is some kind of emerging
consensus, in some sense coming into existence, which is
reflected by this H.Res.198.  But I went back and re-read the
Preamble to the Constitution, and I asked myself, has Congress
actually defended any of these conditions in the Preamble to the
Constitution? “In order to form a more perfect Union.” Has
Congress helped to form a more perfect union? I don’t think so.
“Establish justice?” Have they been defending justice?  Not with
regard to Wall Street, for example. “Ensure domestic tranquility”
—  we’re not seeing a heck of a lot of domestic tranquility
these days. “Provide for the common defense?” are they doing that
with the rise of ISIS? “Promoting the General Welfare?” Well,
they sure as heck have {not} done that. “Securing the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity?”
Bottom line is, it looks like Congress over the last 15
years has done nothing to defend the Preamble to the
Constitution.
So my question to you is, according to the Constitution,
does the Congress have the obligation to meet the requirements of
the Preamble, or is that an option for them?
Beyond that, it looks like, if these diverse elements, come
into the existence in the Congress, as reflected by Yoho’s House
resolution, it seems that LPAC, in that case, plays an essential
and very important and historic role in being a catalyst to bring
those elements together, to force these issues to be confronted.

LAROUCHE: Let’s take the case of Thomas Jefferson. Thomas
Jefferson was the force of evil working against the foundation of
the United States. And since that time, there have been a great
number of Presidents of the United States, who have, like
Jefferson, maintained a commitment to this evil, or relative
evil, at least. And this has been the dominant feature among the
Presidencies of the United States; and by the local states in
particular. The Southern states in general are hopelessly
degenerate in these questions.
And the very best of our Presidential system of recent
vintage, is a number of Presidents, who typify the effort, to
bring about — .  But then you find out that the President of the
United States, while Franklin Roosevelt seemed to be a great
genius, but when the new election came, he was replaced by the
FBI, the development of the FBI. Once the FBI was set into
motion, the corruption of the United States was, consistently,
but irregularly, going in a direction: {downward, downward,
downward, downward.}
Now therefore, in this situation, we have to operate on the
basis, of understanding a universal principle which was already
grafted, in at least its raw essence, by the founding of the
United States.  And what you have from our great first leadership
of this thing, which led to bringing of the Washington
institution as a President, from that point on, was being savaged
in one degree or another, ever since.
Now, if we understand what the original principle was, and
understand the measures by which you can test the principle,
that’s the only solution that we have.  We have to go back to the
original Constitution of Alexander Hamilton, in particular.
Hamilton had the most precise insight into what these principles
meant.  Like the four first measures on economics.  And if you
look at his four cases, and apply that, that would be sufficient
to demonstrate what the inconsistency is of most practices since
that time from more or less evil, or just stupidity.
So the point is, if we understand that principle, we have a
guide to clean up this mess.  Now, of course, Obama we have to
get rid of entirely; the Bushes–you have to burn the Bushes.
God says burn the Bushes.  Get these Bushes burned out and {clean
it up}.  And we need to have a Presidency which finally says, no,
{we are not going to go one step further, in this kind of
monstrous behavior, which we have been doing as a nation up and
down in various ways, during the best of time.}
We’ve come to a point of crisis, and it’s a crisis which
deals with the question of the United States and other nations of
the planet as a whole.  We have to bring a new condition among
nations.  We’re working on a fight on this for China; we’re
trying to rebuild India’s prospects; we’re looking at efforts in
Japan;  we’re looking at new canal systems, which are major canal
systems, and all kinds of things.  We’re also working on
recognizing that mankind, is not a creature limited to the Earth
as such–that we also have to respond, to what are the
implications of the Earth existing within this system, including
the aquatic system, like the Galactic System.  And these are
factors which mankind must take into account.
The most efficient example is that of Einstein.  Now
Einstein was absolutely unique, among all the people of his time,
absolutely unique.  It was the time in the 20th century, when the
20th century was going through a process of early disintegration
and degeneration; and it’s been going more and more deep into
degeneration ever since.  So we have to stop the process of
degeneration, which has been given to us, by recent authority,
since Franklin Roosevelt’s birth.  And we have to {exactly} put
into a new conception of mankind, which is a knowledgeable accord
with what mankind should be.  It’s not a perfect one, but it’s a
knowledgeably sound one, which will lead hopefully, to more and
more improvements of man’s role inside the Solar System, inside
the Galactic System, and beyond.  We have to discover the mystery
of what the purpose of the existence of mankind is in the
universe, and follow that pathway.

Q:  Hi Mr. LaRouche.  [E–B–] I would like to ask you, if
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Senator from Vermont, becomes the
Democratic Party nominee for President, would you be able to
support him?  Would you be able to work together with him, if he
becomes President?
He is saying that we must bring back Glass-Steagall, and
that we must divide the wealth of the nation evenly.  He’s
against the rich corporations getting away with the tax loopholes
and not paying any taxes at all or very little taxes.  And
Senator Sanders is for the working class families and for the
middle class.  So I’m just wondering, do you think he would make
a good President?  Would you be able to work together with him
and advise him?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely not! Absolutely not. He’s a fraud.
We’ve got another candidate up there, who is much capable,
and much more intelligent, who is also hesitating on the edge on
this thing.  But the problem is that we don’t have any prospect,
a functional prospect, to create a new Presidency.  Now we could
create that.  And I’m aware of means by which we could create
that, with the existing institutions of government, that is the
foundations of our Constitution.  And I think O’Malley would be a
more likely candidate than anyone else on the screen right now.
There are other people–you know, I’ve supported Ronald
Reagan; I was actually a part of his team, for a time. And then
they got me out of there, because they wanted to get me out; they
wanted the Bushes in there.  And since then we’ve been living in
the Bushes. Which means that everybody who’s been functioning
since Ronald Reagan was shot–he did survive–but he was shot by
a member of the Bush family.  And therefore everything has been
backed down.
I was assigned, I was in the last two terms of the
organization. And I was sent in to become, together with a great
Einstein tradition figure, with two of us–Teller.  Teller and I
were actually collaborators in this thing.  And we had been
collaborating ever since, for most of the decade.
And so we went with this, and we came up with a good
program. But what’s happened is that–what happened with Reagan,
when Reagan got shot, is that the Bush family interest took over,
heavily, and since that time we have not had a good Presidency in
any sense, since that time.  We had Bill Clinton, who was the
only approximation of that, and he had problems of getting his
own government into shape.  He never did get a full government,
because his Vice President was a foul ball.  And I worked with
him, closely on some of these projects.  And so I know what Bill
Clinton was capable of, and I understood what Reagan was capable
of. But that was a turning point.  And that was the turning point
that I experienced.
And since that time, {there has been no good President}, or
Presidential candidate of any function in the United States.  And
our issue now is, to define what the requirements are of a valid
President of the United States, which is not an offense against
the foundation of the United States, from, shall we say, the
great leader from New York.
And he {founded} this nation.  He actually pulled it
together, and got George Washington to pull it together, too.
And that’s how we got a United States.  And we have been
generally drifting up and down, ever since ever since the course
of time.
But we can do it.  {We can do it.}  We have better resources
than ever before.  But only a few of them have them.  Our job is
to spread, the knowledge, that we have, and to spread it to more
people, to create a unity of understanding, among the people of
the United States and elsewhere.

Q:  Hi, Lyn, how’s it going?  We’ve been doing a lot of work
in Brooklyn on this Italian question, back to the Italian
standard we were discussing before.  And quite generally we’ve
been working to push the Verdi tuning more prevalently amongst a
lot of thee older Italian opera singers.  In fact, one of these
Italian opera singers we met with earlier in the week, when
briefed on our mobilization around the Verdi tuning, she was very
moved; it wasn’t like–she didn’t just respond to the fact that
the Verdi tuning was just a better way of singing.  But she got
very moved because she knew that, “Ah, now you guys can do the
{Va Pensiero}.  And I can help teach you the {Va Pensiero}.”  So
she was moved on that level, that now we can actually communicate
the {idea} of the piece itself.
That same type of resonance around the music question,
around the Verdi tuning is similar to what we’re getting in the
response around even concert we’re doing with the {Messiah} in
Brooklyn.  From the business owners and the people generally in
the population, that when we present it from the standpoint that
we are going to use this, use the music question as a counter to
the homicides, the suicides, the police shootings, the mass
killings, people are responding in a similarly moving way.
And I just wanted to get your feedback, on what the effect
generally this is going to have on the population, generally?

LAROUCHE: Yes, I understand.  The point is the Italian
standard. Now I had exposed in Italy, and was a participant in a
celebration in honor of this work in Italy.  And I was a
participant in the centenary, in effect, of that period.
And what the Italian standard, as defined by that standard,
is probably the highest level of principled development of
musical development, known to me.  If anything matches that, it’s
not known to me.  And so Verdi is the standard for {all good
modern music}, as far as I know.  The perfections are great.
Now the next thing, you would have other things–the Spanish
thing is complicated, it’s a mess; the French language is a mess,
to deal with in music: it’s too much grunting and groaning
involved there.  And grunting and groaning is not good for the
musical mind.
And so what Verdi represented {is} the standard which should
set, {by Verdi’s strict standards}, as such, is the standard for
{all good music known to me}.  If it’s known to someone else,
we’ll have to talk about that.  But Verdi’s standard, as I
experienced it, at the celebration of his achievements–he was
then dead, of course; and so, we went to his headquarters where
he had lived; it was still his headquarters.  And we had a great
assembly among Italian musicians, and some Italian musicians who
were also functioning from the United States and so forth.  And
we had this great event, celebrating the work of Verdi. And that
standard is still the best.
After the Italian, you have some German work, in terms of
poetry and things like that which are better.  The French
language is a grunting language and it’s a very bad language the
way it’s used.  “Uhhnh, eehhnnn, hmm.”  Spanish similarly;
Portuguese similarly.  It does not produce good music.  And
there’s some German music which is good, but Verdi is better.
The Italian Verdi is much better.  That’s my knowledge.

Q: [follow-up] Just to follow up on that, what would you say
the overall impact is going to have is going to have on the
population when we do more of this?

LAROUCHE:  We’re going to do it.  And you know what we’re
going to do?  We’re going to take Manhattan — you may be
acquainted with that locality.  But that locality can be the
proper place within the United States as such, within Manhattan,
within the United States and bring in the Italian standard and
the things that portend to the edge, of the Italian Classical
standard. That’s the way to go.
And my conviction is that if we do that effectively, and we
do have some talent which can supply the training of some other
people, who have some skills of their own talent now, and can
acquire an improvement, copied on that talent, we can actually
change, not only the quality of music, in the United States, and
beyond, we can also create an improvement of the minds, of the
musicians, now.  Because by doing these things which are
themselves beautiful, and true, you make people stronger.  You
make them richer, in terms of what their lives mean to them and
to the people around them.
So the idea of the retuning, of music — shut down all this
crap!  Take the real standard required, for competent musical
composition, associate yourself with the best people in terms of
musicians, who could help to build the team, of a new musical
school, which is founded on the basis of, for example, exemplary,
the Italian school of Verdi, and  that itself, will make things
{much} better.  It’ll make it much better in Italy, too.

Q: [strong accent] When I left Russia, I hoped the end of my
life, I live in peace.  I found war outside and inside, every
time.  So I remember now two people, Hitler and Stalin.  I spent
50 years learning what happened to them.  I’ll just take three
minutes, not more.
Hitler’s performance was based on absolute stupidity, not
one reasonable step.  When Stalin routed him at Moscow in 1941,
then he understand that the war will be over.  After that four
years for Hitler, it was an effort to save his war, his Germany
and himself. In 1945, the war collapsed and he collapsed.  But
Germany remained.  It was the strongest nation in Europe, and
civilization, and what happened, that such a bastard, that he
did.
In 1944, I was small, and my train was travelling from
Moscow to the Crimea, across the battle of Kursk.  We stopped.  I
saw a German cemetery; it was about 2 miles wide and 10 miles
long.  The crosses, beautiful German crosses, I don’t know where
they got the wood [to make them]; these were prairies.  And on
each cross, a German cask with bullets.  That was what you call a
“weapons row” [s/l 50:28.4].  They got territory.
One stupidity after another; miserable country.  And the one
gigantic, giant, one-sixth of the Earth, and then what happened,
I find very similar now.  It’s striking similarity!
Again, somebody makes war, and has no idea how it will end.
To start you know; to finish, nobody knows.  The Crimea, I  lived
in Crimea, but I don’t want to continue about that, but I simply
want to tell you what’s going on, reminds me of the same damned
situation between Hitler and Stalin.  A striking similarity.  A
lot of talk, a lot of things, and then a catastrophe.  That war,
10 million people; in Russia, 18 million, Germany 12.  It was a
[inaudible] and one fool could do it!
What’s going on now, you know better than I do.  Thank you.

LAROUCHE:  Thank you.

SPEED:  Lyn, that speaker is someone who, a couple years ago
when you were very much emphasizing the danger of nuclear war,
after Qaddafi, helped to convey a message.  And I’d just like for
you and everybody to know, that the idea that we are in the
throes of the end of humanity if we don’t get Obama out, is very,
very well understood by many people in the world.  I just wanted
to make that quick comment, and ask that the next questioners
come up.

LAROUCHE:  It registers.  I understand this.

Q:  Hi Lyn, it’s A– here,  in New York again.  We have, as
everyone knows, a weekend of concerts of coming up, and the
timing of this is no accident.  The crucial importance of it, is
obvious to us.  I’ve been, this past week, doing flyer
distribution and talking to individuals about the {Messiah} and I
can’t help but draw that, as confused and as concerned as people
are, the personal response I’m getting is a very welcomed and
openness to attending.  And I think we’re going to have a very
big turnout, at least from the Manhattan standpoint, and we still
have another week of talking to people and making these
distributions.
And one of the things that’s kind of funny to me, in not so
much the distributions, but just in conversations with people,
we’re having a heat wave up here, and several people have said to
me — and Im not kidding — “Yes, it’s warm and that worries me.”
[laughs]  And so, I said, “well, you know, we’re singing Handel’s
{Messiah}” — I can’t even get into the global warming thing with
them!  — I tell them what we’re doing, and the response has been
very, very good.  This is not just from Boomers, these are
younger people;  I think the church that we’re using is unknown
to me, but very well known to people,  and so, there is something
different that is radiating from them.  And you oftentimes wonder
if it’s you yourself that’s kind of seeing this, but I don’t
think this was there before.  And where we are with the silliness
that people believe, and the insanity of the President, even
though they won’t talk about it, is something that’s affecting
them.  so they’re drawn to something like the {Messiah}.
My question to you is, now, once we complete this, I think
we’re going to be in a very strong position, to catalyze people.
And what is it that we should be looking to do, to make sure that
that happens, and we can make Manhattan really grow?

