Schiller Instituttet i Danmark mobiliserer i disse dage på Folkemødet på Bornholm for at stoppe atomkrig. … En vigtig begivenhed, hvor vi fik mulighed for at intervenere, var ved det Danske Forsvarsakademi. Titlen på deres begivenhed var ”Det danske Forsvar i det nye NATO – henimod Topmødet i juli!” Blandt talerne var det danske militærs repræsentant ved NATO, den permanente danske ambassadør til NATO og en militærforsker fra Københavns Universitet. Der var kun ét eneste hovedbudskab, nemlig, at ’Rusland må inddæmmes på grund af sine ”aggressive” handlinger, og Kina er ligeledes en problemnation, der skal håndteres. Vi stillede det første spørgsmål og sagde, at NATO bør opløses; at Danmark bør forlade NATO og undgå atomkrig, og at vi i stedet bør samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, samt acceptere en multipolær verden.

18. juni 2016 – Schiller Instituttet i Danmark mobiliserer i disse dage på Folkemødet på Bornholm for at stoppe atomkrig. Folkemødet er en stor politisk begivenhed, hvor alle partier, ministerier, hovedmedier, universiteter, dansk industri, militæret og mange andre institutioner er samlet til 4 dages debatter, diskussioner m.m. Omkring 30-40.000 mennesker fra hele Danmark kommer til dette Folkemøde.

Schiller Instituttet i Danmark deltager med 4 personer. Vi bærer kropsplakater, der siger ”Atomkrig? Danmark ud af NATO nu!” på den ene side og ”Win-Win med BRIKS, ikke krig og økonomisk kollaps” på den anden. Vi uddeler vores danske Nyhedsorientering og vores internationale NATO-folder til folk, og vi taler med folk, vi møder på gaden eller ved interventioner!
Der var en begivenhed med den britiske og den polske ambassadør til Danmark, om betydningen af NATO. Vi uddelte vores litteratur ved begivenheden og skabte en hel del opmærksomhed om atomkrig med vores kropsskilte. Debatten var styret på forhånd, og man kunne ikke stille spørgsmål. Den britiske ambassadør gik så langt som til at sige, at Rusland udgjorde et truende imperium, der må stoppes! Vores litteratur blev godt modtaget af publikum, og vi havde mange diskussioner.
En vigtig begivenhed, hvor vi fik mulighed for at intervenere, var ved det Danske Forsvarsakademi. Titlen på deres begivenhed var ”Det danske Forsvar i det nye NATO – henimod Topmødet i juli!” Blandt talerne var det danske militærs repræsentant ved NATO, den permanente danske ambassadør til NATO og en militærforsker fra Københavns Universitet. Der var kun ét eneste hovedbudskab, nemlig, at ’Rusland må inddæmmes på grund af sine ”aggressive” handlinger, og Kina er ligeledes en problemnation, der skal håndteres. Vi stillede det første spørgsmål og sagde, at NATO bør opløses; at Danmark bør forlade NATO og undgå atomkrig, og at vi i stedet bør samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, samt acceptere en multipolær verden.

Mere rapportering fra Folkemødet er på vej.

Se: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1634726746777458/?fref=ts

17. juni, 2016 – Brexit-afstemningen den 23. juni, der nu er sat i forbindelse med attentatet på parlamentsmedlemmet for Labour Jo Cox, holder hele Storbritannien i en tilstand af total tumult. Den sidste redelige meningsmåling viser meget tæt løb i Brexit-afstemningen, med 15 -18 procent af vælgerne, som stadig ikke har besluttet sig, og hvoraf de fleste ikke er tilknyttet de to store partier. De britiske myndigheder spiller med kortene meget tæt på kroppen vedrørende mordet på Cox, så det er stadig uklart, hvorvidt det blev udløst af højrefløjsforbindelser til morderen, der også gennem længere tid har lidt af alvorlig mental sygdom.

                      Alle de britiske nøgleinstitutioner er, ifølge en ledende amerikansk kilde, splittet over Brexit-afstemningen. Det inkluderer City of London, Club of the Isles (internationalt netværk af britiskkontrollerede virksomheder og banker, -red.) og Monarkiet. Nogle, selv inden for City, argumenterer med, at en Brexit vil befri Storbritannien fra den evigt ekspanderende indtrængning af EU-kommissionens bureaukrati i Bruxelles, mens andre frygter, at tabet af bånd til kontinentet i høj grad vil svække City’s position som verdens finanshovedstad. Ifølge kilden er krigen bag scenen brutal. Hvis Cameron taber afstemningen og Storbritannien forlader EU, vil han næsten omgående være ude. Han er desperat og har forskertset muligheden for at gå sammen med Corbyn, der også støtter Storbritanniens forbliven i EU. Hvis Brexit vinder, er det også sandsynligt, at Skotland og Irland i løbet af de næste få år begge vil tage skridt til at forlade det Forenede Kongerige, og rette ind efter kontinental-Europa og EU.

                      Mordet på parlamentsmedlem Jo Cox passer ind i mønstret med mentalt forstyrrede personer, der fremstilles som noget andet – præcis som Omar Mateen (gerningsmanden ved Orlandoskyderiet, -red.) fejlagtigt portrætteres som en ISIS-agent, snarere end den britisk/saudiske/FBI-agent, som han var. Verdenspressen gav genlyd med historien om, at den mordmistænkte Tommy Mair havde råbt ”Britain First”, da han dræbte Cox, med reference til en stærkt højreorienteret organisation i UK. Britiske kilder fortalte i dag EIR, at der kun var én kilde til den historie – Maria Eagle, en forsvarsminister, der er tilhænger af Blairs politiske ideologi, i Labourpartiets skyggekabinet (den officielle oppositions skyggekabinet, -red), som kun få minuttert efter mordet tweetede, at Mair havde råbt ”Britain First.” Hun befandt sig ikke engang på drabsscenen! Hun slettede hurtigt opslaget på Tweeter, men på det tidspunkt var det allerede i alle overskrifter i hele verden.

                      Jo Cox, mordofret, var en radikal anti-Assad fanatiker, der krævede krig mod Assad. Hun arbejdede med Obamas kampagne i North Carolina i 2008, men sagde, at Obama (og Cameron) begik en frygtelig fejltagelse ved ikke militært at gennemtvinge regimeskifte i Syrien, og forlangte nye sanktioner mod Rusland for dets handlinger i Syrien.

Foto: Medlem af det britiske parlament for Labour, Jo Cox, myrdet i en alder af 41.

Klokken er, i bogstavelig forstand, ét minut i midnat. Elementær overlevelse vil kræve, at vi vågner op, før vi her i Europa ofres som kanonføde i en angiveligt begrænset atomkrig på alteret for det anglo-amerikanske imperiums geopolitiske interesser, et imperium, hvis krav om at herske over en unipolær verden ikke længere kan opretholdes. Hvis der under NATO-topmødet i Warszawa i begyndelsen af juli måned finder en yderligere opbygning af det amerikanske BMD-system sted – det er bl.a. planlagt at forbinde systemet i Rumænien med krigsskibene, som er udstyret med Aegis-systemet, der kan affyre missiler – så kunne vi meget hurtigt nå det punkt, hvor der ikke er nogen vej tilbage.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Foto: Amerikanske soldater i et troppetransport fly.

 – Vi befinder os tydeligvis i en situation under hastig forandring, i hele verden. Vi har i løbet af de seneste dage haft uddybende diskussioner med både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche var meget kortfattet i sit råd, da han i går sagde: »Vær årvågne. Tingene kommer til at ændre sig meget hurtigt. Dette er en farlig periode.« Vi har stadig væk en trussel om global atomkrig, som er meget umiddelbar, men der er også en masse ting, der ændrer sig, som det meget tydeligt ses af de skiftende holdninger i Europa, Xi Jinpings besøg i Centraleuropa netop nu for at fremme Den Nye Silkevej, samt begivenhederne på det Internationale Økonomiske Forum i Skt. Petersborg.

Hr. LaRouche gik i dybden med nogle punkter tidligere på dagen, men jeg vil bede Jeff [Steinberg] foretage en hurtig gennemgang for at få en hurtig orientering om den globale situation, og vi vil dernæst i diskussionens forløb trække mange af punkterne frem og følge flere af de ledetråde, som både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche fastslog i deres bemærkninger tidligere på dagen.  

Engelsk udskrift. Dansk oversættelse af uddrag af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen!

WE ARE AT A PUNCTUM SALIENS; – WE MUST EXERT LEADERSHIP NOW! How long before the blowout?
 

LaRouche Friday Webcast, June 17, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Afternoon! It is June 17, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast
here from LaRouchePAC.com, which we hold every Friday evening.
I'm joined via video by Dave Christie from our Policy Committee,
who's joining us from Seattle, Washington; and Megan Beets from
the LaRouche PAC Science team, who is currently joining us from
Houston, Texas, where she's engaged in some activities there with
Kesha Rogers. Here in the studio I'm joined by Jason Ross from
the LaRouche PAC Science team as well; and by Jeffrey Steinberg
from Executive Intelligence Review.
        We're obviously in a very fast-changing situation,
worldwide. We've had extensive discussions over the past few days
with both Lyndon LaRouche and Helga LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouche was
very concise in his advice when he said yesterday, "Stay alert.
Things are going to change very rapidly. It's a dangerous
period." We still have a very proximate threat of global
thermonuclear war, but we also have a lot which is changing, as
can be seen very clearly by the changing attitudes in Europe, the
visit by Xi Jinping to Central Europe right now, to push the New
Silk Road, and the events at the St. Petersburg International
Economic Forum.
        Mr. LaRouche had some points to elaborate earlier today, but
I'm going to ask Jeff to go through a very quick sort of overview
briefing of the global situation, and then in the course of the
discussion we can draw out a lot of the points and follow a lot
of the threads that both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche made in their
remarks earlier today. So, Jeff.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: It's critical to bear in mind that
between now and when we sit down a week from today for another
LaRouche PAC discussion, that we will know the outcome of the
Brexit vote in Britain. People are terrified of the implications,
no matter which way that vote goes, and now we have the added
dimension of the assassination of a Labour Party member of the
British Parliament, Jo Cox, which may or may not have been
directly related to the issues of Brexit. We'll still wait
judgment on that.
        Mr. LaRouche had a much more fundamental point that he
wanted to make to us today, which is that regardless of these
short-term factors, the entire trans-Atlantic financial system is
really about to blow. We don't know exactly when it's going to
happen, but we know it's absolutely inevitable, and therefore the
critical question is: what kinds of plans will be in place; what
kinds of reasonable players here in the United States, in Europe,
are going to develop a strategy for replacing the current system?
It's hopelessly bankrupt. There is no way to manage that process.
        There was a commentary earlier this week by an economist
named Simon Black, who just pointed out that major U.S. banks,
led by Bank of America and Wells Fargo, have resumed the whole
liar loans, just absolute fraudulent mortgages, that was one of
the root factors at least involved in the 2008 blow-out. He joins
Mr. LaRouche in saying that we're headed for a far bigger
blow-out at some unknown point in the very near future.
        Mr. LaRouche's point was that what's needed under these
circumstances is a return to classic economic principles,
Hamiltonian economic principles, in which {physical} economic
factors, and not {money} factors, are the priority, and where you
have to start, is by wiping the slate clean and wiping out all of
the existing gambling debt on the books.
        You've got a clear recognition, on the part of some world
leaders, that this is the nature of the crisis-moment that we've
now reached. President Putin spoke yesterday during the opening
plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic
Forum. There were around 16,000 people there. Whatever Obama's
plans, or British plans [were] to isolate Russia, clearly the
isolation is broken. The Italian Prime Minister Renzi was there.
Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the EU Commission, spoke
there on the opening day. The Secretary-General of the United
Nations, Ban Ki Moon, was there.
        We're still awaiting the complete translation of Putin's
speech, but what from what we've seen so far, he's made it very
clear that the global financial situation, the system, is very
unsettled. The problems of 2008 have not been resolved. He
emphasized Russia's commitment to be the bridge between the Asia
developments centered around Xi Jinping's One Belt, One Road
policy, and the bringing of Europe into that equation as a
cooperative factor.
        So, there are alternative ideas out there, but there's a
desperate moment from the standpoint of the British. We see it in
these two incidents, almost back-to-back: of the brutal terrorist
attack in Orlando, Florida, followed a few days later by the
first time in {hundreds of years} that a British Member of
Parliament was assassinated in cold blood on the streets of
Britain.

        OGDEN: Absolutely! Right in the midst of that, you have a
very important initiative from Congressman Walter Jones, who has
taken the next step beyond what he has already done, around the
campaign to release the 28 pages, which would expose the entire
Anglo-Saudi apparatus behind what led to 9/11 and what continues
to be the threat of terrorism, world-wide today.
        He had 70 co-sponsors on H-Res. 14, but this week he has
introduced a new resolution, which says, Look, we don't have to
wait for Obama at all. We're going to bypass the Obama
administration, and Congress itself needs to take the initiative
to de-classify these 28 pages. It's a very important bill. The
text of it should be read in full. It cites the precedent. The
Supreme Court decided in favor of (former) Senator Mike Gravel,
who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record; and
also cites the fact that this is Congress's prerogative indeed.
        That continues to be a very critical element in this fight
to dismantle what is in fact, as you were saying, the Anglo-Saudi
apparatus behind this entire campaign. Actually, just because
we've brought that up, I wanted to read, very quickly, our
"institutional question" for this evening, and then we can follow
the discussion out from there. It reads as follows:
        "Mr. LaRouche: Recently a scholar at the Johns Hopkins
School of Advanced International Studies penned an article in the
{Asia Times} warning that the Saudi-sponsored Wah'habi terrorism
is coming to Southeast Asia, and the United States has been the
essential enabler of this spread by boosting the Saudis with
protection. Dr. Christina Lin described the Saudi
'religious-industrial complex' as the source of spreading
Wah'habi ideology. Hillary Clinton recently rebuked Saudi Arabia
and two other U.S. allies — Qatar and Kuwait — by name, for
their support of terrorist networks and ideology. Mr. LaRouche,
in your opinion, what types of religions reform must Saudi
Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait, and other Wah'habi-oriented nations,
need to enact, to deal with Salafi-inspired jihadi terrorism?"
        Jeff, I know that you wrote a sort of summary article
earlier, in the beginning of this week, that goes through the
entire Al-Yamamah case, and everything that is implied by the
fact that that's still an on-going apparatus. Maybe you want to
give a little bit of a background on that, in response to this
question.

        STEINBERG: Well, let me just start by saying that I think
the idea of any kind of near-term reform of Saudi Arabia or these
other countries that subscribe to Wah'habism, is a very unlikely
phenomenon. We've got to take the approach that this whole
apparatus has to be exposed, top down, and completely dismantled.
It's going to have to come from the outside.
        A very, very interesting discussion took place earlier this
week [on June 14] on the John Batchelor [radio] show in New York,
where Dr. Stephen F. Cohen, a Russia specialist, professor
emeritus of Russian studies, history and politics at New York
University, for the first time touched on the issue of Obama's
removal from office. He said one of the greatest crimes that
Obama has committed, has been the breaking of the cooperation
with Russia, that basically the U.S. has no understanding or no
capacity for dealing with this threat of Salafist terrorism, but
Russia does. Therefore Obama's demonization of Putin, refusal to
cooperate with Russia, is piling up the body-count around the
globe.
        In a very real sense, the Obama question and the British
Al-Yamamah question goes to the heart of what Dr. Lin said in
that [{Asia Times}] article, namely, who are the enablers? Who
makes it possible? Because Saudi Arabia on its own could do very
little, were it not for the sponsorship by Washington, by London,
and we can't leave out Paris in this equation, of the whole
development of the strategy of playing the Islamic fundamentalist
card for regime change. It started with the Soviet Union. It
extended to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now this is really
what's playing out in Syria.
        Unless you're willing to force the severing of the British
and U.S. support for this jihadist spread of terrorism, then
you're really not going to address the problem. If you single out
Saudi Arabia and leave out Britain, then you're leaving
Al-Yamamah and everything that that implies off the hook. This
was an arrangement that was made in 1985 between [then-Saudi
Ambassador to the U.S.] Prince Bandar [bin Sultan] and [then
British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher, to set up what was
ostensibly an oil-for-weapons deal. But under the cover of that,
they amassed hundreds of billions of dollars in offshore
slush-funds, and those funds have been really what's been behind
the terrorism.
        The 28 pages make it clear that Prince Bandar was a source
of funding to the 9/11 hijackers at a time that he was getting
upwards of $2 billion wired into that account from the Bank of
England, as the result of his sponsorship of Al-Yamamah.  If you
talk about the Saudis without talking about the British and
without talking about Bush, and now Obama, then you're never
going to solve the problem.

        OGDEN: You mentioned what Stephen Cohen had to say. I think
this is obviously a very big step for him to make these remarks,
but he said, "The major single largest cost of this unnecessary
cold war with Russia, is Washington's refusal to cooperate with
Russia against international terrorism, whether in Syria or in
homeland security. That, I think, is an indictment of our
political class, the Obama administration and Congress in
particular, that we all should judge very, very harshly, because
they're endangering each and every one of us and our families.
Russia knows how to do counter-terrorism. We know we don't know
how to do it very well."
        And then he said, "I would call this anti national security.
These are impeachable offenses by our government, that they are
not doing things, out of this political, ideological Cold War
against Russia, that could help protect us. Whether we talk about
Syria or talk about homeland security, it's a pattern, and it
needs to end right away."
        One thing that just developed out of this yesterday, is
front-page coverage in the {New York Times} of a "dissent
channel," [a draft copy of an internal memo] by 50 mid-level
State Department officials, "urging the United States to carry
out military strikes against the government of President Bashar
al-Assad to stop its persistent violations of a cease-fire in the
country's five-year-old civil war," which is obviously a direct
declaration of war against what Russia is doing in Syria right
now.