LAROUCHE:  Well, let’s go back, that, in October of last
year, I made a resolution, to free the United States from the
local states within it. And my conception was to look at what was
focussed on Alexander Hamilton, and to take the Hamiltonian
principle, which is a very useful one for all of these purposes,
and to say, let us create, again, something which is consistent
with the intention and the legacy of Classical musical
composition.  And what we did is, we found we were able to
influence musicians, some of them who are first-rate musicians,
performers, and others who are capable to be trained, to join the
company of musical performers.
The idea is that, and this would go largely to the area of
Manhattan and to certain areas around northern New Jersey, which
are that; and to some limited degree, to Boston and so forth,
there.  So, my view has been, we should go full speed for this
kind of program, on Classical music and related kinds of things.
And with a great emphasis on the Classical composition work.
That’s what we’ve been doing.
Now, we’ve got only in motion on this, because we are
bringing people together, who are resolved to carry this out.
The leading group of people around this group, are fully
qualified for that talent.  We have had experiments, in education
experiment, absolutely qualified.  We’ve had successes.  We
simply need to get more perfection and more breadth and more
depth in new areas of musical work; and people are coming to it.
So this is particularly in the Manhattan region.
Now, my view has been, is the idea of the United States as
being the ruling institution, I said, that’s crap!  I know the
Southern states of the United States, and most of them are crap.
I know it; and many of them who are intelligent, also know it.
but they go along with the yokel local stuff, and that local
yokel commitment destroys their ability to fulfill any mission
that they want to really get to.  So therefore, my view is, we
have Manhattan and the Manhattan area; and we have a spread into
certain areas in New England and certain other locations. We can
take what we have, as there and potential, serious potential,
work on that, and spread that from {that} region, into the rest
of the United States.
But the idea of the local yokel idea, in the state, is
stupid.  It doesn’t work!  It’s wrong!  You don’t develop
geniuses by training them to be fools.  And that’s the point. And
so, what we’ve got in the Manhattan area, with a certain group
around the northern parts of New Jersey, and you know what those
regions are; and Brooklyn, of course, is always included in
there; and we find that we have, in Manhattan and in the
adjoining area, there, we have, we have the potential of creating
a choral organization, or a nest of choral organizations, which
can bring a new spirit to the United States, through this
vicinity.  And we know you can’t do the job efficiently, if you
go at it in some other territories.  You have to go in and
{colonize}, these other states, and bring them to the reality of
the purpose of their life.

Q:  Hello, Lyn! [Bob Baker]  I wanted to attempt a question
regarding the impact of the Manhattan Project into the other
parts of the nation.  And from the standpoint, after a series of
meetings with farmers and ag producers in Iowa and Illinois, last
week, and the week before in Kansas and Missouri with cattlemen,
what I’ve come to understand, as many people know, is that the
state of the agriculture producers, is probably in a worse shape
now than it was in the 1970s:
Cattle prices have dropped 51%; in 1973, the price of corn
was $3.75 a bushel, and the price of good farmland was $700 [an
acre].  Today, the average price of good farmland is
$12,000-$15,000 an acre and the price of corn is — $3.75 a
bushel.
So what you can see is, there’s been a massive leveraging,
and it’s all coming from the Wall Street process, to where, now,
the majority of the livestock produced in the areas, is under
contracts with big packing plants which are all connected to the
Wall Street banks.  So in effect, what you’ve done is, you’ve
moved the independent, owner-operator farm, into a process where
the farmer’s building buildings, providing the land, supporting
the debt, and now he gets, a fee, to work on his farm for a big
packing plant of some kind; to raise crops for them or livestock.
What that’s done is that’s brought into the understanding of
almost everybody agriculture, is that this situation cannot
continue.  And what you see is, you see the most advanced
technology, things that you would just think about were  only
done by the rover on Mars, in terms of technology, is being used
by the average high-tech farmer today, in putting in his crops
with the GPS modern technology. So it’s very productive and very
efficient — except they’re becoming slaves to a financial
system.
Now, as a counter to that, the Manhattan Project has
influenced some people, farmers in certain areas; and in one
case, farmers who were facing a situation where their local
church was going to be knocked down, and they fought that.  Their
ancestors came from Germany, they fought to keep it, and a couple
farmers, after being connected with your type of thinking and the
Manhattan Project and Classical music, set in motion to have
Classical concerts in the church — which had never happened
before, since it was erected.
And what happened is, the one farmer commented, he said, “I
never saw so many grown men pull their hanky out” [pauses,
emotionally moved] “and wipe tears out of their eyes.”
I would like you to comment on that, in terms of the
Manhattan Project’s effect on the nation.

LAROUCHE:  This is obvious, absolutely obvious.  This is the
course that we must take, there’s no other course that’s going to
work. Agriculture, everything, the whole thing is one thing.  All
you have to do is say, “what did we lose? What was destroyed that
we had, in terms of earlier generations and earlier decades of
the population?”  And when you look at that, and you look at what
I saw while I was part of the Reagan administration, in that
period, there’s been a general trend of degeneration, of the
opportunities and resources, of the people of the United States.
We have to {eliminate} that discrepancy between the two
values, and go beyond that in terms of progress, directedly. We
can do that and we {must} do that, and we must not accept
anything {less}, than that direction of achievement.  It has to
happen fast, it has to happen now, it’s necessary to bring the
nations in general, like the nations of Asia, like China, like
India, like other nations in other parts of the world; in Africa,
in other parts of that world; in South America, to bring South
America and Central America and bring them back into a productive
role of mankind. {We must do that on a global scale.}  We must
bring those nations together for unification, of realizing, that
is, actually realizing, {physically realizing}, the
reconstruction of the productive powers of labor, and of the
human mind:  That has to be done! That is a mission which we must
never abandon.  And we must keep going, once we’ve gotten to that
point.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, good afternoon.  R– from Brooklyn.  In
the past, you’ve talked about the Galactic coordinates; I’ve
found in talking to people, various persons, college graduates,
that global warming is not happening; that the education is so
bad, that I have to explain the Galactic coordinates.  What do
you think about this?

LAROUCHE:  Well, of course this is obvious.  The point is,
since the beginning of, well, shall we say, the Reagan
administration, the first part of the Reagan administration,
before the Bush family really got moved in there; and there’s
been a consistent degeneration.  See the last time we had an
achievement was when I won a victory, in Manhattan, at the
beginning in, in 1971, and we won then on that case, and we’ve
been losing ever since.  And when I came into the Presidency,
under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan, was a part of a middle
area, when we still had the potential at that point, of getting
progress again.
But when Reagan was actually almost killed, by a member of
his own Bush family, the trend has been {downward}, ever since.
And the rate of downwardness has tended to be predominantly, an
increasing rate of stupidity, the destruction of ideas.
So therefore, once we take that into account, we have a
mission to perform.  It’s a mission in which mankind demands for
the sake of mankind as such.  We cannot accept anything less. And
it is {achievable}!  It is an achievable event!

Q: [follow-up]  I take it that that if the Manhattan project
is successful, we will have an effect on the educational system?

LAROUCHE:  Absolutely.  That’s the only answer.  That’s the
only possibility.

Q:  Mr. LaRouche, it’s W–  from the Bronx.  I just wanted
to know, what do you think about Trump and a lot of his influence
here in the New York City?

LAROUCHE:  I think a Trump is an insult against elephants.
He’s a kind of animal we don’t want, a Trump.  And a Trump is
also a piece of folly, even in the gambling business.
Now, I hope that makes your day sweeter.

Q: [follow-up]  Yes, thank you. Thank you.  A lot of my
friends seem to like him, and I don’t understand them.

SPEED:  Wow — well, we all have friends like that.  The
ones we need to “unfriend”!  [laughter]

Q:  Or uplift!

LAROUCHE:  How are you, young man?

SPEED: Well, I have a story for you.  There is a recent
movie made, and there is an earlier documentary, about the August
1974 walk, between the two towers of the World Trade Center.
There was a Frenchman, 24 years old, who one night, with a team,
put a wire up between the two Towers; and he walked for 45
minutes between the two Towers.  {Except}, when the police went
to apprehend him — and there is documentary footage of the
actual policeman speaking in 1974,  — he said, “well, he wasn’t
really walking.  The only thing that you can say is that he was
dancing.”
Now, when this was said at the time, when I saw it, I just
thought, well, there was somehow an athletic achievement.  No!
Because the wire-walker explained, in a brief discussion, he
said, “no, well, there’s a technical name for this, it’s called a
catenary, but let me just tell you want I did.” And so he goes on
and never says more.  But he had learned the technique — he was
not a member of a circus.  He had studied various circuses, and
he also was a bit of an artist himself; he did a lot of drawings
of a lot of different constructions.  But I only bring this up
because, what you were saying earlier about the rope dance and
the fact that there are people who {knew} this, and that this is
something that {is} known and is a physical knowledge that people
have.  I thought I would just tell you that.
We’re looking for the gentleman who did it; he happens to
live in New York City these days, and to see what he might have
to say about all this.
So I just wanted to tell you that story.
I guess, if there are no other questions, we have a choral
rehearsal and other things we have to do this evening.  So Lyn,
I’d like you to give us some final remarks and we’ll get to work.

LAROUCHE:  OK, that’s a good idea!  Well, I think I have
spoken my speaking on this question today.  And I think it’s
something which, by its nature, is something which demands a
continuity of realization.  And so, I hope what we’ve done so far
in terms of this particular session, that will be something which
will lead to a profitable benefit for the people who were
involved in this work.

SPEED:  OK!  Well, thank you. So on behalf of everybody
here:  Thank you very much, Lyn. Let’s let Lyn know we appreciate
what he just did for us. [applause]

—————

12. december 2015 – Den 31 sider lange »Pariseraftale« blev i dag vedtaget af repræsentanter fra henved 196 nationer, der deltog i det to uger lange COP21 Klimaforandrings-tamtam i det nordlige Paris, hvor tusinder af mennesker var forsamlet og millioner af dollars givet ud i den hensigt at blåstemple en politik, der er anti-videnskab og som, hvis gennemført, ville bevirke milliarder af menneskers død i en ikke så fjern fremtid. Dokumentet kræver handling for at begrænse temperaturstigning i verden med et pænt stykke under 2 grader Celsius ved slutningen af århundredet i forhold til den førindustrielle periode.

Efter at have gjort sig selv til grin ved åbningen af COP21, tog præsident Obama i dag triumferende æren for afstemningsresultatet. Få minutter efter vedtagelsen tweetede Obama, »Det her er stort. Næsten hvert eneste land i verden har netop underskrevet ’Pariseraftalen om Klimaforandring’ – takket være det amerikanske lederskab.« Ak, alt for sandt. I dag udgav Det Hvide Hus også et faktablad om pagten.

I mellemtiden siger formanden for Senatets Komite for Miljø og Offentlige Arbejder, Jim Inhofe (R-OK.), at klimaforandrings-overenskomsten i Paris i dag ikke vil forandre status quo ret meget. Han sagde, at overenskomsten ikke adskiller sig fra Kyotoprotokollen om klimaforandring, som blev vedtaget for 18 år siden. »Det er samme nyhed. Denne overenskomst er ikke mere bindende end nogen af de andre ’overenskomster’ fra nogen anden konference, som parterne har afholdt i løbet af de seneste 21 år«, sagde Inhofe i en erklæring i dag, som Washington, D.C.-avisen The Hill i dag rapporterer.

»Senatets lederskab har allerede udtalt sig ganske klart om sine holdninger, nemlig, at USA ikke er juridisk bundet til nogen som helst aftale, der sætter mål for udledninger, eller til nogen som helst finansiel forpligtelse til en sådan aftale, uden Kongressen godkendelse.« Inhofe, der er en skarp kritiker af denne absurde, anti-videnskabsholdning, som indtages af ’de grønne’ og deres med-globetrottere blandt anti-mennesker-økonomer og ditto politikere, nemlig, at menneskelig aktivitet er årsagen til klimaforandringerne, har i de seneste måneder arbejdet på at underminere overenskomsten og kræve, at denne forelægges Senatet til godkendelse, som den ikke ville få, skrev The Hill i dag.

LaRouche: Dvs., at der fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede og frem til i dag har været en fortsat degeneration mht. de økonomiske tendenser over længere tid i USA og Europa. Vi må derfor lukke alt dette ned, ikke alene Wall Street i USA, men i Canada, Storbritannien og mange dele af Europa: Luk det ned! Og gå tilbage til Franklin Roosevelts intention med sin reform, ved at lukke Wall Street ned og opbygge et nyt, økonomisk system.

Engelsk udskrift.

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening, it’s December 11, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden and you’re watching our weekly Friday night broadcast here from larouchepac.com. Tonight I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review and by Jason Ross from  the LaRouche PAC scientific team, and the three of us did have a chance to have a sit-down conversation with both Mr. and Mrs. Helga LaRouche earlier today.

Now, that discussion was largely a development on a very important policy statement that Mr. LaRouche made last night, and for those of you who had the opportunity to participate in the Fireside Chat discussion last night, you had a chance to hear Mr. LaRouche’s remarks live. But what I would like to do during this initial stage of the broadcast here tonight, is to go through in fairly substantial detail what Mr. LaRouche’s remarks were last night, as sort of a statement of policy right up front here, to begin tonight’s broadcast: In order to put these remarks on the record, and to underscore what Mr. LaRouche’s marching orders are for the present moment.

Now Mr. LaRouche said that we are clearly seeing a current tendency of a handful of decent senior people in both the Republican Party and in the Democratic Party, who are beginning to distinguish themselves as potential sources of qualified leadership, and these are persons who could, under the correct leadership, be brought together into a sort of unified organization to create a functional government in this nation. On the Republican side, you see the huge backlash against the outrageous and frankly fascist statements that were made earlier this week by Donald Trump, and as Mr. LaRouche said last night, disliking Trump is curiously a virtue among Republicans. And he emphasized that Trump is very dangerous, and absolutely must be dumped.