        STEINBERG: Absolutely!

        DAVE CHRISTIE: This is occurring in the middle of where the
Syrian government has just unleashed leaflets into Rakka, saying,
"We're coming!" The Russians have been very clear on this, that
they're not going to sit around and play games, or allow Obama
and his gang to play games, around this idea that we need more
time to separate out the moderate terrorists, which don't exist
anyway. This is a move to shut them down.
        Coming back to this point that what has been raised on the
nature of the terrorism, going back to the Al-Yamamah deal, this
was effectively the geo-political enforcement wing of what was
ushered in at that time. We had some discussions earlier this
week where this was coincident at the same time that Thatcher
brought in the whole "Big Bang" program to have London be the
center of global finance and this speculative offshore financial
system, which was sort of the consolidation of what had come in
in 1971, as Mr. LaRouche forecast, that when they broke with the
Bretton Woods system, they turned their back on the real economic
progress that we saw under Kennedy and, of course, Roosevelt
before then.
        There was an explicit destruction of the American System
that could have swept the planet, were it not for that
intervention by the British in '71. Mr. LaRouche was clear at
that point, that this would result in fascism. We've now seen
that come to fruition.  But the point is, that's the bankrupt
system that is now collapsing; and what Mr. LaRouche said today I
think is very important on the Obama question, and more
importantly what Obama represents.  Because he represents the
British Empire, he represents this integrated financial apparatus
which is funding itself through the dope trade, enforcing it
through terrorism, the whole migrant crisis; all of this is part
of the integrated policy of the British Empire.  And what
LaRouche said about Obama and that system is that they can't win;
Obama is going to lose, period.  The question is, will others
win?  And what Lyn also said today I think is very important, he
says that Putin has shown this leadership; he's straight on this,
he's the best leadership we have so far.  And I think that's part
of this growing recognition that the BRICS nations and
specifically Russia, China, India, are now the world leadership;
the British are having to react.  And I think what we're seeing
in terms of their reaction is, of course, increasingly dangerous;
because they see what the writing on the wall is in terms of the
imminent collapse of their financial system while this New
Paradigm is being consolidated.  Helga made the point on this
question of the German bonds; their 10-year bonds are trading at
negative interest rates, so that is a huge psychological shock to
the German people.  Anybody in business knows the implications of
that.
        So you can really see that the political turmoil here in
terms of the potential of Europe to begin to shift towards this
new emerging leadership; similarly in Japan that we see.  The
fact that the situation in Korea is similarly potentially
shifting; and of course, Ban Ki Moon just spoke in front of the
St. Petersburg Economic Forum.  So, you just really get a sense
of what the potential is to shift this thing.  And I think what
we have to do is recognize that that global leadership is now
being established; but it's up to the American people to
recognize that Obama will lose.  People think that he's
all-powerful and they look at this crazy political election,
which is frankly designed around Obama.  The whole circling of
the wagons around Hillary wasn't so much circling the wagons
around Hillary in terms of her campaign; it was really circling
it around Obama.  And of course, Trump, what is this?  It's
nothing but a clown show to allow Obama to continue with this
agenda.  But as Mr. LaRouche said, he will lose.  The question
is, will we take up the leadership and responsibility to win?

        OGDEN:  And the point that Jeff made about the attempts to
isolate Russia clearly have failed.  I think that the St.
Petersburg Economic Forum is a testament to that fact.  And then
you have the very strong collaboration between Putin and Xi
Jinping right now, which is being acknowledged on all fronts.  I
think that it was very poetically at the St. Petersburg Economic
Forum by one of the visiting ministers from Ecuador, who said "We
view with envy the great projects that change the history of
civilization."  That's where we are. I think Helga LaRouche was
calling it an "epical moment"; it's a change in epic, both with
the emergence of this new world system, but also the fact that
we're experiencing for the first time in history the negative
interest rates within the European system and so forth.  But this
Ecuadoran minister said, these projects that change the history
of civilization, with the New Silk Road that China has proposed,
the creation of the AIIB, the BRICS bank, the Eurasian project
which Russia has defended.  I don't know if people saw the full
speech that Indian Prime Minister Modi made when he came to
Washington last week; but when he spoke in front of the joint
session of Congress, what he concluded his remarks with was
beautiful.  He said, "The foundations of the future are now
firmly in place."  And then he quoted from a poem by Walt Whitman
from {The Leaves of Grass}; a poem called "To Think of Time." And
Modi said, "The orchestra have sufficiently tuned their
instruments.  The baton has given the signal"; and then Modi
said, "Let me add to that if I might, there is a new symphony in
play."  And I think that's a perfect way of describing the new
world system which is now breaking onto the horizon.  And it
really has, despite the attempts by Obama and his allies, to
isolate this and to try to beat this back.  It is continuing to
take hold.

        ROSS:  That's true; it's undeniably taking hold in the world
in such a way that it's clear to everybody, too, that that's a
real standard of value.  You're not looking at the U.S., you're
not looking at the European Central Bank; you're looking at where
the growth is coming from; anyone can see that who is looking at
it. And the obligation that we have to prevent the U.S. from
being the stumbling block in this; because it's astonishing to
read the contrast between the speech that Modi made, or the
remarks of this Ecuadoran who you mentioned, with these kinds of
think-tanks or institutions in the U.S..  They're talking about
threats to American power; how are we going to secure American
power in the coming world with all of its difficulties.  It's
such a bizarre outlook to even try to have.  It's so outdated, so
European oligarchical, it sounds like it's something from
centuries ago; it hardly sounds like anything that represents
what the U.S. was founded to be under the economic leadership of
Hamilton, under the direction that we have taken at our best
times.  So, the great opportunity that we have to join in this in
the U.S., can make all the difference in the world; and it's
unfortunate that it comes to us from such a negative direction.
If we don't do something, the U.S. is blocking this and Obama is
going to create a war to prevent it.

        STEINBERG:  Putin made a point in St. Petersburg that
clearly there is now a profound strategic partnership between
Russia and through Russia the Eurasian Economic Union, with
China. And he said, this is not a closed partnership; we welcome
European participation with open arms.  And then he went after
the TTIP, this U.S.-British free trade agreement that is, in
fact, an exclusive arrangement that would cut off Europe from any
cooperation across Eurasia with Russia, the Eurasian Economic
Union, China.  And he just said, look, we're past the point where
we create alliances that are exclusionary; and he pointed out
that there are now 40 countries that are seeking trade agreements
with Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union.  So, I think that
this idea of this openness and a common future and destiny, is
something that is not only at the core of what Xi Jinping is now
in Poland, and he's on a five-day tour of eastern and central
Europe; and then he's going back through central Asia.  So, he's
clearly got this idea of moving forward with the extension of
these policies into Europe; and in effect, there's a major split
beginning to develop in Europe.  It comes down to this
fundamental question of, do you focus on physical economy, or are
you stuck in the British system purely money game.  It's a point
now of clash where the two systems are so irreconcilable that
they can't both survive.  That's also why the war danger is so
pronounced at this point.

        BEETS:  Well, let me just add something in on this point
about this newly forming world system being led by China and
Russia.  I was remembering that a couple of years ago, around the
time of the BRICS summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, Mr. LaRouche said
that this is the beginning of a world system; but it's not the
final form.  There has to be now a discovery process undertaken
by peoples of the world to uncover and come to a point of
discovery of what the human species ought to be.  And I think is
really the point that is missing from 99% of the discussion that
goes on; most especially in the trans-Atlantic.  But even — and
I would put this out as a question — how self-conscious of a
discussion is this in other parts of the world as well?  And I
think it's important, because Mr. LaRouche's emphatic point this
morning was that the entire system has to be scrapped; we are at
the point of blow-out.  Any moves that are taken to try to save
it are complete foolishness; because anything you try to save in
the system is about to become completely worthless.
        So, you have to re-found a new system upon a newly
discovered notion of physical value.  And that gets exactly to
the principle that is the most fundamental; but is also the least
known, and the most contradicted in the United States today.  The
most fundamental principle of economics; which is that man is not
an animal.  And that there is a scientifically knowable principle
which separates mankind as a species from all other species known
to us today.  And that's expressed in the fact that as a species,
mankind is the only species that is not fixed.  We're the only
species for whom the new generation can be fundamentally
different than the previous generation; as expressed in the
powers wielded by the individual.  The scientific powers, the
powers in and over processes in the Universe, which is expressed
in the productive powers of labor of the individual; which
reflect knowledge of principle which is completely new to that
generation.  Which is both more perfect and higher than the
knowledge of principles of the Universe possessed by the previous
generation.
        I think if we go back and look back to the United States and
to our tradition, we see this expressed most recently — aside
from the leadership taken by Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche in the recent
decades — we see this expressed by the leadership of Krafft
Ehricke and his role in establishing and fighting for the United
States space program.  Krafft Ehricke was completely committed to
the idea, and it was a discovery in his own mind, that for human
beings there are no limits to growth.  There's no such thing as a
fixed set of resources, for exactly the reason I cited, of man's
potential to always discover a higher principle.  Krafft Ehricke
fought for the idea that man must always progress; and therefore,
man cannot be limited merely to the Earth.  Man cannot be a
species of a single globe.  We have to move out into conquering
space; becoming a species which is exerting power in an over the
Solar System.  Reorganizing, shaping, perfecting other planets in
the Solar System, beginning with the Moon.  Just to put it
forward, that's the only legitimate basis for an economic system,
is to organize the social activity of man to effect and promote
that kind of activity; and to protect and promote that kind of
capability which exists in potential in each and every human
being.  I think that we in the United States especially, have a
responsibility to wake up, and to have a renaissance in the
United States.  Where we once again demand our space program, and
demand that it represent the kind of principle expressed by
Krafft Ehricke; and expressed by Mr. LaRouche's insights into the
science of economics.