And then on the Democratic side, you have those who are now increasingly allying themselves openly against what both Obama and Hillary represent. So Mr. LaRouche said that if we can take these elements from both of the political parties, and, granted, these are persons who might not agree with each other on everything, but if we can find common ground when it comes to at least the core fundamental principles which are required to save this nation, and if we can unite those elements around these core fundamental principles, then we can create a team which will be qualified to confront the urgent crisis that is now facing the United States.

And let me just read a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche said in his own words, to underscore this:

“That is urgent.  That is not a choice, that is an urgent command.  Because we’re on the edge, of possibly going into a horrible situation.  It’s building up fast and we’ve got to take charge.  The people of the United States have to take charge on the basis, of the right people from the Democratic side and the right people, from the Republican side.  That is what we must stick to, right now.”

Now this doesn’t mean,” Mr. LaRouche said, that you’re going to have a perfect organization. “It does mean that we can bring together these two major elements of our nation. But, that is still not good enough. On top of this, we’ve got to shut down Wall Street. We’ve got to shut it down right away. You can’t leave it. You’ve got to get rid of it. Get rid of Wall Street, period. Because everything you do to try to defend any part of Wall Street, means that you’re killing Americans. And I’m sure you don’t want to do that.

“Now, among Republicans and Democrats who are sane, and human, unlike the other type, the different type, this will work.”

Then, Mr. LaRouche continued: “What we have to do, is make a fundamental change, from everything that most people in this nation have learned.  That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy, and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration, in terms of long-term trends of the United States and European economy.  Therefore, we must shut down everything that is like, not only the Wall Street system in the United States, but in Canada, in Britain, and in many parts of Europe: Shut it down!  And go back to what Franklin Roosevelt had intended, for his reform, by closing down Wall Street and building up a new system of economy.

“But no more of any of this thing.  No deals!  No deals for Donald Trump.  No deals for Hillary Clinton.  No deals for any people of those categories.”

We’re going to get two teams together, Mr. LaRouche said. The Democrats and Republicans and some other people who are fit to serve, and we’re going to get what Franklin Roosevelt aimed to do, when he did it in the 1930s.  That’s our policy.  There’s a certain element of shambles in this whole thing when we do it, I mean, decent Republicans and decent Democrats don’t always agree; they don’t even have the same agenda.  But we have to take that part of the policy, build the organization around that, get some degree of unity among those two elements I’ve indicated, and do the best we can to build up from there.

Now later in the discussion on the Fireside chat last night, Mr. LaRouche responded to a question and he emphasized that what he laid out in the initial phase of that discussion, is something that absolutely can be done. He said, because there are people in our nation who are senior, and very important people in terms of their political and economic functions in the United States — and Mr. LaRouche mentioned that he’s in both direct and indirect dialogue with persons of that caliber. And Mr. LaRouche said that what he’s observed over the recent period, is that there’s been a phenomenon of a sort of division among this group of people, because they haven’t been able to figure out the formula for unity, unity among those people who are prepared to make a reasonable agreement in order to save the United States as a viable organization, but he said that what his obligation is, is to concentrate on what that element, what that recipe for unity is.

And this is how he said it has to be done:

“Once we decide, that a significant number, among the Republican members of the organization, and the Democratic Party part, minus Wall Street and minus what Hillary’s trying to do, and under those conditions, you will find that we have a possibility of a very sudden turnabout, where doubtful people are no longer going to be doubtful.  Because if we can bring together that kind of unity, around those kinds of considerations, we are able to pull the United States population together around this issue.

“A lot of people will still disagree, but we have a hard core, of both Republicans and Democrats and the thinking that goes with that, and that is the best thing we can possibly do at this time.  It’s from that point of view, if we start that, then a lot of other development can be obtained.”

So, at the conclusion of last night’s discussion, what Mr. LaRouche said was the following:

“The time has come, to take Democrats and Republicans who fit the sanity test, and get them into motion. Because if we can get an agreement within a significant part of the totality of our own Presidency, and spill that same spirit, into other countries which we deal with, I think we can make a good headway quickly, and it’s one which is very much needed….

“Therefore, instead of worrying about blaming people who are making mistakes — without question, making terrible mistakes — you’ve got to take the people, who as a group, will build a force which will spread its influence throughout other parts of the United States.

“Because if you just sit and say, ‘We’ve got a terrible situation out there, it ain’t going to work.  It’s not working.’ You’re just asking for the worst kind of effect.  You have to get in there, form organization, focus on your issues,  and get people together on those issues.  Without that,  everything you will say will become a waste of time!  And we don’t want that.

“We want our citizens, to recognize that what I’m talking about, as some Republicans, a significant number of Republicans, and that’s a late reform; and some other members of the House, are thinking a little more seriously now.

“What you’ve got to do is focus on encouraging, those forces, to become unified forces, with a unified conception of what has to be done!  Without that we’re dead.  So just complaining and denouncing people will not work.  It just makes things worse.  You’ve got to get people on the issues that mean something to them!  Real issues!

“I need to get Republicans, who are decent, but who are not necessarily very accurate right now; we’ve got to bring them into the fold.  We’ve got to do the same thing in other parts of the nation.  We’ve got to bring the people together.  We’re not going to get them all there at once, in one big swoop.  But we can organize very rapidly; there are intelligent people, members of the Congress many of them; members of the House of Representatives; other kinds of people like that; and we have a force.

“Our job now is to bring those willing people, who are willing to do that, and bring them together and enlarge the growth of their movement.”

So, that was Mr. LaRouche’s very clear statement of policy last night, and I wanted to go through it in detail, because it’s very important that it go on record, and that it be underscored in terms of what Mr. LaRouche’s outlook is at the current time.

Now, earlier today, as I mentioned, when we had a chance to meet with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche, the discussion developed from there, based off of what Mr. LaRouche had to say last night. And the discussion developed in the context of the following question which I’m about to read, and which I’m going to ask Jeff to elaborate a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche’s answer was. This our institutional question for the week, and it reads as follows:

“Mr. LaRouche, the European Union’s Executive on Thursday stepped up pressure on the Bloc’s governments to enforce migration rules, launching a legal case against Hungary’s stringent asylum law, and advancing steps against Italy, Greece, and others for failing to implement EU legislation. In your view, how should the European Union manage the refugee crisis, emanating from multiple conflicts in countries such as Syria, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan?”

So, I’ll ask Jeff to come to the podium at this point.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. The response by Mr. LaRouche was very immediate, very rapid, and very clear. He said, the problem emanates from the European Union itself, and the only viable solution for Europe is to break up the European Union itself. It’s become a factor chaos in all of Europe, and the basic policies of the European Union are creating the conditions for effectively the sealing-off of the borders of the entire European territory from desperate people, fleeing the wars in places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, which have been creations of the policies coming from the United States and from Europe over the course of the last 15 years — really, the problems go back even earlier. In effect, the Afghan operation began in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was still President of the United States, and Zbigniew Brzezinski was the National Security Adviser, taking his cue from a high-level British intelligence figure named Dr. Bernard Lewis.

That was the beginning of the promotion of the terrorist apparatus, that at the time was known as the Afghan mujahideen. They were called freedom fighters. A number of years later, they were known as al-Qaeda, and more recently, they’ve morphed into other even more virulent forms, such as the Islamic State.

So, the policies that have come out of the trans-Atlantic region, including policies emanating from the European Union, have been catastrophic, and they’ve brought the entire trans-Atlantic system to a point of absolute breakdown.

Now, at the same time that we’ve seen this policy of building a wall around the European region, and of creating the conditions for widespread deaths of desperate refugees trying to get into Europe, to escape the ravages of the war in Libya, for example, which came about because Britain, France, and the United States, Cameron, Sarkozy, and Obama — with a very strong endorsement from Hillary Clinton, unfortunately — overthrew and assassinated Libyan leader Qaddafi, and opened the floodgates for a jihadist stronghold on the Mediterranean shores of the Maghreb region of Africa.

Weapons flowed out of that area, into Syria, fueling the rise of the Islamic State. So Europe, particularly Britain and France, with the full complicity of the Obama Administration in the United States, created that refugee crisis in Northern Africa. Similarly, the United States and Britain created the catastrophes in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and it’s been the regime change policy of Washington and London to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, that’s led to the rise of the Islamic State, and created yet another major refugee flow into Europe.

So the European Union’s policy of shutting out those desperate people, is basically a condemnation of those people to mass death.

Now, internally within Europe itself, over the past week, we’ve seen four major banks in Italy go bankrupt, and under the policies adopted by the European Union and the European Central Bank, those banks have looted their depositors’ funding in a massive bail-in operation, which has meant the impoverishment of scores of citizens, hundreds, thousands of citizens of Italy, who thought their money was protected under the guideline rules of the European Union, only to find that the Cyprus model of bail-in has looted their accounts. There’s now an ongoing criminal investigation in Italy, because one of the depositors who had his entire life savings looted, committed suicide, and there’s an appropriate investigation now underway, as to the fact that the policies of the European Union, the European Commission, and the ECB, acted upon by the leading management of those banks, was a direct cause for a death.

So, you’re talking about a capital offense having been carried out.

This is the legacy of the European Union. And what Mr. LaRouche said, is that the theft of funds in Italy, along with the sealing-off of the European borders, is a worse form of fascism than we’ve seen since the end of World War II. And the same exact trend is in existence in the United States, under the top-down direction of Wall Street. He said, when you take people’s lives away, this is an act of mass murder, and this is an act of a policy of outright fascism. Wall Street, London fascism.

We’ve seen similar things going on in Greece. And therefore, the starting point for any kind of solution, for Europe in particular, is that you’ve got to destroy the European Union. Whatever benefit some people may have argued in the past, may have been associated with the EU, are now vastly overshadowed by the damage and negative factors. Bail-in as a policy is unforgivable. We already have bail-in in Europe. We already have bail-in in the United States — it’s yet to be acted upon, but it’s there, imbedded in Dodd-Frank, in Article 2 of the Dodd-Frank Act. Anyone involved in these policies deserves to be immediately pushed into jail, immediately. These are mass kill policies. These same mass kill policies are playing out in Paris at the COP-21 forum, and an outright mass genocidalist, Hans Joachim Schellnhüber, one of the leading advisors to the Pope on this issue of global warming, is calling for the Pope to step in and make a “religious intervention” to salvage the COP-21 conference, because leading nations in the developing sector are saying, “This is flat out a policy of genocide; we will not go along with it.” Malaysia, India, in particular, have taken the lead on this issue.

Now, the policies that we’re discussing, in the case of the European Union, are being carried out with the same ferocity here in the United States. And what we’re seeing, in terms of the reaction against the [Dec. 2 mass killing] incident that took place in San Bernardino, California, the overall blanket condemnation of Islam, the stoking up of this hatred ,on the part of Donald Trump, among others, is a further indication of the degeneration of the entire political situation.

Now, as Matt said earlier, quoting Mr. LaRouche from his Fireside Chat on Thursday night, there are clearly people of good will in both political parties, who’ve got to, basically, forge a non-partisan political alliance. We’ve got to clean out the garbage, and we’ve got to create the condition where the Presidential election in 2016 represents a return to core principles upon which this nation was founded. Many people are familiar with the first President of the United States, George Washington’s Farewell Address, from the standpoint of his warnings against foreign entanglements. But, in that same Farewell Address, George Washington warned against the tyranny of political parties, the tyranny of factionalism and sectionalism, and those warnings ring more true today, than perhaps at any point in recent memory.

Now, you’ve got some serious members of Congress, both the House and the Senate, and it’s not surprising that the areas where there is already common collaboration, are areas that are the most relevant to the issues that Mr. LaRouche put on the table, namely, wiping out Wall Street, and wiping out the power of the British Empire system, which still dominates the trans-Atlantic region. You’ve got a large and growing numbers of members of both the House and the Senate, who are supporting the idea of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall, which would be an efficient means of bankrupting Wall Street, in one fell swoop.

Many of those same members of Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, are also demanding the release of the 28 pages from the original 2002 Joint Congressional Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks, the September 11, 2011 attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. Remember, that those 28 pages catalog the role of the Saudi royal family, the role of Saudi intelligence, the role of the Saudi Ambassador at that time to the United States, Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, in financing the hijackers who carried out the greatest terrorist atrocity on U.S. soil in recorded history.

So, there are movements that strike at the heart of the problems that are facing this nation and are facing the world — that combination of people, many of them in Congress, others in the military and intelligence domain, former leading military figures, like [ret. Lieut.-]Gen. Michael Flynn, who we’ve talked about repeatedly in recent weeks on this broadcast. Michael Flynn was in Moscow this week, speaking at the 10th Anniversary Conference of RT, along with a number of other prominent American critics of the Anglo-American policy.

And Gen. Flynn correctly emphasized that to destroy ISIS, to defeat the Islamic State decisively, there must be cooperation between the United States and Russia. Others, leading retired military and intelligence figures, have come out publicly and said there must be a joint, unified, military command, conducted by the United States and Russia. Russia is an invited power that’s been asked in to Syria to help the Syrian government to fight the Islamic State. The United States has been, similarly, invited into Iraq, to do the same thing, until our invitation runs out. If there were a joint effort, the United States launching a pincer attack from the Iraq side, Russia launching a pincer attack with Syrian military forces from the Syrian side, you could crush the Islamic State. You could decisively defeat it.

So, there are people who are thinking strategically. We’ve got to take all of those elements, and create the kind of team that can coalesce around a viable American Presidency. And that both can and must happen, in the immediate period ahead. Trump, Hillary Clinton — these are not viable figures. They’ve demonstrated that repeatedly in the recent period. President Obama is not a viable figure. I had meetings, just in the past week, where a number of leading figures were expressing grave concern that the United States will not survive, if Obama remains in office for the next 13 months. There are people now who are openly discussing the idea of invoking the 25th Amendment. We talked about this last week.

Many people were shocked to see President Obama’s psychological meltdown on three recent occasions: first, you had the joint press conference with French President [François] Holland, following the Paris attacks of November 13th, where Holland was clearly in a frame of mind of marshalling for war, and President Obama was disassociated, disconnected, and thoroughly emotionally blocked, on the greatest challenge facing the trans-Atlantic region, in memory. Then in Paris, at the CO-P21 conference, where the [series of coordinated terrorist attacks] that took place on Nov. 13th in Paris, were trumping the issues that were nominally on the table, around “global warming.” Obama’s [Nov. 16th] press conference in Paris was shocking, in terms of the level of disassociation from reality. And so people became openly alarmed. And then, again, last Sunday evening, when the President dragged a podium and a teleprompter into the Oval Office, to deliver what was supposed to be a rallying cry for a war against the Islamic State, after the attacks in San Bernardino. And, once again, it was a disconnected, disassociated, policy statement that had nothing in it of any content.