        CHRISTIE:  Just to follow up on that, I think that is
probably also the place where geopolitics is — it's the symbol
of the absolute end of geopolitics.  And Mr. LaRouche has been
discussing the idea of moving beyond nation-states.  That doesn't
mean a homogenized global McDonald's or something like that kind
of approach to economy.  What it means is, you're still going to
celebrate the cultural differences, you're going to still
celebrate the fact that people have histories and shared
languages and so on and so forth; but you're going to see that
the core of what it is to be human.  We're all human; there's
only one species.  And that's no better expressed than in space
exploration.
        I also think that what you're beginning to see is how that's
operating now in terms of breaking up — or nations now
collaborating and not allowing themselves to be manipulated
around the British strategies of divide and conquer.  For
example, you just recently had Xi Jinping make a trip to the
Baltic nations; to work out the Baltic nations' entry into the
Silk Road program.  And that is one way to defuse the tensions
that the Baltic nations would have with Russia.  India is working
with Iran on the Chabahar port; where you get access to some of
the central Asian nations, which of course, could be pitted
against China.  And of course, China's working with Pakistan
around the Gwadar port; and defusing potential confrontations
that Pakistan and India might have.  You being to see that they
are all collaborating around this common mission; and seeing that
all these nations' relationships and integration is important.
And I think that, in terms of what has to happen in the United
States, we should also recognize that what is going on in these
nations, that is determining the global dynamic; and that is also
what is going to determine the internal political situation.
        So, all the Americans who are depressed about this crazy
election process, should just flush it down the toilet where it
belongs; because it has no real bearing on what is actually
occurring internationally.  It is being defined by this new
concept of thinking beyond nation-states; or at least beyond the
manipulation that can occur under geopolitics where these nations
are beginning to collaborate.  That's the point of space
exploration; that's also the point of Mr. LaRouche's Strategic
Defense Initiative, which he raised today in discussions.  This
present war drive, which is why the British are trying to tear
down this emerging New Paradigm, really began with the Bush crowd
sabotaging the Strategic Defense Initiative of Mr. LaRouche.  Had
that gone through, we wouldn't be on the edge of thermonuclear
warfare; we would have already begun that collaboration back
then.  So now is really our last opportunity to take up that
initiative; but we've got to bring this New Paradigm into the
United States.

        STEINBERG:  I was at an event in Washington when Prime
Minister Modi was here, and one of the speakers was a former
Indian ambassador to the United States.  I thought he made some
very important and pretty frank points.  He said, first of all,
the most important thing that came out of the meeting, other than
the speech that Prime Minister Modi gave before the joint session
of Congress, was the nuclear deal.  The fact that Westinghouse
had been contracted to build six nuclear power plants in India.
So, he's viewing what remains of the actual technology base of
the United States; of course, it's now a company that's working
very closely with the Japanese in order to even meet the
construction requirements.  But the other thing that he said was
that the United States has been blocking India from playing any
kind of constructive role in Middle East peace.  He said India
has a very important role to play; we have close relations with
all of the Arab countries.  But, he said, India views Iran as a
crucial ally; not only economically because of the Chabahar port
and the prospects of India, Iran, Afghanistan economic
integration.  But, he said, the threat to India and to Asia of
Islamic terrorism, is coming from Wah'habism; and that they've
never had any experience of terrorism coming out of the Shi'a
branch of Islam.  Therefore, India views Iran as a buffer against
the spread of this kind of Saudi-sponsored terrorism into South
Asia and the subcontinent. So, these are areas where there's an
enormous amount of room for a change in policy being forced in
Washington; where the kinds of problems that are right now
seemingly intractable, can be solved through that kind of new
approach.
        On the question that Megan raised; Jason, you may want to
say something about this.  There was a very high-level dialogue
that was going on 300 years ago between Western and Chinese
scholars on this question of the nature of man.  Leibniz was
engaged in a tremendous exchange with China, via some of the
Jesuit missionaries who were there in China for a period of more
than 100 years.  So, this common concept of the nature of man is
not something that is alien to leading thinkers in Asia; and I
think what China and even Russia are doing now, is really
reflective of at least an intuitive, if not completely
self-conscious idea of this unique character of human beings as
the only creative species.

        ROSS:  Xi Jinping — I forget the occasion of his making his
speech — but in some recent remarks that he made, he had traced
through the history of mankind.  He was detailing all the big
discoveries that made modern humanity possible; but he went all
the way back.  Fire, metallurgy; he talked about in the past 200
years, the incredible revolutions of steam power, of chemistry,
electricity.  So, there's definitely a recognition that something
very special happened in a scientific way coming out of Europe
from the period of the Renaissance; that's undeniable.  The
aspect of it that was universal, you bring up the work that
Leibniz was doing about 300 years ago to try to maintain and have
a dialogue with China; to have an opportunity for European
science to make inroads into China, to uplift people's living
standard there and to find more collaborators to work on things
with.  And also at the same time, his view that Chinese natural
philosophy, or natural theology, or an outlook on the world and
on social relations, that there was a potential for the rest of
the world to learn a great deal about that from China.  His view
was that if one were to ignore Christianity, which he saw as
given as a revealed religion based on — in other words, it
wasn't a discovery that anybody could have made.  It occurred
through a personality who was in the Western world.  That leaving
that aside, China was superior in its moral and cultural outlook.
        The attacks on it today are pretty astonishing.  People
saying, "Oh, look at China's economy; it's faltering.  Look their
growth rate is only 10 times ours; it used to be 20 times ours.
They're going down."  Meanwhile, it's just negative interest
rates; it's obvious where the growth is coming from.  Also, the
way they have to play up the idea of China being a threat; it
sort of seems like a psychological case of projection almost.

        STEINBERG:  Sure, yeah.  I think it was pointed out that in
the case of Russia that the U.S. defense budget, when you count
in all of the defense expenditures, is over $1 trillion a year.
There's a $1 trillion program to completely overhaul and
modernize our nuclear weapons arsenal; and that's in the
Department of Energy budget.  That doesn't even show up in the
$600 billion Pentagon budget.  That's $1 trillion that's going
into preparation for the insanity of being able to launch, fight,
and win a nuclear war.  Russia's entire defense budget is $84
billion; so it's literally less than 10% of the U.S.'s.  And
China similarly; it's a fraction of what the U.S. is spending.

        OGDEN:  Yeah, as Stephen Cohen said, Russia knows how to do
counter-terrorism; we don't know how to do it very well.

        ROSS:  We're certainly not acting on it if we do have that
knowledge.

        OGDEN:  And I think there is an element, as Mr. LaRouche was
emphasizing, of President Putin's own unique insight as a world
leader.  Going back to the very beginnings of his Presidency,
with what he did in Chechnya to defeat the threat of Islamic
terrorism there; he said the threat here is that Russia is
Balkanized.  That we become the new Yugoslavia.  And what would
that imply for the civilization of the world?  But even going
back to the fact that Putin's background is as an intelligence
officer, he very well knows that the source of this whole Islamic
terrorism threat has its roots in the Al-Yamamah deal and the
efforts that were made by Prince Bandar and Margaret Thatcher at
that time to deploy the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the
Soviet Union.  The Al-Yamamah deal was a Cold War deal; and the
fact that this has not been dismantled, means that this is still
an active threat.