People are talking about the need for the 25th Amendment. It’s been out in the media. Behind the scenes in Congress, it’s being discussed intensively, to the point that President Obama dispatched [Senior Advisor to the President] Valerie Jarret to Capitol Hill this week, to basically tell Democrats that the Republicans are getting ready for impeachment, and that the Democrats better be prepared to rally behind Obama. This is absolute nonsense, but indicates a further level of paranoia, emanating from the inner circle at the White House.

So, this Presidency has to be ended, using Constitutional means. And, frankly, at this point, the 25th Amendment is far more viable as a means to do it. Either members of Cabinet, or leaders of the Congress, can take action to convene a review, and immediately suspend the Obama Presidency, and move on from there. This is both necessary and vital for avoiding the kind of war danger which continues to emanate from this White House; even as military figures like General Flynn, like former Defense Secretary Bill Perry, echo warnings that we are closer to a thermonuclear war of annihilation than we were even at the height of the Cold War.

So these are real issues.  You can’t tolerate the continuation of this existing system; whether it’s in the European Union case or it’s in the case of the Obama Presidency. We need the kind of change that is only going to come about from this sort of rallying of a nonpartisan grouping of leading figures who don’t think of themselves any longer as Democrats or Republicans; but as responsible leaders of a republic facing its gravest crisis in recent history.  If we can do that, if we can marshal those forces, with the proper mobilization of you, the citizens of this country, we can get through this crisis and turn things around.  But anything short of that, leaves us dangerously on the edge of destruction.

OGDEN:  Thank you Jeff.  What I read from Mr. LaRouche earlier was sort of a thesis along which lines we were going to follow through on the course of the remainder of this broadcast. And I want to call your attention to one short part of those remarks that I did read, but I want to underscore as sort of an introduction to the next segment of what you’re about to see. One thing that Mr. LaRouche said last night is the following: “What we have to do is make a fundamental change from everything that most people in this nation have learned.  That is, beginning with the 20th Century policy and up to the present time, there has been a continuous degeneration in terms of long-term trends of economy and culture.”

Now, last week, at the concluding of the webcast, as an introduction to Benjamin Deniston’s segment, I referenced another very important statement that Mr. LaRouche delivered at the conclusion of his previous Fireside Chat; the one of last Thursday, on the topic of how history actually works in terms of mankind’s obligation to willfully generate his own future.  In order to set up what Jason Ross is going to present to us in the remainder of this broadcast tonight, I would actually like to read that statement in full; what Mr. LaRouche had to say on this subject last week.  What Mr. LaRouche said was the following:

“There is no such thing as an evolutionary process of development of human culture.  There are effects which occur at certain times, but then suddenly, the whole culture collapses; vanishes.  Then, somebody else arrives and stimulates something new, and gives mankind another chance at progress.  And our job is to understand this question of progress; and progress is not an evolutionary process.  It’s always a revolutionary process; it is never evolutionary.  And everybody who is sitting around waiting for a revolutionary process is just kidding themselves. A revolution of that type has to be an act of genius, which comes as if from nowhere; but that’s the way mankind succeeds.  And I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”

So, let me ask Jason to speak on that subject.

JASON ROSS:  All right; thanks.  One key figure who LaRouche has pointed to for understanding this notion of breaks, of jumps, of revolutions in human self-conception and in the history of our species, is Filippo Brunelleschi.  Who, along with Cusa and Kepler, was one of the three real founders of modern science. I’m going to read another quote from LaRouche; this is from the show this Monday.  LaRouche had said, “Most of human history is breaks; breaks in human history, and evil periods and broken periods came into existence in the history.  And so then, what Brunelleschi did was, he brought in a concept of science which is unique in terms of what is known today.  Most people who were educated in this have no comprehension whatsoever of what Brunelleschi did.  It’s all available there for people if they were to study it enough; and it was brilliant, it was absolutely unique.  And so, I would say, the problem is that in our location itself, and in other locations, the lack of understanding of the work of Brunelleschi is the reason for the source of stupidity shown by even many of our own members on this.  And therefore, it’s extremely important that we realize that we are facing a great challenge threatening us.  And the Obama administration is an example of the great danger to the existence of the human species.  And this kind of thing, which is expressed by the work of Brunelleschi, is actually the solution; the key to the solution to understand actually how things were intended to work.”  What I’d like to do tonight is help give some background to the point that Mr. LaRouche is making by going through some of what Brunelleschi did in his life, and then come to some conclusions from that about intent and about shaping history today.

So, Brunelleschi himself — he lived from 1377 to 1446 — what he’s most known for is the construction of this magnificent dome [Fig. 1].  What you see here is the dome of the Cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiori in Florence.  You can just see from this picture, this is far larger; it dominates the entire city.  It’s an incredible accomplishment.  And you might be able to make out, standing on top of the red dome at the base of the white lantern as it’s called which tops it, there are people there, standing at a railing which may not even be visible as more than a pixel to you.  It gives some sense of how tall this structure is.  At the top of that gold ball on the top, which Da Vinci helped create, it rises higher than the US Capitol.  This is an enormous building; and it was built over the period of the 1300s and 1400s.

So, to give a little bit of background about the other things that Brunelleschi did as a very frankly, universal genius, I want to step through some other things in his life.  These aren’t in chronological order, but I want to give a sense of what he did, to then come back to the dome.  Among his accomplishments was the purported first construction of a spring-based watch, so you could actually have a clock that was based on springs, as opposed to weights, as they were made at the time.  I’m not really entirely certain that that was done.  He did work on perspective; he had created a sort of a “trick” painting that incorporated a mirror; so that if you stood in the right place, you would have an effect where the mirror would become part of the painting.  To show his work in sculpting — if we see the next image — he was officially apprenticed as a goldsmith, which is the same occupation that Donatello, his friend the great sculptor, took up.  Verrocchio, who was Da Vinci’s mentor, Da Vinci himself; these were goldsmiths.  Here you see one of his first projects, which was on the right [Fig. 2] a panel he submitted for a competition to design a set of doors for the Baptistry in Florence there.  He didn’t win; this was one of his first tries at getting a commission, but this is from him early in life.  You get a sense of what kind of skill he had.

The next image [Fig. 3], we see a painting in Santa Maria Novella in Florence by a colleague of Brunelleschi’s; this is by Masaccio, and it’s painting of the Trinity.  You may not notice, but there’s a dove there as the Holy Spirit in between the Father in the back and Christ in the front.  This is the first painting that really used perspective, so that on the flat wall of the church, you had a space that was created there; where the boundary, the type of the medium was broken.  And something flat turned into something solid.  Leon Battista Alberti, later the writer of a very famous book on painting, credited Brunelleschi with the invention of perspective.  And this is the work of one of his colleagues.

We see in the next image [Fig. 4], on the left we see an image of a crucifix, Christ on the cross that was made by Donatello.  Brunelleschi saw it, and he said that he didn’t really think Donatello had done a good enough job; he thought that Christ looked a little too “meaty” — that wasn’t the word he used.  But Donatello said all right; well, you take a shot at it, knowing that this wasn’t exactly Brunelleschi’s foremost skill as a sculptor.  But Brunelleschi created the image you see on the right [Fig. 5], and in Donatello’s eyes, it was superior.

The next image, we see a building that he had designed [Fig. 6]; this is a very nice looking building.  It’s got what’s called a loggia on the front; a sort of porch, the sort of thing you would see on the front of the house of a wealthy Roman from the height of the Roman Empire, or in Venice.  This is a building for orphans, this is the Ospedale degli Innocenti; and da Vinci brought that humanist approach to the beauty of the individual in constructing this building for orphans, where a decision could have been made to do this on the cheap.  Let’s throw up something that looks like it might have come out of East Germany in more recent times; but no, this is what he created.

The next image [Fig. 7], we see the interior of a church, Santo Spirito, which was designed by Brunelleschi; and although it’s difficult to get a sense of space when you see still images, these are buildings which give you a sense of goodness and beauty walking through them.  They’re beautiful buildings.  One more beautiful building we see here in the next image [Fig. 8], is the exterior — unfortunately this is the outside of the Pazzi Chapel that LaRouche has made frequent reference to.  Inside the chapel, which was designed by Brunelleschi, there is a really astonishing quality of sound; reverberation, echo, but not simply echo.  As LaRouche has put it, if you sing to it, it sings back to you. And I’d like to read some words from the Italian soprano Antonella Banaudi, who spoke about this chapel in a conference of the Schiller Institute in Berlin in 2012.  Banaudi said, “I recently went to the Pazzi Chapel in Florence; the Florence of Brunelleschi and Ficino.  In its naked proportion and simplicity, in the balance of light and colors, it gave a beautiful resonance to the sound of my voice.  A demonstration that it is the proportion, the idea translated into construction, that resonates inside of us.  The emotion I felt in hearing a response from the stone that almost supported me in singing; as if the stone were alive and expressing itself through cosmic vibration, made me feel part of a whole that unites stone and man in a harmony that is the reason for the existence for everything.  It is the same harmony that we seek and experience when singing together, playing together, participating in a sort of rite or celebration that is beyond religion and is profoundly moral and human.” Pretty good endorsement for a singing space.

So now, let’s come back to the dome; I’d like to talk about its background and creation.  The first stone was laid for its construction back in 1296, and construction was continuing through the 1300s; at a time when  Florence saw a great period of growth.  In 1367, there was a referendum on how to build the cathedral.  I know I’ve got local things that come up on the ballot, like school bonds, or things like that.  Imagine having this to vote on.  There was a referendum for two designs for the cathedral, which at that time was certainly nowhere near complete.  And the referendum was to vote between the structure you see here, which is obviously the one that won the referendum. The alternative approach was one that had a different idea of building.  You see on the cathedral here, the windows are very small; this is not a bright cathedral on the inside.  It’s very spacious, it’s enormous; but there’s not a lot of natural light coming in through those huge stained glass windows that you might associate with the beginning of the cathedral movement in Europe. Those cathedrals with the huge windows, given that they had a lot of glass and not a lot of stone to hold the building up, had those arches on the outside — the flying buttresses to hold it in.  But the vote on this referendum, which Brunelleschi’s father voted in, and he voted for this design which eventually won; was to forego the windows for a more beautiful design of the building as a whole.  And it laid out some requirements for the dome.

At the time, no one knew how to build the dome, but its general height was proposed; the height of that ring above the height of the rest of the cathedral to the dome was set.  So, this occurred in 1367.  To give a couple of numbers, the cathedral is 140 feet tall; the timbre, that extra ring before the dome starts, is another 30 feet tall; and then the dome itself goes to 300 feet with another 70 or so for the lantern and the ball and cross on top of it.

Brunelleschi was born ten years after this referendum in 1377.  He lived a few blocks from the cathedral; he would have — you couldn’t have missed this obviously, if you lived in Florence anywhere.  But living only a few blocks from it, he saw this every day; he saw the construction taking place.  This is the kind of thing that would cause a  young person to have an incredible sense of wonder.  So, as he became a more accomplished sculptor, artist, architect, goldsmith, he entered later in his life, in 1418, another competition.  And this was the competition to become the contractor, so to speak, to build the dome.

Now, there’s a lot of difficulty in terms of how you would build the dome; and it raised a very important question of construction.  So in the next image [Fig. 9], you see a typical sort of Roman dome; you can barely even see that there’s anything going on there.  This is the Pantheon; and you can see there’s a bit of a pimple or something sticking out of the top of it.  That dome is about as wide as the one in Florence, but you can barely see it; it’s in the shape of a sphere.  It’s 23 feet thick at the base, where the dome starts to come out of the rest of the building; that’s how thick they had to make it to hold itself up, and the way it was built — Let’s see the next image [Fig. 10] for a similar example of construction.  If you thing about the images — maybe you’ve seen Roman aqueducts with the semi-circular arches along the way — the way that they’re built, this is the Pont du Gare in today’s France.  The way that these arches were built was that you built a scaffolding underneath while you built the circular arch; and once the whole arch was done, and you put the keystone on top, then it would support itself.  The two parts that are trying to lean inward on the two sides could lean against each other and hold themselves up.  So, here you can see this type of construction being applied to an arch today in the next image [Fig. 11].  This is in Morocco.  You can see there’s scaffolding.

Now, the dome is very large.  It would have been impossible to build scaffolding under the dome.  It began at the height of 170 feet; there are no trees that tall.  This is beyond the height of trees.  So, if you’re trying to put up a bunch of posts to go underneath this thing to hold up the dome as you’re building it, you’re not going to get enough wood.  It would have taken 1000 trees anyway, even if you could have big enough ones; it was basically impossible.  So, what Brunelleschi had done in this competition is, he said it’s not an issue.  I’ll build this dome without scaffolding.  I’ll build this dome without centering, he said.

So, people asked him, “How are you going to do this?”  He actually responded with a joke.  I don’t know if it’s a true story about him, but a story about an egg, where he said, here’s the challenge; how do you make an egg stand up on its base.  And Brunelleschi took the cooked egg and just cracked it down, flattening the bottom, and said, “There you go; see?  The egg stands up just fine.”  And they said, “Well, if we knew that, we could have put the egg up.”  And he said, “Exactly.  I know how to build this dome, and you don’t.  So, you’re not going to understand it, but I can do it.  I’m your man.”

In the construction, he developed a  number of new techniques.  So, I’m going to talk about the overall shape of the dome; and Lyndon LaRouche has emphasized the importance of the catenary principle in this.  The catenary is just a word that means chain; it just means chain-ish.  So, the catenary, the shape of a hanging chain, it’s a shape that’s not coming from geometry, it’s not in Euclid; you can’t make it with a compass and a straight edge, the kinds of things you do in geometry class.  It’s a physical shape that’s made by a physical thing — a chain; it’s something real and physical.  It has a different kind of curvature in every spot of it; and LaRouche sees in Brunelleschi’s use of this principle in the construction of the dome, that Brunelleschi rejected the idea of linearity in the small.  That in the infinitesimal, there’s always an activeness to it; it’s not flat, it’s not linear.

In building this dome, let’s take a look at some of the technologies Brunelleschi developed.  In addition to being a sculptor and a goldsmith, he was also a very good contractor. The next image [Fig. 12], you see a crane that he had developed. If you’re lifting a bunch of material up to the top of this dome, you don’t want to be carrying it up all those steps.  If you imagine you’re carrying every brick up these steps, that would be a very grueling and tiring way to build this.  So what he did was, he repurposed, he developed a new way to use a winch system to lift material.  Before him, they used cables to lift things up, but they would use people, because people could turn around more easily than animals.  So before Brunelleschi, they used basically a giant hamster wheel with people in it, a treadmill. And people would run in it, and that would twist the cranks and lift the bucket up; and when it came time to bring it down, they’d run the other way.  The difficulty of using animals — this is a picture of a horse by da Vinci [Fig. 13], but oxen were used is, you can’t make them go backwards; they don’t like to turn around.  So, here you see a transmission. Brunelleschi built this with two sets of pegs on the vertical axis to connect to the horizontal one, where you’d change the height of it, and you could make it go forward or in reverse without making the animals change direction.  So, what a guy.

In the next image [Fig. 14], you see an interior schematic of the dome itself, where here we see another chain.  Four stone chains, a wooden chain which you can see inside the cathedral today, and a metal chain which is believed to exist.  Sort of like the hoops around a barrel to hold it in, Brunelleschi built in these chains to help hold in the dome.  This let him build it very thin, and actually surprising light.  Unlike the dome of the Pantheon, which was 23 feet thick at its base, the inner dome that Brunelleschi built was only 7 feet thick; and the outer dome — the one that you see on the outside of the building — is only 2 feet thick at its base, which is pretty astonishing.

So another aspect we see in the next image [Fig. 15] is the brickwork which Brunelleschi used.  Rather than flat layers of brick, where the bricks would basically fall off or cave in, Brunelleschi didn’t know how sheer lines; and with this space that you see here, this is the space between the inner and outer dome that you walk through to get up to the top.  This was a new technique that required 4 million bricks; these were custom shaped bricks; all different sizes.  He made these bricks very well; he’d season them for two years before he’d bake them.  This was a major, major undertaking.

So, the dome is under construction; it takes over a decade and a half.  The Pope himself comes to announce that it’s complete.  The Council of Florence, which I think people who are familiar with Mr. LaRouche’s work will have heard of; this important council to pull for unanimity and to resolve religious differences, was held here in Florence with this cathedral. Which I’m sure had an amazing impact on the participants.  If you’re trying to think through what’s the relationship of God and man; and you’re in this incredible, astonishing, unbelievable construction, I think that’ll have an effect on what you believe man’s identity to be, for sure.

So, shortly after that, Brunelleschi died.  The white lantern on the top made of marble — and this terrified people living in the area, because that’s tons and tons and tons of marble.  They were amazed that the dome was up at all; when it came time to bring even more weight up on top, to add the marble on those ribs, to add the marble for the lantern, people thought it was going to crack, it was going to break.  Obviously, it didn’t; it’s still here.  In 1461 it was completed, and as I mentioned, da Vinci was part of the crew that helped build that golden ball that you see at the very top there.  So, this takes us from Brunelleschi into da Vinci.

That other image you saw of the light on the ground, in 1475, Toscanelli put a plate inside the lantern to have a nice spotlight come down from the Sun.  Since this was the tallest structure around — the top of the lantern is 370 feet up — this is a very good solar observatory.  So, you’re able to get a very good sense of how the Sun is moving to correct the length of the year, you have a sense of the timing of the seasons.  And this is the kind of thinking that went into Toscanelli’s collaboration with Columbus, and providing him with maps, and the whole voyage to the New World.

So, that’s some about Brunelleschi; let’s talk about the implications for today, briefly.  In his approach, Brunelleschi — if you think about in the way that LaRouche like to talk about science vs. mathematics today, for example, if you compare the physical structure built by Brunelleschi to the geometry of the Pantheon, which was just a hemisphere, circle shape, those other arches in the Roman aqueduct.  They served their purpose, but they’re very much a shape that’s conceived and then you figure out how to bring it into being.  Brunelleschi started with the physical space he was working with, and went from geometry into physics; in a way like what real physics is, as compared to Euclid.  In the same way that Kepler, taking the insights from Brunelleschi’s work, taking the insights from Cusa’s work, approached astronomy; from the standpoint not of shapes but of the physical causes that brought about the motions of the planets.  Of gravitation, of the need for harmony; this was Kepler’s approach.  It was the approach of Leibniz, who, unlike the math and geometry based ideas of motion in physics that came from Descartes; Leibniz said, “No, forget it.  We can’t understand the physical world by how it appears to us,” by geometry and by shape.  There’s something more there; there’s something physical that’s distinct from the perceptual or from extension and shape and geometry.  Leibniz discovered what we would today understand as the force of motion; what he called vies viva, what today people would call kinetic energy.

You think about what Riemann did, where he in his Habilitation dissertation of 1854 said what Gauss knew but didn’t really way, when he said, “Look; we have been using ideas of mathematics and geometry to shape our thinking, but we don’t even know if it’s based on something that’s true.”  Are the idea of geometry that we base everything else on, are they true?  Is space flat?  How would we answer that question?  And what did Riemann say?  He said, in that tradition of Brunelleschi, get out of geometry; look to physics.  In the small, things are happening; it’s something physical, but it’s not a shape you can just imagine.

So, with these kinds of jumps that we saw, with Brunelleschi’s character as a person, he had certain achievements.  But what he did was, he made new things happen; that was his personality.  He did new things; they don’t happen on their own, he made the leaps.  So, think about the kinds of leaps we need to make today.  Some of the leaps, like leaping over the crap; throwing out Obama, dumping Trump.  And then there are the leaps upward, besides leaping over the pits; the leaps upward, things like developing fusion power.  We don’t know how the nucleus works; there’s so much unknown about it.  What’s occurring with low-energy nuclear reactions; will that be a viable source of power?  Maybe.  Will it be an insight into what’s actually going on in the nucleus?  Yes.  What will it mean to have a fusion power basis for our economy?  How will that change our relationship to materials, to resources, to water, when we can produce all we want and not worry about shortages of materials anymore?

What do we have to learn about the galaxy, where the limits of Newtonian gravity are making themselves very apparent with the inventions of dark matter and dark energy to try to keep the old law in place while accounting for new things that don’t fit them? What are we actually going to learn?  What are we going to learn about water?  About the ability to control water cycles here on Earth?  What’s role of the galaxy, of the Sun, in changing how the atmosphere responds to the formation of clouds, to climate over time, to water?  How does our Sun’s relationship to the galaxy we are in impact life here on Earth over evolutionary time, over climatic time, over long periods and shorter periods in terms of weather effects?

These are all incredible jumps that need to be made; that will not come from the past, but will come from what we’ll look back on and say, “Oh, that was that necessary step.”  And that’s the real basis in economy; the intention to have a leap, the intention to make a jump.  The desire to go to a future that hasn’t existed before.  This is what Alexander Hamilton’s outlook was in setting up our initial credit system, and his goal for an industrial, scientific, and technologically advancing United States; as opposed to the agrarian dream of Thomas Jefferson.

Here’s one of Hamilton’s mottoes.  He said, “As a general marches at the head of his troops, so ought wise politicians — if I dare use the expression — they should march at the head of affairs, insomuch that they ought not to await the event to know what measures to take, but the measures which they have taken ought to produce the event.”  We can produce a recovery; we can have direction in our economy.  We can have missions the way that Kennedy with the space program; the way Lincoln did with building the transcontinental railroad and other programs even during the Civil War.  With the initiatives that Franklin Roosevelt took to create a real recovery and separate the economy from the Wall Street-connected finance that Hoover was tied to.

So, nothing happens on its own.  As LaRouche has been saying, you don’t get evolutionary development over time in that sense in human history; it’s revolutionary.  Things don’t just happen; you make them happen.  You go out and you do them.  You throw Obama out, you create a credit system; they don’t just happen on their own.

And I’d like to end what I was going to say with another quote from Mr. LaRouche, from our discussion with the Policy Committee on Monday.  LaRouche said, “With the personality of human beings, you can’t say that you located it in the person as such; the living person who dies.  That is not the way to define the problem; you have to find the connection which creates the leap into progress, as opposed to a continuity.  You don’t  know what the process is until you live it, and find out what the mystery is.  It’s sort of, when you go to Kepler, you get a leap; when you go to the galactic system, you get a leap.  You get all kinds of leaps in the Solar System and through the whole thing itself; and it’s the understanding that this is the mind of man which is creating mankind, and not the other way around.”

OGDEN:  Well, thank you very much, Jason.  And I think that gives us a very good idea of exactly what Mr. LaRouche was saying; that history is not something that you allow to act on you and just react against.  But, history is something which must be understood in terms of the future being something that we must generate.  So, I think what Mr. LaRouche has prompted to think about, that that generation of the future can only come through an act of genius, which comes apparently out of nowhere, as Brunelleschi’s did.  And as Mr. LaRouche said, “I’m looking for people who will do that kind of work, and become the geniuses who cause the future to be reborn again.”

So, with that said, I would to bring a conclusion to tonight’s webcast.  Thank you very much to Jason and to Jeff for joining us here tonight; and thank you to all of you.  And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

11. december, 2015 – Det var planlagt, at de delegerede på COP21 skulle udsende deres afsluttende kommunike i dag, men mødets præsident, den franske udenrigsminister Laurent Fabius, annoncerede i morges ud på de små timer, at aktiviteten vil udstrække sig mindst til lørdag. Men problemet er, at Obama og franskmændene prøver på at knuse oppositionen fra Indien, Kina, Malaysia og andre, alt imens de over for udviklingslande gennemtrumfer drakoniske fordringer om at opgive udvikling.

Torsdag d. 10. december om aftenen opkastede Fabius et nyt forslag til et slutkommunike, der i henhold til Malaysias delegerede, Gurdial Singh Nijar, underminerer ’differentierings-konceptet’, der ellers tillader udviklingslande mere spillerum i nedskæring af fossile brændstoffer. ”Vi bevæger os baglæns,” sagde Nijar. ”Vi kan ikke skifte spor fra den ene dag til den anden … og gå over til vedvarende energikilder. Hvis man fjerner konceptet om differentiering, skaber man meget alvorlige problemer for udviklingslande.”

Også Indiens repræsentant udtalte sig: “Jeg må fremhæve, at begrebet ‘bidrag, der planlægges beregnet efter nationalitet’ (INDC – baseret på konceptet om differentiering) er en glimrende nyskabelse, der har vist sig at kunne ændre spillet. Det har sat 186 lande i stand til at deltage. Alligevel er INDC ikke så meget som nævnt i udkastet”, sagde Indiens miljøminister Prakash Javedekar, ifølge BRICS Post.

Obama er sprunget til, klar til at bevise, hvad alle nu siger om ham – at han har mistet “sin stemme” såvel som sin forstand. Han talte med premierminister Narendra Modi over telefonen i onsdags, og med Xi Jinping i dag, om end der ikke er rapporteret noget om indholdet af samtalerne.

Ude af stand til at opnå bindende nedskæringer har Obama ændret mening, og kræver nu “gennemskuelige mekanismer” for at måle nedskæringerne – en klar overskridelse af national suverænitet. Han forlanger i særdeleshed, at Indien og Kina – som ”kompetente” lande, giver efter.

11. december 2015 – I en tale i dag ved det Russiske Forsvarsministeriums Bestyrelses udvidede møde gav forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu en detaljeret rapport om NATO’s udvidelse i Vest- og Østeuropa, der tydeligvis er rettet imod Rusland – og intet andet.

»Tendensen mod en forværring af den militære og politiske, internationale situation er fortsat, især i Europa, Centralasien og Mellemøsten«, advarede Shoigu i sin bredspektrede tale, der dækkede alle aspekter af Ruslands forsvarsevner og beredskab.

NATO’s udvidelse er foregået hurtigt, sagde han, og har inkorporeret 12 nye medlemmer på relativt kort tid. »I dag forbereder Montenegro, Makedonien, Bosnien og Herzegovina, Georgien og Ukraine sig på at tilslutte sig NATO«, sagde han. Finland, Sverige, Serbien og Moldova er i færd at blive trukket ind i NATO’s interesseområder.

Antallet af NATO-fly er steget med otte gange, rapporterede Shoigu, alt imens antallet af tjenestegørende mænd steg med tretten gange på De baltiske Staters, Polens og Rumæniens territorier. Der er også planlagt op til 300 tanks og infanteri-kampkøretøjer til disse nationer, ligesom Aegis Ashore missilforsvarssystemet også deployeres til Rumænien og Polen.

Hertil kommer omkring 200 amerikanske luftatombomber, i Italien, Belgien, Nederlandene, Tyskland og Tyrkiet; desuden er 310 bombefly i forskellige stadier af beredskab. Den russiske forsvarsminister bemærkede også, at et cyber-sikkerhedscenter er blevet etableret i Talinn, i Estland, samt et strategisk propagandacenter i Riga, Letlands hovedstad. Sidstnævntes formål, sagde han, er at give NATO-medlemslande mulighed for at opnå »informationsoverlegenhed« over Rusland.

11. december 2015 – I en tale i dag ved det udvidede møde i Forsvarsministeriets bestyrelse, der inkluderede Ruslands militære topledelse, fremlagde præsident Vladimir Putin og forsvarsminister Sergei Shoigu et detaljeret billede af landets globale militære strategi frem til 2020. Putin indledte med en diskussion om det russiske militærs rolle i Syrien, men understregede mere bredt betydningen af opgraderingen og moderniseringen af Ruslands militære evner, inklusive landets Strategiske Atomstyrker.

Rusland må »bevæbne alle komponenterne i atomtriaden med nye våben, hæve effektiviteten af missilangrebs-advarselssystemet og luftforsvarssystemet«, sagde han. Som Shoigu påpegede, så tager den Nationale Forsvarsplan 2016-2020, som præsident Putin godkendte i november, »alle militære trusler og udfordringer i betragtning og yder beskyttelse til landet i henhold til alle varianter af militære konflikter, der måtte bryde ud med deltagelse af den Russiske Føderation. De Russiske Bevæbnede Styrkers kvalitetsforhold er blevet forbedret«. I denne sammenhæng gav Shoigu en detaljeret rapport over NATO’s provokerende udvidelse op til Ruslands grænser (se separat nyhedsrapportering).

Men hensyn til Syrien understregede Putin, at luft- og flådestyrkerne, der er deployeret dertil, forsvarer deres land.