        STEINBERG:  The other thing that sort of begs that same
question is, is it that we're not good at it?  Or really on the
other side?  I think you've got to look at the case of this
shooter down in Orlando — Omar Mateen; and consider the fact
that he was employed for 7-8 years by a British company called
G4S, which is the third-largest private corporation in the world,
behind Walmart and some Asian supermarket chain.  It's a
mercenary company; it's a "private security company".  They're
involved in mercenary activities all over the world.  They were
in Iraq as part of the so-called "contractors" involved in the
occupation.  In Israel, they man the checkpoints; they provide
the technology.  They are the security for the illegal Jewish
settlements in the West Bank.  Here in the United States, they
have the contracts to provide the security for 90% of the nuclear
power plants in the U.S..  They're a major contractor for the
Department of Homeland Security.  And they had this ticking time
bomb on the payroll; even when he was under investigation by the
FBI for a period of a year, his job was never in jeopardy.  You
almost get the sense that these British companies maintain a
small army of people who are severely mentally disturbed; who can
be triggered at any time that there's a necessity for a pretext.
        Remember that in January of 2001, Mr. LaRouche gave
testimony in opposition to John Ashcroft's confirmation as
Attorney General; because he said the character of the Bush
administration was that they would look to create a Reichstag
Fire incident to go for dictatorship.  That was seven months
before the 9/11 attacks that that warning was issued; and it was
absolutely prescient.  So, I think what Dr. Lin said in her
article, that the U.S. and the British — although she focussed
on the United States — have used these jihadists as tools in a
policy of regime change that has destabilized the Middle East and
a lot of other parts of the world.  We are part of this jihadist
structure; the British — pivotally so through things like
Al-Yamamah — but for the last 15 years with the Bush
administration and now Obama, we've been part of that same
equation.  So, this is something that we've got to face the cold
hard truth of if we're ever going to deal with this problem.

        OGDEN:  And you see this rabid opposition to even the
declassification of the 28 pages and the 9/11 Report.  What
Brennan is doing right now to run cover for the Saudis, is
disgusting.

        STEINBERG:  And who did Obama meet with today?

        OGDEN:  Prince Salman; exactly.  Well, I think with the
activation of this Walter Jones bill, this is definitely going
one step further; and I think a lot of people have begun to
recognize that you have to call out Obama for what he's done on
this front.  We've celebrated the courage that Senator Mike
Gravel had on this when he exposed the Pentagon Papers in the
1970s; and I think that this continues to inspire people.
Obviously, it has inspired Walter Jones.  The depth of the
resolution is, I think, beyond your average fare for
Congressional "Whereas" clauses.  What it says in terms of citing
George Washington, in terms of citing the Supreme Court case in
support of Mike Grave; and just generally making the point.  And
also not pulling your punches on the Saudi aspect of this; it
names explicitly the Saudi government and the role that this has
played.  And Bob Graham has repeatedly warned — and I think this
every single time there is an attack of this nature, it has to be
repeated — the fact that the 28 pages were not declassified,
means that the logistical support network that was in place
before 9/11, which enabled the 9/11 attackers to do what they
did, was not dismantled.  And for all we know, is very well still
in place; and a lot of the connections.  The Sarasota aspect of
the cover-up by the FBI of the 80,000 pages, this speaks to the
fact that this attack happened in Orlando.  Then, there's the
entire southern California aspect, which was documented in the
investigations that went into putting together the 28 pages.  I
know you've said a lot about this already, Jeff, but all of these
points have to continually be touched upon.

        CHRISTIE:  I would just add, I think that that as a flank is
very crucial; because it goes right to the gut — not just of
Obama and the cover-up — but more simply of the Bush crowd and
their illegal wars that we've launched since under the guise of
so-called terrorism after 9/11.  Targetting nations that had
nothing to do with it, but really had to do with the geopolitical
games against Russia, China, and India.  But as Mr. LaRouche
mentioned on the occasion of the Orlando incident with this
Mateen shooting up the club; Mr. LaRouche brought it back to
Al-Yamamah.  That you have to see it in a much larger context;
these are not isolated cases.  So, I think the flank of the 28
pages goes right to that whole structure that has been brought in
since the Al-Yamamah deal, which has been connected to the
various aspects of the financial system and so forth.  What Mrs.
LaRouche said is, if you look at everything, we are at an
absolute {punctum saliens} moment; where you have — as we
discussed at the opening of the show — the question of vote on
the Brexit on the 23rd, which is already having huge
implications.  Obviously, we don't know all the details, but it's
highly likely that this assassination of the British Member of
Parliament was related to this.  You have the Brexit vote, you
have the financial collapse; now admitted that they're going back
to the crazy mortgage fraud that had threatened to bring down the
system in 2007-2008.  You have the German bonds trading at
negative interest rates; Japan's central bank putting out
negative interest rates.  You just have all of this coming
together.  The war games and the desperation by the British.  And
what Mr. LaRouche said is that we have a situation that is
unpredictable.  And I think what that means for all of us and our
fellow Americans, is to say that this really is open for what we
decide to do.
        In other words, there may be various players who might have
all their different ideas of what to do in this moment of crisis;
but we have to have the sense that we know what to do because of
what Lyn and Helga have done over these decades.  And this is an
opportunity now to take the leadership and demand that our
program and policies be implemented.  But even more importantly
perhaps, is a way of thinking about it; and a way of creativity
being at the forefront of what we think of economics, of what we
think of human relations in general.  So, we just seize on this
moment of the {punctum saliens}; that this is the time to exert
leadership.

        OGDEN:  I think that's a very well-stated point to close our
show on.  Again, the {punctum saliens} — the pregnant moment;
the moment of decision.  As Jeff mentioned, by the time we meet
here next week, the Brexit vote will have occurred; a lot is
changing very rapidly.  We have a lot to watch from that.
        I would like to thank everybody for joining me here today.
Thanks, Jeff and Jason both; and also Dave and Megan for joining
us via video.  And thank you all for tuning in; please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com for critical daily updates.  If you have not
yet subscribed to the LaRouche PAC Daily email, you may do that
through our website.  And if you have not yet subscribed to our
YouTube channel, please subscribe to our YouTube channels to be
sure that you do not miss any of our regularly scheduled shows
here on larouchepac.com.  So, thank you very much and good night.

15. juni, 2016 – Ifølge AntiMedia (theantimedia.org), var FBI-angivere involveret i 243 af de 508 terrorsager, som FBI har åbnet siden d. 11. september, 2001. Af disse FBI-angivere, hvoraf næsten alle var muslimer, og mange var diagnosticeret mentalt syge, var mange i desperat pengenød og derfor modtagelige for FBI-bestikkelse til at gå med i angivelige terrorhandlinger, som egentlig var ’stingoperationer’ (komplicerede, overlagte intriger for at narre ’forbrydere’ til at gå i fælden, -red.). I nyhedsartiklen sættes der fokus på sagen om ’De fire fra Newburgh’, og den er delvis baseret på en undersøgelse fra 2014, udført af ’Koalitionen til beskyttelse af civile rettigheder’, med titlen: ”At opfinde terrorister: ’Lawfare’ ved brug af forebyggende retsforfølgelse.” (’lawfare’ er asymmetrisk krigsførelse ved brug af hjemlig eller international lov, -red.)

En af de fire sagsøgte i sagen, James Cromitie, var en tidligere stofmisbruger, der gentagne gange havde afslået tilbud om penge fra FBI’s hemmelige agenter for at deltage i en hemmelig terrorplan. En anden sagsøgt, Laguerre Payan, var diagnosticeret med skizofreni, og en tredje, David Williams, var i desperat pengenød, fordi hans bror behøvede en livreddende levertransplantation.

En anden sag, der involverer Rezawan Ferdaus, var et endnu mere åbenlyst tilfælde, hvor FBI udså sig en mentalt syg person. Ferdaus led af en alvorlig depression i en sådan grad, at han ikke havde kontrol over sin blærefunktion, men han blev af FBI presset til at gå med i en hemmelig plan om at angribe Capitol-bygningen (kongresbygningen i Washington D.C., -red.)

I endnu et andet tilfælde, der nævnes i dagens historie fra AntiMedia.org, meldte en far fra Boston til FBI, at hans søn lavede opslag på Facebook i ISIS’ favør, og FBI trådte til og skaffede drengen våben, hvorefter de arresterede ham. Et andet vigtigt tilfælde var sagen med Sam Osmakac. Osmakac fik våben af FBI, blev styret af en FBI-angiver, forsynet med en bilbombe af FBI og ligeledes med penge til at betale sine rejseomkostninger til det sted, hvor han så sluttelig blev arresteret. En psykiatrisk undersøgelse beordret af retten afslørede, at han led af en skizo-affektiv psykose. Hans FBI-sagsbehandler kaldte ham ”et retarderet fjols”. Tidligere assisterende direktør hos FBI, Thomas Fuentes, beskrev dette som FBI’s ”Hold Frygten i Live”-politik, med det formål at sikre fortsat forøgelse af budgetterne. I virkeligheden er det langt værre end blot budget-motivering, som FBI’s rolle i mørklægningen af d. 11. september klarest illustrerer.

Den samme profil, hvor FBI skaber terrorisme, hvor den ikke eksisterer, ved hjælp af ’stingoperationer’, fremgik af en længere artikel i New York Times d. 7. juni, 2016, under overskriften ”FBI optrapper brugen af stingoperationer i ISIS-sager.” Journalist Eric Lichtblau fra Times rapporterede, at to tredjedele af FBI’s anklager i terrorsager er baseret på ’sting’, en betydelig stigning over de seneste år. Historien i Times nævnte sagen om ’De fire fra Newburgh’ og citerede dommer Colleen McMahon, der i retten erklærede, at ”Jeg mener uden skygge af tvivl, at der ikke ville have været nogen forbrydelse her, hvis regeringen ikke havde iværksat, planlagt og bragt den til fuldførelse.” En tidligere New York Times-artikel fra d. 28. april, 2012, med overskriften ”Hemmelige terrorplaner udklækket af FBI”, udgjorde en lignende sag, hvor FBI’s overlagte fælder skabte terrorisme, der ellers aldrig ville have materialiseret sig.