»Vore handlinger er ikke motiveret af nogle obskure og abstrakte geopolitiske interesser eller et ønske om at træne vore styrker og afprøve nye våben – hvilket selvfølgelig også er et vigtigt mål«, sagde Putin. »Vores hovedformål er at afværge en trussel mod den Russiske Føderation.« Han sagde udtrykkeligt, at enhver styrke, der truede det russiske militær, ville blive ødelagt og opfordrede militæret til at reagere »på den mest barske måde« over for sådanne trusler. Shoigu rapporterede, at ISIS nu kontrollerer 70 % af Syriens territorium og har 60.000 militante kæmpere der. Pr. dags dato har Rusland udført 4.000 sortier og ødelagt 8.000 terroristfaciliteter.

Den russiske præsident rapporterede ligeledes, at militære aktioner er koordineret med politi og efterretningstjenester, såsom FSB, internt i Rusland. »I har set, at FSB’s organisationer i bogstavelig talt hele landet har afsløret hemmelige celler for diverse terroristorganisationer, inklusive den berygtede ISIS.« Folk med russisk nationalitet, ikke kun fra Nordkaukasus, men også fra andre regioner, er aktivt involveret i terroristernes kamp i Syrien, sagde han. »Og dette er en direkte trussel mod Rusland«, sagde han. Shoigu advarede om, at »Islamisk Stats indflydelsesområde ekspanderer. Der er en trussel om, at deres handlinger vil blive overført til Centralasien og Kaukasus.«

Putin roste de ubådslancerede krydsermissiler, der blev brugt imod terrorister i Syrien, og påpegede, at både vandbaserede og luftbårne krydsermissiler har vist sig højst effektive og kan udstyres med både konventionelle og atomare sprænghoveder. »Dette er«, sagde han, »selvfølgelig ikke nødvendigt i kampen mod terrorister og vil, håber jeg, aldrig blive nødvendigt.«

Sputnik rapporterede i dag, at Putin beordrede de Russiske Bevæbnede Styrker til at koordinere med kommandoposter under den israelsk og amerikansk ledede koalition. »Det er vigtigt at fremme kooperation med alle de lande, der virkelig er interesseret i at eliminere terrorister. Jeg taler om de kontakter, der tilsigter at sikre sikkerhed [dekonfliktion, -red.] med det israelske Luftvåbens kommandoposter og med den amerikansk ledede, anti-Daesh koalitions styrker.«

Men hverken menneskehedens udslettelse i et termonukleart Armageddon eller ofringen af menneskeliv til fordel for finansoligarkiet er uundgåelig. At forhindre dette kræver først og fremmest, at man overvinder partianskuelser eller geopolitiske anskuelser og i stedet erstatter dem med et upartisk samarbejde på alle niveauer, for menneskehedens fælles interesser. Ikke overraskende viser EU, der siden Maastrichttraktaten har udviklet sig til et monstrum, i lyset af flygtningekrisen og det forestående finanskrak, sig ikke alene at være en mislykket model, men EU er yderligere nu ved at gennemføre en åbenlyst fascistisk politik. Det seneste fremstød i denne retning er Bruxelles meddelelse om, at den under alle omstændigheder allerede afskyelige EU-grænsekontrol-organisation Frontex skal erstattes af en ny organisation, der kontrolleres fra Bruxelles, og som deporterer flygtninge med egne grænsevagter, opererer i ikke-EU-medlemsstater og kan sætte sig ud over indvendinger fra medlemsstater. Dermed ville det i flygtningespørgsmålet komme til den største overførsel af suverænitet til Bruxelles, siden euroens indførelse.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

8. december 2015 – I Venezuelas valg til parlamentet den 6. dec. led det regerende Venezuelas Forenede Socialistparti (PSUV) et dundrende nederlag for hænderne af oppositionen, Demokratisk Enheds Rundbord (MUD), et totalejet aktiv af den globale organisation Projekt Demokrati, hvis speciale er at orkestrere regimeskift i hele verden på vegne af Det britiske Imperium.

Mens dette skrives, har MUD officielt vundet 107 pladser i den 167 pladser store Nationalforsamling, mod PSUV’s 55 pladser. Der er stadig kamp om yderligere pladser, men hvis MUD vinder yderligere tre, vil det have fuld kontrol over parlamentet og være i en position til at vælte lovgivning, der vedtoges af præsident Nicholas Maduros parti, og af afdøde Hugo Chavez før ham. Mod et bagtæppe af en dyster økonomisk krise, der er karakteriseret af alvorlig mangel på fødevarer, medicin og andre daglige fornødenheder, diskuterer oppositionen allerede at fjerne støtte til benzin, prisloft og andre programmer for de fattige, og hvis fjernelse ville udløse totalt kaos.

Valgresultatet bør imidlertid ikke ses som et isoleret venezuelansk anliggende. Valgene kommer to uger den Londonkontrollerede neokonservative Mauricio Macris overtagelse af Argentinas præsidentskab, der således har gjort en ende på Argentinas afgørende regionale lederskab under præsident Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, der har opstillet BRIKS’ paradigme om udvikling som det eneste, fornuftige alternativ for hele regionen til det transatlantiske (vestlige) systems politik for ødelæggelse og affolkning. I kølvandet på BRIKS-topmødet i 2014 i Fortaleza, Brasilien, allierede bogstaveligt talt næsten hele kontinentet, repræsenteret af regionale organisationer som Unasur (Unionen af Sydamerikanske Nationer) og Celac (Samfundet af Latinamerikanske og Caribiske Stater), sig med BRIKS.

Som Lyndon LaRouche sagde til medarbejdere den 5. dec., »med Argentinas sammenbrud er det, der er tilbage mht. det meste af Sydamerika, dømt til undergang. Der er nogle ting, der stadig holder ud, men generelt er det dømt til undergang.« Briterne går efter det endelige drab, med at anstifte destabilisering og regimeskift i hele regionen.

BRIKS-medlemmet Brasilien er et primært mål, idet de lancerede procedurer for en fup-rigsretssag imod præsident Dilma Rousseff har til hensigt at fjerne hende og trække Brasilien helt ud af BRIKS. I kølvandet på Venezuelas valg den 6. dec., vil London og Wall Streets agenter banke destabiliserende operationer sammen i dette land, for at dumpe Maduro. I Ecuador er ustabiliteten i den seneste tid vokset, hjulpet på vej af den skræppende flok af operatører fra Projekt Demokrati, der er tæt allieret med opposition i Venezuela. Bolivia og Nicaragua er også på listen over mål.

Foto: Præsident Maduros socialistiske parti har mistet kontrollen i parlamentet for første gang i 16 år.

Der findes ingen evolutionsproces, når det kommer til udviklingen af menneskets kultur. Der er visse virkninger, som indtræder på visse tidspunkter. Men så, pludseligt, kollapser hele kulturen og forsvinder, den bliver slagtet. Så kommer der senere en anden, som bevirker noget nyt og giver menneskeheden en ny chance for fremskridt. Og vores opgave er at forstå, hvordan fremskridt fungerer, og det er ikke en evolutionær proces. Det er altid en revolutionær proces, aldrig en evolutionær proces!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

9. december, 2015 – IMF ændrede i tirsdags reglerne for sin (giftige) udlånsvirksomhed, for derved eksplicit at give Ukraine mulighed for ikke at tilbagebetale sin gæld til Rusland. IMF forsøger stadigvæk at komme på en formulering af “rationalet” bag ændringen, men det står klart, at London og Washington har indgået aftale om, at konfrontation med Rusland må være enhver ”vestlig” institutions opgave.

IMF udsendte følgende: “IMF’s bestyrelse mødtes i dag og aftalte at ændre den nuværende politik vedrørende nul-tolerance over for restance til statens kreditorer. Vi vil i de kommende dage komme med de detaljerede forskrifter for rækkevidden af, og rationalet bag, denne ændring i vores politik”.

For indeværende vil reglen alene berøre Ukraine og Rusland.

IMF har tidligere ændret sine regler for at gøre det muligt at udlåne ”med restancer” til Ukraine – dvs., at låne dem yderligere penge, selvom de ikke tilbagebetalte gamle IMF-lån. Så begyndte IMF’s direktør Christine Lagarde personligt at forhandle med Ukraines kreditorer om afskrivninger af landets udenlandsgæld – hvilket, som det er blevet bemærket, er det modsatte af IMF’s politik i forhold til Grækenland, og sker til trods for, at Ukraines økonomi og valuta er kuldsejlet mere og mere. Ukraines præsident Poroshenko og premierministeren, Victoria Nulands ”mand Yats”, brugte åbenlyst de tidligere IMF låne-udbetalinger til at finansiere militærets krig med Rusland.

Erklæringen fra i dag betyder, at nationer, der misligholder gæld til andre lande, stadig vil kunne modtage nye IMF lån. Ukraine har – ikke tilfældigt – meddelt, at det ikke vil honorere sin gæld til Rusland på $3 mia., der forfalder ved årets udgang, (og har nægtet at forhandle en gældssanering, som Rusland ellers har tilbudt).

Wall Street Journal nævner, at Rusland har afvist Ukraines forslag om at ’nedbarbere’ gældsforpligtelsen på de $3 mia., alt imens Ukraine afviste et russisk modtilbud med krav om, at Ukraine skal betale hele beløbet, men over en længere tidsramme. ”Dette dødvande truede IMF’s ’redningspakke’ (bailout) til Ukraine, samt andre vestlige hjælpeindsatser for fondens finansiering, inklusiv fra USA og Europa,” siger Wall Street Journal.

“Jeg vil gerne minde om, at kun Rusland har tilbudt at hjælpe Ukraines økonomi og for to år siden gav et lån til landet, der ellers ikke havde adgang til eksterne markeder”, sagde den russiske finansminister Anton Siluanov til journalister i tirsdags. IMF’s beslutning om at ændre sin udlånspolitik er blevet truffet ”for at skade Rusland, og for at legalisere Kievs muligheder for ikke at tilbagebetale sine lån”, sagde han, idet han kaldte beslutningen ”fremtvunget og forudindtaget”.

En kommentator ved RT TV sagde, at dette træk repræsenterer en politik fra USA’s side for at opdele verdens valutaer i to blokke: en dollar-blok (japanske yen, euro, pund), og for hvilken det gælder, at gæld SKAL tilbagebetales, og alle andre, udtrykkeligt refereret til som lån i BRIKS-valutaer, for hvilke det gælder, at tilbagebetaling er valgfrit.

10. december 2015 – Den russiske premierminister Dmitry Medvedev sagde i et Tv-interview i går, at Tyrkiets nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 bombefly i Syrien den 24. nov. var tilstrækkelig »casus belli« til at begynde en krig, men Rusland valgte ikke at gøre det.

»Det var et direkte angreb på en fremmed stat. I den nuværende situation er en krig det værste, der kunne ske. Derfor blev der taget en beslutning om ikke at levere et symmetrisk svar til det, tyrkerne havde gjort«, forklarede han. »Vi var dog nødt til at gøre dem begribeligt, at de vil stå til ansvar for deres handlinger. Af præcis denne årsag, og for at beskytte vore borgeres sikkerhed, blev de relevante beslutninger truffet.«

Man bør indse, at Ruslands handlinger faktisk ikke er sanktioner, men snarere den russiske stats »beskyttende reaktion«, sagde Medvedev.

10. december 2015 – I et interview på sidelinjen af RT’s 10. jubilæumskonference kaldte det tidligere tyske kristendemokratiske parlamentsmedlem og statssekretær i Forsvarsministeriet Willy Wimmer RT-konferencen for »en meget vigtig begivenhed på et meget vigtigt tidspunkt«, der var en hovedsammenkomst for styrkelse af den »intellektuelle dialog« mellem alle sider i Europa. Han gjorde det klart, at han også havde benyttet lejligheden til at se sine »gode venner« i Moskva, en by, han beskrev som en »hektisk by ligesom Beijing« og skarpt tilføjede, at man på hele kontinentet kun kan sammenligne disse to hektiske byer.

Forespurgt om RT’s rolle i verden benyttede Wimmer lejligheden til ikke alene at give udtryk for sin taknemlighed for, at RT kom på det rette tidspunkt for at tjene som »ny haj i poolen«, hvis nyhedsrapportering tvang andre medier til at give en mere ligevægtig dækning. Midt i konflikten i Ukraine »forhindrede RT og den russiske præsident os i at få en storkrig i Europa … som jeg ser det, så er RT en fredsbevarende kraft«, udtalte Wimmer.

Den fordærvede offentlige mening og de ditto offentlige medier påstår, at Obamas fjernelse er umulig. Ja, de går endda så vidt som til at påstå, at det ikke engang bliver diskuteret. Men takket være først og fremmest, og mest af alt, den hovedrolle som katalysator, der spilles af Lyndon LaRouches »Manhattan-projekt« – er ingen af disse påstande sande. Ja, faktisk finder der en aktiv diskussion sted om behovet for at fjerne Obama på højeste regeringsplan. Ikke flere løgne; det kan gøres, og det må gøres, og vi må sørge for, at det bliver gjort, og gjort hurtigt.

Undertiden har en aktion, der angiveligt synes at være lokaliseret til et enkelt sted, såsom »Manhattan-projektet«, en universel virkning; tænk f.eks. på Brunelleschis kuppel i Firenze (katedralen Santa Maria della Fiore).

En del af det, som disse fordærvede medier og den offentlige mening forholder dig, er, at der nu foreligger et aktuelt lovforslag i Kongressen, der opregner 11 overtrædelser, der kunne udløse en rigsretssagsprocedure imod enhver præsident, der begik en hvilken som helst af disse overtrædelser. Den mest prominente af disse overtrædelser er lige netop disse »store forbrydelser og forseelser«, for hvilke Lyndon LaRouche har rejst tiltale mod Barack Obama i sine ugentlige dialoger med Manhattan-projektet.