En anden FBI-stingoperation, der af Glenn Greenwald blev rapporteret i onlineavisen The Intercept, blev spydigt beskrevet som ”endnu en FBI-sejr over de mentalt syge.”

Foto: ’The Newburgh 4’: Fra venstre: James Cromitie, David Williams, Laguerre Payen og Onta Williams. (Foto: J.B. Nicholas, Christopher Sadowski Splash News/Newscom)

16. juni, 2016 – Den neokonservative krigsmaskine i Washington satser alt, den har, på, at Hillary Clinton bliver den næste præsident. Ikke blot har den neokonservative Robert Kagan, [viceudenrigsminister for europæiske og eurasiske anliggender]Victoria Nulands mand, støttet Hillary som den næste præsident, men han har medforfattet en rapport produceret af Centret for Ny Amerikansk Sikkerhed (CNAS), ”Udvidelse af amerikansk magt: Strategier for Udvidelse af Amerikansk Engagement i en Rivaliserende Verdensorden”, som i en artikel d. 14. juni i Off-Guardian.com beskrives som intet mindre end en nyt ’Projekt for et Nyt Amerikansk Århundrede’ (PNAC), der, i sin oprindelige udgave fra slutningen af 1990’erne, udgjorde den neokonservative perspektivplan for G.W. Bush-regeringen. Foruden Kagans navn tæller den nye perspektivplan også navnene James Rubin, en tidligere talsmand for Udenrigsministeriet under Bill Clinton-regeringen; tidligere undersekretær for Forsvarsministeriet i den anden G.W. Bush-regering Eric Edelman; tidligere stabschef for det Hvide Hus under G.W. Bush Stephen J. Hadley, og tidligere undersekretær for Forsvarsministeriet Michele Flournoy, blandt andre. Flornoy, grundlægger og direktør for CNAS og en af arkitekterne bag NATO’s bombning af Libyen i 2011, skal iflg. udbredte rygter være Hillarys valg som den næste forsvarsminister. 

I korthed hævder rapporten, at den amerikansk kontrollerede verdensorden udfordres af sådanne som Rusland, Kina, islamisk radikalisme og et skift i den globale økonomi – hvilket fordrer en ”fornyelse” af amerikansk lederskab i Europa, Asien og Mellemøsten. Dette kræver først og fremmest et stort løft i amerikanske forsvarsudgifter.

USA, hævder rapporten, ”har stadig den militære, økonomiske og politiske magt til at spille den ledende rolle med at beskytte en stabil international orden, baseret på regler.” Opgaven for den næste præsident vil blive at sikre, at USA har viljen til at lede. Hovedtruslen mod denne ”vilje til at lede” er imidlertid ikke Rusland, Kina eller nogen anden ydre faktor, men snarere det amerikanske folk, der måske er ved at være trætte efter 15 års evindelige krige. ”Det er nødvendigt, at ansvarlige politiske ledere forklarer en ny generation af amerikanere, hvor vigtig denne verdensorden er for deres velbefindende, og hvor vital Amerikas rolle i at opretholde den, er.”

– Det massemorderiske voldsorgie i Orlando, Florida, er blot det seneste i en række forfærdelige terrorangreb, der, ligesom 11. septenber 2001, udspringer af den 30 år gamle Al Yamama olie-for-våben-aftale mellem de britiske og saudiske monarkier. En aftale, der skabte nutidens jihadistiske apparat som et dække for krigsoperationer, der har til formål at destabilisere rivaliserende nationer, med Rusland og Kina som hovedmål. Få hele historie her: lpac.co/orlando   

16. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Det indledningsvise børneeventyr, der fortalte, at massedrabene i Orlando var Islamisk Stats værk, disintegrerer hastigt i takt med, at nye beviser peger på den selv samme kombination af magter, der udførte de oprindelige 11. september-angreb – briterne, saudierne og FBI.

Massemorderen fra Orlando, Omar Mateen, var en mangeårig ansat hos et af den britiske Krones største og mest modbydelige private sikkerhedstjenester – G4S, der har 620.000 ansatte i flere end 100 lande. G4S er det tredjestørste, private selskab i verden, og det er en afgørende del af det britiske monarkis »usynlige imperium«, bestående af private lejesoldater, mordere og hemmelige operatører. I USA har G4S sikkerhedskontrakter på 90 % af nationens atomkraftværker, er en hovedunderentreprenør for USA’s Departement for Intern Sikkerhed (Homeland Security), og udførte endda sikkerhedsopgaverne for offshore olieboreplatformene fra British Petroleum i Den mexicanske Golf, hvilket er det sted, hvor Omar Mateen arbejdede i en årrække.

På trods af den kendsgerning, at kolleger krævede, at Mateen blev fyret pga. hans psykotiske og voldelige adfærd, beholdt firmaet ham og arrangerede en tilladelse til at få et hemmeligt våben for ham.

Mateen foretog to rejser til Saudi-Arabien, i 2011 og 2012, hvor han boede på firstjernede hoteller og andre indkvarteringer i den dyre klasse. Det vides ikke, hvad han lavede der, men begge rejser fandt sted, mens han var ansat af G4S.

I næsten et helt år var Mateen genstand for en FBI-undersøgelse pga. mistanke om bånd til terrorister, men FBI droppede sluttelig sagen, og hans job hos G4S var på intet tidspunkt i fare. Faktisk gør nylige rapporter i New York Times og The Intercept det klart, at selve FBI har styret en hær af betalte »islamistiske« provokatører, der kørtes gennem de klassiske »sting-operationer«[1], der blev berømte gennem 1970’ernes og ’80’ernes Operation Abscam og Brilab, hvor FBI-agenter forklædte sig som rige, saudiske prinser for at narre kongresmedlemmer og medlemmer af fagforeninger i fælder. Halvdelen af alle de såkaldte »terrorsager«, som FBI har indledt siden 11. september, involverer disse sting-teknikker, og i mange tilfælde var ofrene mentalt syge eller i desperat pengenød, eller begge dele.

Hvis man vil forstå, hvordan briterne kontrollerer og manipulerer amerikansk politik, skal man blot omhyggeligt studere denne anglo-saudiske-FBI-forbindelse. Det er dette apparat – der har været en dominerende faktor siden lanceringen af den anglo-saudiske Al Yamama olie-for-våben-aftale i 1985, med dens hemmelige offshore-konti til at finansiere global, jihadistisk terror – som må afsløres og knuses fuldstændigt, hvis USA nogensinde igen skal genvinde sin selvstændighed.

Dette er grunden til, at briterne og saudierne og FBI er rædselsslagne ved udsigten til, at de 28 sider [af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelses-rapport om 11. september fra 2002, -red.] skal blive frigivet til offentligheden. Beviserne, som indeholdes i disse sider – uagtet de løgne, der kommer fra John Brennan og Barack Obama – åbner vinduet for hele det Britiske Imperiums topstyrede kontrol over global terrorisme. Den netop indgivne Resolution i Repræsentanternes Hus nr. 779 (H.Res.779), der kræver, at det hemmeligstemplede 28 sider lange kapitel fra den Fælles Kongresundersøgelses-rapport om 11. september omgående udgives i Kongressens protokoller, https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hres779/text

uden indblanding fra Obama eller John Brennan, under den forfatningsmæssige opdeling af magten, er en magtfuld intervention. Det faktum, at lovforslaget blev fremstillet samme dag, som den saudiske vicekronprins og magten bag tronen, prins Mohammed bin Salman, ankom til Washington for at mødes med [udenrigsminister] John Kerry, [forsvarsminister] Ashton Carter, [chef for CIA] John Brennan, [efterretningschef] James Clapper, [formand for Repræsentanternes Hus] Paul Ryan og [tidl. formand for R.H, nuværende leder af mindretallet i samme] Nancy Pelosi, viser en perfekt timing.

Dette er et opgørets øjeblik, og alle mentalt raske kræfter må mobiliseres for at tvinge sandheden om det Britisk-Saudiske Imperium frem, og for at bringe dette imperium til fald én gang for alle.   

Af Tom Gillesberg: Goldman Sachs fik sin kæmpebonus. Vil et britisk nej til EU lede til euroens kollaps, kaos i EU og udløse et internationalt finanskrak værre end i 2008? NATO er i gang med den største militæropbygning langs Ruslands grænse siden 2. verdenskrig. Kan vi forhindre en fortsat konfrontationspolitik, der vil føre til atomkrig? Putin åbner den asiatiske flanke, og Obamas plan for asiatisk NATO vendt imod Kina fejler. Terrorangrebet i Orlando viser, hvorfor de hemmelighedsstemplede 28- sider om terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001 må frigives. De netværk, der blev etableret og finansieret af Storbritannien og Saudi-Arabien gennem den såkaldte al-Yamama våbenhandelsaftale, og som blev beskyttet af FBI, stod ikke blot bag udåden i 2001, men står stadig bag blodige terroranslag. De er også kilden til Islamisk Stat og andre terrororganisationers store fremgang, for lande som Saudi-Arabien, Qatar og Tyrkiet har støttet dem i deres forsøg på at tage magten i Irak og Syrien. Læs mere på www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13111. 