Kongresmedlem Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) introducerede »H. Res. 198« den 13. april i år. Den er behagligt kortfattet. Efter nogle indledende »alt imens’er«, siger dens operative afsnit ganske enkelt det følgende:

»Repræsentanternes Hus erklærer, at de følgende præsidentielle handlinger skal udgøre ’store forbrydelser og forseelser’ inden for rammerne af artikel II, sektion 4, der skal udløse Husets vedtagelse af en artikel eller artikler for en rigsretssag (’impeachment’), der skal sendes til Senatet til efterprøvelse –

»(1) at indlede krig uden udtrykkelig bemyndigelse fra Kongressen

»(2) at, i USA eller i udlandet, dræbe amerikanske borgere, der ikke er engageret i aktive fjendtligheder imod USA, uden korrekt retssag (med mindre drabet var nødvendigt for at forhindre umiddelbar, alvorlig fysisk skade mod tredjeparter);

»(3) at forsømme udøvelsen af tilsyn med underordnede, der har gjort sig skyldig i kroniske forfatningsmæssige overgreb;

»(4) at bruge anviste midler i modstrid med betingelser fastsat for deres anvendelse;

»(5) med overlæg at lyve for Kongressen for at opnå bemyndigelse til krig;

»(6) at forsømme omsorgen for, at love samvittighedsfuldt udøves, derigennem, at erklæringer eller en systematisk politik for ikke-håndhævelse underskrives;

»(7) at indsætte eksekutive aftaler i stedet for traktater

»(8) med overlæg at lyve under ed for en føderal dommer eller undersøgelsesjury (grand jury)

»(9) at misbruge føderale (statslige) organisationer til fremme af en partisk politisk dagsorden;

»(10) at nægte at overholde en Kongresstævning om (udlevering af) dokumenter eller vidneaflæggelser, der er udstedt til et legitimt juridisk formål; og

«(11) at udstede eksekutive ordrer eller præsidentielle memoranda, der krænker eller omgår Kongressens forfatningsmæssige magtbeføjelser.«

Bemærk, at kongresmedlem Yohos lovforslag vil træde i kraft, så snart det er vedtaget af et flertal i Repræsentanternes Hus. Der behøves ingen handling fra Senatets side. Kongresmedlem Yoho har to medsponsorer: republikanerne Jeff Duncan fra South Carolina og Tom McClintock fra Californien. Republikaneren Justin Amash fra Michigan var en medsponsor, men trak sig tilbage den 9. juni. Vi kender endnu ikke hans begrundelser for tilbagetrækningen, men de involverer sandsynligvis intensiteten i kampen – i en kamp, som nogle ønsker, vi skal tro, slet ikke finder sted.

Hele den aktuelle fokusering på det umiddelbare behov for at fjerne Obama har ført til, at nogle personer igen undersøger bestemmelserne i Sektion 4 i det 25. tillæg til Den amerikanske Forfatning, der foreskriver, hvordan man fjerner en præsident, »der ikke er i stand til at udøve sit embedes magtbeføjelser og pligter«, men som forsømmer at gå af på eget initiativ – og således har brug for et lille skub, kunne man sige.

Den sædvanlige fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – det, der rent faktisk har været vores sædvanlig fremlæggelse af Sektion 4 – siger, at vicepræsidenten og et flertal af regeringsmedlemmer skal vedtage at erklære præsidentens mentale defekt (i det aktuelle tilfælde). Men det er rent faktisk ikke, hvad den siger. Dette er blot et af alternativerne. Det andet alternativ er, at Kongreshusene (dvs. Repræsentanternes Hus og Senatet) ved lov etablerer en anden »institution«, der ville få virkning af en særlig kommission til at undersøge og vedtage præsidentens evne til at fortsætte i embedet.

Det er potentielt set en temmelig stor forskel.

Lyndon LaRouche tilføjede her til aften, at der må være et tværpartisk initiativ for at dumpe (Donald) Trump. Netop nu har demokrater og republikanere mulighed for at sænke Trump på en regulær, upartisk basis. Hvis de kommer frem og siger det sammen, så omdefinerer det arten af præsidentkampagnen for 2016. Selv januar måned vil være for sent. Det bør ske nu, en upartisk organisering imod Trump, og denne samme kombination må også tage initiativ til handling for at dumpe Obama.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

9. december 2015 – Videnskab og naturlig lov, hvis vi må personificere dem i en god sags tjeneste, fik sig et godt grin i dag, da det Globale Kulstofprojekt udgav en undersøgelse på COP21-konferencen i Paris i Le Bourget, Frankrig, der erklærede, at de globale CO2-udledninger har været konstante eller endda er gået lidt ned siden 2013, med en afgørende nedgang i 2013-14. Denne undersøgelse blev også udgivet i magasinet Nature Climate Change.

Hvorfor mødes de så i Paris under afsindige krav fra den britiske kongefamilie, Paven og miljølobbyen om at standse væksten af CO2-udledninger?

En artikel i New York Times af Justin Gillis og Chris Buckley rapporterer, at en nedgang på 0,6 % er projekteret for i år og kommer med spekulationer, der siger, at de globale kulstofudledninger allerede er toppet. Forfatterne sætter denne projekterede nedgang med vækst i udledninger, der i gennemsnit lå på 2,4 % om året i det seneste årti, og undertiden toppede på 3 %.

På inkompetent vis erklærer de, at dette ville være »højst usædvanligt på et tidspunkt, hvor den globale økonomi vokser«; faktisk kan den lille smule økonomisk vækst, der kan stampes op, uden for Kina, Indien og nogle enkelte andre nationer, ikke optage meget plads i produktive afdelinger, der kræver kraftigt input af fossilt brændstof.

Både USA og Kina har faldende CO2-udledningsniveau, fandt forskerne. I USA synes faldet at ligge på 1,4 % for i år; efterspørgslen efter fossilt brændstof har været støt faldende pga. reduceret bilkørsel og reduceret forbrug af fossilt brændstof til varefremstilling, osv. I Kina, der stadig har et stort årligt, økonomisk vækstvolumen, synes CO2-udledninger at være faldende med 2 % i 2015; en overflødig kulkraftsektor er så hurtigt som muligt ved at blive erstattet med sol-, vind- og kerneenergi.

New York Times hævder, at nedgangen i kulstofudledninger viser, at Kina er i færd med at foretage en overgang til en serviceøkonomi. Tværtimod, så er Kina ved at gå over til en mere avanceret økonomi, der bruger atomkraft, og fusionskraft, der virkeliggøres gennem Kinas plan om at udvinde helium-3 på Månen; en økonomi, der forlader sig på højhastighedstog og maglev-teknologi (magnetisk levitation) til massetransport.

Anti-videnskabsflokken er nede og bide i gulvtæppet og kan ikke beslutte sig til, om de skal komme med anklager om, at Kinas statistikker over sin reduktion af kulstofudledninger er forkerte, eller om de skal narre sig selv med, at reduktionen af kulstofudledninger har fundet sted, fordi lande har ageret på deres mål for reduktion af kulstofudledning.

Paris, 9. december 2015 (Nouvelle Solidarité) – Det tyrkiske luftvåbens nedskydning af Ruslands Su-24 bombefly over Syrien har blot fortsat udviklingen af den franske situation, siden Hollandes møde med Putin i kølvandet på angrebene i Paris 13. november. En indikation for tendensen er de erklæringer, som den franske ambassadør til Rusland, Jean Maurice Ripert, kom med den 7. dec. på en videnskabskonference i Moskva. Ambassadør Ripert talte om samarbejde mellem Rusland og Frankrig, især omkring spørgsmål om terrorisme, rapporterer Sputnik. »Inden for terrorisme har samarbejde mellem de russiske og franske tjenester aldrig været afbrudt … Vi har samme interesser.« »Inden for disse områder«, understregede han, »sparer Putin og Hollande ingen midler for at få håndgribelige resultater. Præsident Hollande og præsident Putin har talt med hinanden 22 gange siden årets begyndelse. Tror I, der er nogen anden statschef, der har talt så tit med præsident Putin?«, spurgte han.

»Det er i nøden, at man kender sine venner. Angrebene den 13. november ramte Frankrig og hensatte landet i sorg … Og jeg behøver ikke understrege, hvor meget, de russiske myndigheders, og også befolkningen i Moskvas, tilkendegivelser af solidaritet har rørt os.« Han nævnte de lange køer af moskovitter, der kom for at lægge blomster og tænde lys foran den franske ambassade i kølvandet på angrebene i Paris.

Ord er en ting, men kendsgerningerne er undertiden noget barskere. Den franske deployering i Mellemøsten har, alt imens den er en del af den amerikanske koalition, en vis grad af autonomi. Franskmændene deployerer fra deres egne baser – hangarskibet Charles de Gaulle og militærbasen i Abu Dhabi, De forenede arabiske Emirater – og ikke fra Incirlik i Tyrkiet. Siden begyndelsen af deres engagement der, har franskmændene sagt, at, alt imens de er en del af koalitionen, så ville de forlade sig på deres egne efterretninger og selv afgøre, hvad deres mål skal være. Militære kilder her siger, at, på trods af, at de aktuelle efterretninger på jorden i Syrien lider under, at franskmændene totalt har brudt med præsident Assad og Syrien, så har de deres egne efterretninger via satellitter og andre midler.

For at gå yderligere frem med alliancen med Rusland, må Frankrig imidlertid bryde med den amerikanske koalition. Problemet er, at, pga. Frankrigs tab af industri og landets genintegrering i NATO, så er det afhængigt af amerikansk udstyr til hovedoperationer derovre. Og alt imens udenrigsminister Laurent Fabius sagde til Le Progrès de Lyon den 5. dec., at han ikke stillede krav om, at Assad skulle gå, før en politisk overgang finder sted – et skridt fremad vis-à-vis hans tidligere holdninger – så har Frankrig endnu ikke besluttet at genoprette samarbejde med Assad, hvilket er, hvad landet burde gøre.

Alt imens det er vigtigt for Frankrig at begynde at bevæge sig væk fra den angloamerikansk dominerede koalition og hen imod Rusland, så kan løsningen tydeligvis kun komme fra afsættelsen af Obama i USA.

Foto: Moskovitter udtrykker deres solidaritet med Frankrig foran den franske ambassade.

7. december 2015 – Avisen Xinhuas dækning af Xi Jinpings historiske Afrikaturne i denne måned inkluderer nogle ting, som den vestlige dækning har udeladt – nemlig, at afrikanske ledere, ud over at være taknemlige for Kinas løfte om en 60 mia. dollar stor investering hen over de næste tre år, også understregede, at Kina, ulig de vestlige kolonimagter, ikke opstiller betingelser og politiske begrænsninger over for de afrikanske nationer, men seriøst har opbygning af nationer til formål.

Xi sagde i sin hovedtale på Forum for Samarbejde mellem Kina og Afrika (FOCAC) i Sydafrika i sidste uge: »Kina er af den stærke overbevisning, at Afrika tilhører det afrikanske folk, og at afrikanske anliggender bør besluttes af det afrikanske folk.«

Adji Ayassor, statslig minister i det Togos Ministerium for Planlægning af Økonomi, Finans og Udvikling, sagde fredag til Xinhua, at den kinesiske præsidents hovedtale sagde »sandheden om samarbejdet mellem Kina og Afrika«. I modstrid med det, som nogle i Vesten hævder, så er Kina »ikke i færd med at kolonisere Afrika«, sagde han. »Vi mener, det er den bedste måde at udvikle Afrika på … Det (Kina) følger en ægte kurs for udvikling i Afrika. Det er et ægte samarbejde.«

Zimbabwes præsident Robert Mugabe, der i øjeblikket også indtager formandsposten, der går på omgang, for Den afrikanske Union (AU), takkede i sin tale ved åbningsceremonien Kina for sin »betingelsesløse støtte« til Afrika og angreb aktioner fra vestens side, der har kørt fremskridt i Afrika af sporet. »Kina har aldrig forsøgt at kolonisere os, og alt imens visse med henblik på at forringe har fremført, at vores samarbejde med Beijing kun skulle være drevet af handelsinteresser, så stemmer kendsgerningerne på jorden ikke overens med en så forvrænget anskuelse«, sagde Mugabe.

Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta sagde til reportere den 5. dec., at »den opfattelse, at Kina er den nye koloniherre, er en total misrepræsentation af Beijings aktiviteter her i Afrika … Opnåelse af gensidig gavn er grundlaget for samarbejdet mellem Kina og Afrika. Jeg tror ikke, man kan kalde en partner, der hjælper os med at bekæmpe fattigdom og andre udviklingsmæssige udfordringer, for en kolonimagt.« Kenyatta sagde, at det, Kina gør i Afrika, er det, som koloniherrerne ikke gjorde i fortiden, nemlig at hjælpe Afrika ud af fattigdom. »Kina er parat til at med vores udvikling og imødekomme vore socioøkonomiske mål, uden at påtvinge os sin egen dagsorden. Dette er et fremragende aspekt ved vores samarbejde med Kina.«

Foto: Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta.  

5. december, 2015 – Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, der nu afslutter sit højt priste Afrika-besøg, har i betydelig grad opgraderet det kinesisk-afrikanske forhold til at være ”en vidtgående strategisk forbindelse” og fremlagt en omfattende strategi for afrikansk industrialisering. ’Hvirvelvinden’ af en rundrejse, som den kinesiske præsident har foretaget – hans andet præsidentbesøg i Afrika – huer næppe iagttagerne i det Hvide Hus’ Afrikakontor. I sin tale til det Kinesisk-Afrikanske Samarbejdsforum (FOCAC) d. 4. december understregede Xi den fundamentale betydning af at reducere fattigdom. ”Fattigdom er den underliggende årsag til kaos”, sagde han.

“Og udvikling er nøglen til at løse alle problemer.” Han bemærkede, at den nuværende situation åbner for enorme muligheder for udvikling, men også farer, der må konfronteres, inklusiv terrorisme, miljøforringelser og hegemonisme.

Besøget har skabt en kolossal følelse af optimisme blandt afrikaeksperter. ”Kinas strategier for udvikling og samarbejde har hjulpet det afrikanske kontinent med at skabe en ganske hurtig, synlig og betydelig økonomisk og social omstilling”, sagde professor Gerishon Ikiara, meddirektør ved Nairobi Universitetets Institut for Diplomati og Internationale Studier i Kenya. ”For tyve år siden indgik Kinas samarbejde med Afrika om industriel kapacitet dårligt nok i internationale diskussioner. I og med, at afrikanske lande nu betragter Kina som den mest velegnede partner i deres nationale industrialisering og andre udviklingsprogrammer, har denne situation imidlertid ændret sig radikalt”, sagde Ikiara.

“Det er mislykkedes for Afrika opnå en meningsfuld udvikling inden for vareproduktion i de seneste årtier”, sagde Fay Chung, en afrikansk lærd i Zimbabwe af kinesisk herkomst”, men nu er der kæmpestore muligheder for et industrielt samarbejde mellem de to parter, såvel som tilstrækkeligt rum for yderligere udvikling.”