Dette er en redigeret udgave af et foredrag af Schiller Instituttets formand Tom Gillesberg den 9. juni 2016. Se foredraget og den medfølgende diskussion på www.schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=13061.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Følgende præsentation indeholder arkivoptagelser af angrebene på World Trade Center og Pentagon, den 11. september 2001.  

Lyndon LaRouche, juni 2007: »Verden har levet under et system, som er 11. september-systemet – der allerede eksisterede, som jeg advarede om, i begyndelsen af 2001. FØR præsident George W. Bush blev indsat første gang, og hvor jeg sagde, ’Verdens system har nået et punkt, hvor et fremstormende kollaps af systemet nu er i gang. Og jeg sagde dengang, at faren består i, at noget lignende dette vil indtræffe, under de nuværende tendenser i USA, og det indtraf! Og det hed ’9/11’ – 11. september.’«

Se også: USA: I har nøglerne til at standse terrorbølgen. Brug dem!

Se også: »Den anglo-saudiske baggrund for den aktuelle, internationale terrorisme: Frigiv sandheden, og lad os lukke imperiemagternes topstyrede terrorapparat ned, én gang for alle!«

13. juni, 2016 – På tærsklen til den saudiske stedfortræder-kronprins Mohammed bin Salmans besøg i Washington, annoncerede CIA-direktør John Brennan faktisk, at han arbejder for den saudiske kongefamilie.

I sit omfattende interview med TV nyhedskanalen Al-Arabiya d. 11. juni, angreb Brennan Iran for at være den vigtigste terroristtrussel i Mellemøsten, alt imens han uddelte savlende ros til kong Salman og stedfortræder-kronprins Mohammad bin Salman, for at være USA’s stærkeste partnere ”i denne kamp mod terrorisme.” Han fortalte sin interviewer, ”Vi har et fortræffeligt samarbejde med Saudi Arabien. Jeg har arbejdet med mine saudiske partnere i mange, mange år. Jeg gjorde tjeneste i Saudi Arabien i omtrent 5 år under lederskab af kronprins Mohammad bin Nayef, som også er indenrigsminister. Over de seneste 15 år er saudierne blevet en af vores bedste partnere i kampen mod terrorisme.”

De seneste 15 år? Inkluderer det d. 11. september 2001?

Idet han frikender saudierne for nogen som helst meddelagtighed i det rædselsvækkende angreb i 2001, rapporterer Brennan, at han fortsat er meget bekymret over ”Irans støtte til terroristaktiviteter og terroristgrupper inden for Irak, i Syrien og andre lande i regionen.” Idet han kalder Iran for en ”statssponsor for terrorisme”, spiller Brennan klog på, at Iran ”stadig har lang vej tilbage, før jeg er overbevist om, at de er interesseret i at imødegå og knuse terrorisme.” Han tilføjede, at han har ”nul” kontakt med sine iranske kolleger.

Idet han hyklede forståelse for behovet for forhandlinger for at løse den syriske krise, klagede Brennan over, at Rusland ikke gør nok for at bruge sin ”indflydelse på Syrien til at tilskynde til en overgang væk fra Bashar al-Assad-regimet.” Rusland ”sidder i virkeligheden med nøglen” til, hvorvidt Assad går af, hævdede Brennan, og tilføjede igen, hvor ”skuffet” han er over, at Rusland ikke gør mere for at ”bringe denne konflikt til ende.” Brennan anklagede Assad for at være lovligt ansvarlig for tilvæksten i terrorisme og ekstremisme i Syrien. ”Der er behov for, at han forlader scenen.”

13. juni 2016 (Leder) – Det massemorderiske voldsorgie i Orlando, Florida, angiveligt begået af en tilhænger af Islamisk Stat, Omar Mateen, er blot det seneste i en række af forfærdelige terrorangreb, der alle udspringer af den tredive år gamle »olieaftale« mellem det britiske og det saudiske monarki. Denne aftale har givet dem stor magt og store, skjulte ressourcer til at skabe nutidens globale jihadistiske organisation for angreb imod nationer.

Med mindre, og før, denne anglo-saudiske organisation afsløres – som vi kan gøre det med afsløringen af de dokumenter om 11. september, der er blevet hemmeligholdt i 15 år – og opløses, vil verden konstant stå over for blinde terrorangreb, over alt og til enhver tid.

Præsident Obama blev en overlagt og villig agent for briterne og saudierne i sine evindelige krige, der har spredt kaos i hele Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og terror i hele verden.

Hvilket »sammentræf«, at Obama skal mødes med den saudiske kronprins Salman i Washington, mens hans CIA-direktør, John Brennan, gør sit yderste for at »frikende« Saudi-Arabien for sin rolle i at arrangere angrebene den 11. september og drabene på 3.000 amerikanere. Både Obama og Prins Salman mødes med blodige hænder.

EIR’s stiftende radaktør Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede i dag, at han har været klar over denne britisk-saudiske magt for ondskab i årtier; og at dette bidrog til, at han den 2. januar, 2001, fremkom med en særdeles offentlig og publiceret advarsel om, at der forelå en trussel om et større terrorangreb mod USA, der ville finde sted i efteråret 2001.

»Det er stadig det samme, det drejer sig om, selv i gårsdagens massemord i Orlando«, sagde LaRouche.

Den unge Orlando-drabsmand var rejst til Saudi-Arabien i 2011 og 2012, mens han var ansat i det britiske, internationale sikkerhedsfirma G4S; og han kom tilbage som en tilsyneladende meget forandret person.

LaRouche understregede, at, fordi Obamas krige nu umiddelbart fører til en konfrontation med Rusland, og truer med at blive til Tredje Verdenskrig, er det af afgørende betydning at afsløre de saudisk/britiske hænder bag – begyndende med 11. september – og at tvinge Obama ud.

’Aftalen’, der lancerede 1000 angreb

I 1985 indgik Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, daværende saudisk ambassadør til USA, et langvarigt partnerskab med den britiske regering under daværende premierminister Margaret Thatcher. Under dække af en olie-for-våben-aftale ved navn Al Yamamah (arabisk for »duen«), etablerede de britiske og saudiske monarkier en offshore-fond, der voksede til enorme proportioner og er blevet brugt til at føre global terrorisme imod udpegede nationer.

I løbet af de mere end 30 år, siden Al Yamamah blev lanceret, har de britiske og saudiske monarkier ophobet langt over $100 mia. i en kæde af hemmelige offshore-fonde, til finansiering af terrorisme, politiske mord, kupplaner og andre forbrydelser som den aktuelle saudisk/britisk/amerikanske invasion og bombning af Yemen.

Under Al Yamamah sendte den britiske våbenproducent BAE Systems for anslået $40 mia. våben til det Saudiske Forsvars- og Luftvåbenministerium, og for anslået yderligere $20 mia. i bestikkelser til saudiske prinser og regeringsfolk inden for forsvaret. Til gengæld sendte saudierne 600.000 tønder olie pr. dag til briterne. Gennem de anglo-hollandske oliegiganter British Petroleum og Royal Dutch Shell blev olien solgt på de internationale spotmarkeder og skabte profitter for hundreder af milliarder af dollars. En EIR-undersøgelse fra 2007 anslog, at, som et minimum, blev $100 mia. i overskud ophobet og deponeret i hemmelige offshore bankkonti, til brug for hemmelige, fælles anglo-saudiske operationer.

I en officiel biografi pralede Prins Bandar med at bruge disse hemmelige midler og med den særlige natur af Al Yamamah-aftalen, som kun kunne have været gennemført mellem to absolutte monarkier, der kunne agere over loven og udviske skellet mellem offentlige og private handlinger.

ISIS har, med andre ord, absolut IKKE været verdens rigeste, islamistiske terroroperation.

I 2007, da de britiske medier gennemførte en begrænset afsløring af Al Yamamah-bestikkelsesskandalen, lukkede den britiske premierminister Tony Blair den britiske Afdeling for Alvorligt Bedrageris (SFO) efterforskning, med den begrundelse, at det anglo-saudiske partnerskab var af afgørende betydning for den britiske nationale sikkerhed. Ordren til at lukke efterforskningen kom få timer efter, at den schweiziske regering havde besluttet at give SFO adgang til de hemmelige bankkonti, tilhørende Wafiq Said, en stråmand for Al Yamamah-midlerne.

Al Yamamah-aftalen var en lukrativ transaktion for Prins Bandar, som fik en kommission for sin rolle i lanceringen af programmet på mindst $2 mia. (amerikanske efterretningskilder anslår, at Bandar fik mere end $10 mia. for aftalen).