Da Forum for Kinesisk-Afrikansk Samarbejde blev etableret i år 2000, var handelsvolumenet mellem Kina og Afrika $10 mia. Nu er Kina blevet kontinentets største handelspartner, med et tovejs handelsvolumen, der i henhold til Kinas Handelsministerium forventes at nå $300 mia. i 2015. Men kursen fokuserer nu klart på infrastruktur, i særdeleshed transport og ”kapacitetsopbygning”. Kina vil uddanne 200.000 afrikanere til kvalificeret teknisk personale i Afrika og vil give teknisk uddannelse til 40.000 afrikanere, der bringes til Kina for oplæring.

Alt imens præsident Xi, og senest udenrigsminister Wang Yi, har fremhævet behovet for skabelsen af et stærkt grundlag for Afrikas industrialisering, så vil kinesiske investeringer også blive rettet mod en stigende landbrugsproduktion og -produktivitet, med fokus på storlandbrug, oplagring og forarbejdning af korn og dyrehold. Kina vil starte landbrugsprojekter i 100 afrikanske landsbyer og vil sende 30 hold kinesiske landbrugseksperter til at hjælpe med programmerne.

For at fremme den kulturelle udveksling – en af de fem vigtige ”grundpiller”, som den kinesiske præsident har anført som grundlæggende for det forstærkede forhold – vil Kina bygge fem kulturcentre, introducere TV-udsendelser via satellit i landsbyer og bringe 900 afrikanske, akademiske lærde til Kina. Kina vil også udvide antallet af direkte flyforbindelser mellem Kina og afrikanske byer, for at forøge kulturel udveksling og turisme.

Rusland siger, USA og Rusland snart vil præsentere FN-Resolution for at forkrøble ISIS’ indkomster, sagde Ruslands ambassadør til FN Vitaly Churkin til reportere den 9. dec. »Vi arbejder sammen med USA’s delegation om et fællesprojekt. Dette er en storstilet resolution til bekæmpelse af terrorisme. Vi har tiltro til, at vi vil opnå dette, at denne resolution vil være klar til 18. december.« RT rapporterer, at denne »nye resolution vil indeholde en klausul, der vil håndhæve en strengere implementering af Resolution 2199 [en russisksponsoreret resolution fra februar 2015], der forbyder illegal oliehandel med terroristgrupper.«

Foto: Vitaly Churkin i FN.

9. december 2015 – De amerikanske F-15C luft-til-luft-kampfly, der blev deployeret til Syrien i begyndelsen af november, blev sendt dertil for at være modstandere mod Ruslands tilstedeværelse i Syrien. En unavngiven højtplaceret embedsmand i det amerikanske Luftvåben kom med kommentarer, der faktisk sagde dette, i går, som det rapporteres af The National Interest. Embedsmanden sagde, at kampflyene blev sendt til Tyrkiet, fordi »vi mente, at Rusland var i færd med at optrappe deres krænkelser af grænsen.«

Embedsmanden bekræftede således den erklæring, som kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hi.) kom med den 1. dec. i Husets Komite for de Væbnede Styrker, da hun udspurgte forsvarsminister Ash Carter om truslen om atomkrig mod Rusland: »Så, den kendsgerning, at vi nu har vores F-15-fly, der afpatruljerer den tyrkisk-syriske grænse, med en primær luft-til-luft-operation – der er ingen luftkamp imod ISIS; de har ingen aktiver i form af luftvåben; så jeg kan kun gå ud fra, at disse flys mål er russiske fly«, sagde hun. Carter svarede aldrig på hendes erklæring om F-15C-flyene, men det er nu demonstreret, at hun har ret.

Den unavngivne embedsmand klagede i øvrigt over, at tyrkerne ødelagde deployeringen af det amerikanske luftvåben med deres nedskydning af det russiske Su-24 fly den 24. november, som det amerikanske luftvåben ikke havde forventet, og det forventede heller ikke den russiske reaktion, dvs. russernes deployering af S-400 luftforsvarssystemet, tættere på den syriske kyst.

Foto: Det russiske krigsskib Moskva krydser nu ud for den syriske havneby Latakia.

Spørgsmålet om Frankrigs overlevelse efter det andet terrormassemord i Paris på et år blev udtrykt, da den franske præsident Hollande omgående og tvingende nødvendigt gik i aktion for at fremtvinge en alliance mellem Rusland, Frankrig og USA for at knuse ISIS og al-Qaeda.

Spørgsmålet om Ruslands overlevelse efter Tyrkiets bombning af det russiske fly over Syrien blev udtrykt, da præsident Putin holdt sin magtfulde tale til parlamentet i militærets hal, og påkaldte Ruslands 15 år lange kamp for at bekæmpe terror i Rusland, og nu, international terror, og indkaldte hver eneste russiske borger til at se sig selv som en »soldat« i denne krig.

Spørgsmålet om Amerikas overlevelse nu har intet at gøre med valggøglet efter terrorangrebet i San Bernardino. Spørgsmålet handler om den præsident Obama, der insisterer på at angribe og konfrontere Rusland og Kina som fjender, og som skjuler og benægter beviser for, at Saudi Arabien, Tyrkiet, Qatar og London støtter radikal jihadisme. Den præsident, der beordrede den amerikanske »åbning« til det Muslimske Broderskab siden 2011; som, siden afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, har ført en bevidst kurs mod et endeligt opgør med Rusland og Kina, og i hvilket selvmorderisk opgør han tror, at de vil kapitulere til regimeskift, hvor som helst, han måtte ønske det.

Stiftende redaktør for Executive Intelligence Review Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, at Obama fjernes fra embedet, siden 2009, hvor han, med det samme, Obama indtog Det Hvide Hus, identificerede hans fatale »Nero-kompleks«.

LaRouche fremlagde det i dag: »Putin udøver en kvalitet af lederskab, der er de fleste amerikanske præsidenter i vores historie overlegent – men Obama! Obama begik et bevidst bedrageri, to gange på nationalt TV, hvor han dækkede over terroroperationen i Californien. Han støttede denne operation ved at forsøge at skjule dens karakter, og dernæst skjule dens sponsorer. Obama er en faktor for terrorisme og krig, en potentiel atomkrig.«

Obama driver nu nationen og planeten hen mod en atomar konfrontation, som den menneskelige civilisation ikke kan overleve. Atomvåbeneksperter kan se det og kommer med offentlige advarsler. Mindst ét kongresmedlem kan se det; kongresmedlem Tulsi Gabbard fra Hawaii udfordrede forsvarsminister Carter med denne Obamas trussel om atomkrig i Husets Komite for de Bevæbnede Styrker. Præsident Putin og det kinesiske lederskab ser det helt bestemt og træffer enhver foranstaltning til at forberede sig, så vel som til at undgå krig.

Onsdag ringede en af LaRouchePAC’s samarbejdspartnere i Midtvesten til sit kongresmedlem, briefede ham og sagde til ham, at Obama måtte fjernes ved hjælp af det 25. forfatningstillæg, omgående. Kongresmedlemmet sagde, at han ikke havde hørt nogen diskussion om dette. Vælgeren svarede magtfuldt, »Så kan du begynde diskussionen!« Det gjorde kongresmedlemmet, usandsynligt nok, og ringede tilbage til sin vælger to gange til for at rapportere, hvordan de andre i Kongressen havde reageret.

Det er blot én borger. Gang det op. Ændr hvad du tænker mht. din mulighed for at være med til at gøre, hvad der i virkeligheden er ret og nødvendigt.

Paris, 8. december 2015 (Nouvelle Solidarité) – Som det forventedes var resultatet af de franske regionalvalg, at Front National (FN) kom ind på en førsteplads i seks af de tretten regioner i Frankrig, med høje stemmetal for Marine Le Pen og hendes niece, Marion Maréchal Le Pen – over 40 % – og stemmetal i størrelsesordenen 32-36 % for fire af deres løjtnanter. Front National fik 400.000 flere stemmer i præsidentvalget i 2012, end de fik i denne runde.

Lov-og-orden-partiets stemmetal blev betydeligt styrket af effekten af terrorangrebene i Paris den 13. november. Den klassiske højrefløj, en alliance mellem Sarkozys ’Republikanere’ og to centrumspartier, kom ind som nummer ét i fire andre regioner, og Socialisterne kom ind som nummer tre med tre regioner på hånden. De nationale stemmetal svarer således til 28 % for FN, 27 % for den traditionelle højrefløj og 22 % for Socialisterne (PS).

Dette er alt sammen temmelig relativt, eftersom det største »parti« er dem, der ikke har ladet sig registrere som vælgere, eller som ikke stemte – i alt 58 % af den totale vælgerskare. Det betyder, at Le Pen i virkeligheden fik 12 % af alle stemmer, højrefløjen 11 % og PS 10 %.

I et forsøg på at blokere Le Pens parti fra at komme yderligere frem, bad Socialistpartiet sine egne kandidater om at droppe ud, hvis de var med i en trevejs-opløb – LR, SP og FN – og hvis den traditionelle højrefløj var bedre positioneret til at vinde over Front National end SP. For den traditionelle højrefløj erklærede Sarkozy i et interview, at han ikke ønskede at hverken trække sine egne kandidater tilbage, hvis Socialisterne var bedre positioneret til at vinde imod FN, eller gå sammen med anti-FN-listen. Han sagde, at det franske folk ikke ville billige en sådan taktik. Som et resultat af disse beslutninger kunne de endelige resultater af den anden runde i næste weekend vise overraskelser. FN vil efter al sandsynlighed kun beholde fire regioner, Socialistpartiet kunne komme op på seks og det traditionelle højre tre.

De to Le Pen-kvinder har forskellige strategier: Marine, der er den nationale leder, forsøger at vinde ved at ride på en mere »social« politik; hendes niece, Marion, ligger på en slags katolsk højrefløjskonservativ og liberal linje, der er mere i overensstemmelse med stifteren af Front National Jean-Marie Le Pen. I kølvandet på uoverensstemmelsen denne sommer mellem Marine og hendes fader, mødtes de for at forhandle en politik, der fuldt ud genintegrerede Marine i partilinjen i overbevisning om, at det netop nu er det rette tidspunkt til virkelig at være om bord med en anti-immigrantpolitik; Marine gik også med til at droppe sin politik for en exit af euroen, som de mener, folket endnu ikke er klar til at støtte. Generelt stiller de to gange Le Pen op efter en mere stilfærdig anti-immigrations- og stærkt lov-og-ordenspræget, politisk linje.

Selv om dette ser slemt ud, så er krisen så alvorlig, med de mest åbne tænkere, der temmelig klart forstår faren for krig, at der er mange åbninger med folk, der ikke er enige med Le Pen-politikken, og som ønsker noget andet. Der er mange muligheder for andre kræfter, der virkelig ønsker at kæmpe for at komme til. Og det er, hvad Jacques Cheminade (lederen af Solidarité & Progrès (S&P), den franske LaRouche-bevægelse, -red.) på det seneste har gjort, hvor han har rejst rundt i landet og mødt mange mennesker, generelt med fremragende resultater. Folk opfatter dem, der er med i opløbet, som den perfide trekant med SP, LR og FN, og ser S&P som noget radikalt anderledes, der går i den rigtige retning.

Foto: Jacques Cheminade, lederen af S&P, under et direkte webcast, ‘Dialog med nationen’, den 25. november.

7. december 2015 – Veterandiplomat Paul Craig Roberts rejser netop denne frygtindgydende kendsgerning i en artikel i dag med overskriften: »Der er krig i horisonten: Er det for sent at standse det?« På trods af al Ruslands tilbageholdenhed og fornuft – først i Ukraine og nu i Syrien – bemærker Roberts, så er deres tilbageholdenhed blevet behandlet som svaghed, og ved hver begivenhed, især efter Tyrkiets angreb på russernes Su-24 bombefly, har Washington blot øget provokationsniveauet. Dette kan skyldes, som han ildevarslende bemærker i begyndelsen, at, »når mobilisering for krig først begynder, følger det sin egen dynamik og er ukontrollerbart.«

Alt imens han aldrig bruger termen »atomar«, fremlægger Roberts tydeligt kendsgerningen om den globale trussel. »Det er ikke klart, i hvilken udstrækning de russiske og kinesiske regeringer forstår, at deres uafhængige politik, som blev bekræftet af den russiske og den kinesiske præsident den 28. september [på FN’s Generalforsamling], af Washington anses for at være ’eksistentielle trusler’ mod USA’s eneherredømme. Grundlaget for USA’s udenrigspolitik er det forpligtende engagement over for at forhindre andre magter i at rejse sig til en status, hvor de vil være i stand til at begrænse Washingtons ensidige handling. Ruslands og Kinas evne til at gøre dette gør dem begge til mål.«

»Den russiske regering har forladt sig på ansvarlig, ikke-provokerende respons«, siger han. »Rusland har antaget en diplomatisk fremgangsmåde og forladt sig på, at europæiske regeringer kommer til fornuft og erkender, at deres nationale interesser afviger fra Washingtons, og ophører med at gøre Washingtons politik for eneherredømme mulig. Denne russiske politik er slået fejl. Gentagne gange er Ruslands ansvarlige responser med lav profil blevet brugt at Washington til at afbilde Rusland som en papirtiger, som ingen behøver være ræd for. Vi står tilbage med det paradoks, at Ruslands faste beslutning om at undgå krig, er i færd med at føre direkte til krig.«

»Hvad enten de russiske medier, det russiske folk og hele den russiske regering forstår dette eller ej«, siger Roberts som afslutning, »så må det være indlysende for det russiske militær. Det eneste, de russiske militærledere behøver gøre, er at se på sammensætningen af de styrker, der er sendt af NATO for at ’bekæmpe ISIS’. Som George Abert bemærker, så er de amerikanske, franske og britiske fly, der er blevet deployeret, kampfly, hvis formål er luft-til-luft-kampe, ikke angreb på jorden. Kampflyene er ikke deployeret for at angribe ISIS på jorden, men for at true de russiske bombefly, der angriber ISIS-mål på jorden.«

»Der er ingen tvivl om, at Washington driver verden hen imod et Armageddon, og Europa er den, der gør det muligt. Washingtons købte og betalte marionetter i Tyskland, Frankrig og Storbritannien (Det forenede Kongerige) er enten dumme, ligeglade eller magtesløse over for at undfly Washingtons greb. Med mindre Rusland kan vække Europa, er krig uundgåelig.«