Spørgsmålet om 3.000 dræbte amerikanere

Bandar er direkte indblandet i angrebene den 11. september på World Trade Center og Pentagon. Penge fra den personlige bankkonto tilhørende Bandar og hans hustru, prinsesse Haifa (søster til den mangeårige direktør for saudisk efterretning, Prins Turki-al-Faisal), blev videregivet til to af de oprindelige flykaprere fra 11. september, Khalid al-Mihdhar og Nawaf al-Hazmi, via de saudiske efterretningsofficerer Omar al-Bayoumi og Osama Basnan. Penge overførtes fra Bank of Englands konti fra det Britiske Forsvarsministeriums Støttekontor til Forsvarseksport (DESO) til Bandars konto i Riggs National Banks. Desuden modtog al-Bayoumi og Basnan penge gennem en ’skygge’-ansættelse i et saudisk forsvarsfirma, Dalah Aviation, der var eneste entrepriseindehaver for det Saudiske Forsvarsministerium.

En føderal dommmer (dvs. udpeget af præsidenten) i Sarasota, Florida, gennemgår nu flere end 80.000 sider af tilbageholdte FBI-dokumenter, der drejer sig om en celle bestående af flykaprerne den 11. september, og dennes forbindelser til en prominent, rig, saudisk forretningsmand med stærke bånd til det saudiske monarki. Nogle uger før angrebene den 11. september, forlod den saudiske familie, der opholdt sig i et indhegnet bosted i Sarasota, meget pludseligt landet. De efterlod sig ejendele, der indikerede, at de brød op med meget kort varsel. FBI gennemførte en uddybende undersøgelse af familien, fordi de husede tre af flykaprerne fra 11. september, inkl. ringlederen Mohammed Atta i mange tilfælde, iflg. sikkerhedslogs og videooptagelser, der viser Atta og de andre gå ind og ud af ejendommen.

FBI hemmeligholdt dokumenterne og det faktum, at de foretog en undersøgelse, for den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse og 11. september-kommissionen. Tidligere senator Bob Graham, der var med-formand i den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse, hævder nu, at eksistensen af forbindelsen mellem de saudiske royale og Sarasota-cellen, når dette ses i sammenhæng med beviset for den saudiske regerings støtte til San Diego-cellen, nu rejser yderligere spørgsmål om angrebene 11. september. Hvad med Herndon, staten Virginia, og Paterson, staten New Jersey, har senator Graham offentligt spurgt?

Et 47 sider langt dokument, skrevet af de to stabsmedlemmer af 11. september-kommissionen, der tidligere havde arbejdet for den Fælles Kongresunderundersøgelse, og som havde skrevet det 28 sider lange, undertrykte kapitel, identificerede i alt 20 saudiske regeringsfolk med beviselige bånd til de 19 flykaprere forud for angrebene 11. september.

Disse forbindelser gik fra det sydlige Californien til den Saudiske Ambassade i Washington og til den Saudiske Ambassade i Berlin, Tyskland. Tidligere flådeminister John Lehman, medlem af 11. sept.-kommissionen, sagde til ’60 Minutes’, at kommissionen ikke førte en uddybende undersøgelse af de ledetråde, der burde have været forfulgt, og som relaterede til det saudiske monarki og det saudiske regimes støtte til flykaprerne. Lehman, blandt andre kommissionsmedlemmer, har krævet en tilbundsgående, fra øverst til nederst, ny undersøgelse af 11. sept. – en undersøgelse, hvor alle de undertrykte ledetråde og åbne spor til de saudiske royale fuldt ud forfølges.

I løbet af denne trediveårige periode med Al Yamamah-programmet er der flydt penge fra disse hemmelige offshore-konti, så vel som også gennem saudiske velgørenhedsorganisationer, til finansiering af et globalt netværk af moskeer og madrasser (skoler), der har rekrutteret flere generationer til det ekstreme wahhabi/salafist-apparat, som udgør rekrutteringspuljen til sunni jihadistisk terror over hele verden.

Hvad der skal gøres

De beviser, der indeholdes i det stadigt hemmeligstemplede, 28 sider lange kapitel af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. sept., åbner døren til en optrevling af hele det anglo-saudiske terrorapparat. Uden en forståelse af den rolle, som det britiske monarki og de britiske efterretningstjenester har spillet i det jihadistiske apparat, er det umuligt at lukke dets evne til at operere ned.

CIA-direktøren fremførte i et interview søndag, at amerikanere »ikke burde tro på« dette 28-siders kapitel, som han nu frygter, vil blive tvunget til at blive frigivet, med en ophævelse af hemmeligstemplingen. Men et republikansk medlem af Kongressen rapporterede i et tweet, »CIA-direktøren må referere til nogle andre 28 sider end dem, jeg har læst. Frigiv dem, og lad det amerikanske folk træffe afgørelsen.« I har i jeres hænder midlerne til at gå til modangreb mod denne britisk/saudiske operation. Brug dem. Fremtving en offentliggørelse af de saudiske beviser. Fremtving Obamas afgang. »Dette må gøres hurtigt«, sagde LaRouche i dag, »for at forhindre yderligere international ødelæggelse.«

Video: 'Beyond the 28-pages – 9/11: Ten Years Later' – Otte måneder før angrebene 11. september, 2001, forudsagde Lyndon LaRouche, at USA havde en høj risiko for en begivenhed à la ’Rigsdagsbranden’, en begivenhed, der ville gøre det muligt for dem, der var ved magten, gennem diktatoriske midler at styre en økonomisk og samfundsmæssig krise, som de i modsat fald ikke var kompetente til at håndtere. Vi lever nu i det ubrudte kølvand af dette stykke historie.

Titelbillede: Obama og Kong Salman bin Abdulaziz under et af præsidentens mange besøg i Saudi-Arabien samtidig med, at han opretholdt mørklægningen af 11. september. [flickr/whitehouse]

]           

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det

9. juni 2016 (Leder) – I går lykkedes det næsten indgriben fra FBI at forhindre Lyndon LaRouches deltagelse via internet i en stor konference i Nordcalifornien, arrangeret af hans medarbejdere. Hvis ikke lederskabet dér havde grebet ind i tide, ville LaRouche ikke have kunnet deltage.

Da LaRouche endelig kunne tale, var hans udgangspunkt den aktuelle, akutte trussel mod den menneskelige eksistens.

»Det væsentligste spørgsmål, jeg bekymrer mig om, er truslerne mod den menneskelige arts eksistens, i det totale område, lige nu. For, lige nu, på dette tidspunkt, står hele den menneskelige arts eksistens på den yderste rand, og vi må derfor være lydhøre over for at forstå, hvad det er for problemer, der er involveret i det her, og hvad det er for midler, der kan sikre en udvej for menneskeheden generelt.

Netop nu befinder den generelle menneskehed sig under en alvorlig trussel om undergang, på global skala. Det betyder ikke, at det nødvendigvis vil finde sted. Det betyder, at, hvis vi gør de rigtige ting, kan vi undfly disse trusler. Det er, hvor vi står generelt, lige nu.  Og hvis du vil gøre noget ved det, så lad os tale om det.«

 Men fra dette øjeblik og fremefter – lad os sige det ligeud – rev hovedindholdet i LaRouches bemærkninger slemt i nerverne på mange lyttere. Han blev ved med at komme tilbage til spørgsmålet om personlig identitet, men især spørgsmålet om hans egen personlige identitet. På et spørgsmål om, hvordan det individuelle sind overvinder forhindringer for at vinde en kamp for menneskeheden, svarede han:

»Lad mig sige, at jeg har temmelig gode levnedsegenskaber. Jeg er en aktiv person i samfundet, og jeg er en ældre person, og en erfaren, ældre person, en af de mest erfarne af alle personer i denne kategori. Så jeg tror ikke, nogen ville have nogen vanskeligheder med at forstå, hvem jeg er, hvad jeg er, hvor jeg kom fra og hvad jeg gør.

Andre personer holder måske fast ved en idé om en anden identitet hos en anden person, som jeg ikke kender, men sådan synes det at være.«

LaRouche drejede næsten hvert spørgsmål rundt på denne måde. Dette her irriterer dig måske, men det første spørgsmål, du skal stille dig selv, er: er det sandt? Er det sådan, at »tingene bare sker«, eller er det sådan, at »tingene bringes til at ske« af mænd og kvinder, der, som LaRouche sagde, er »kvalificeret til at skabe historie?« Da MacArthur blev tvunget ud af Filippinerne den 12. marts 1942, var det da rigtigt af ham at sige, »Jeg vender tilbage«, eller burde han have ændret det til »vi vender tilbage«? Ville mennesket have klaret at komme til Månen i 1969 – eller nogensinde – hvis det ikke havde været for den enlige skikkelse, den første og største tyske rumpioner, Hermann Oberth (1894-1989). Oberth var fattig det meste af sit liv. Efter at have kæmpet for rumrejser i årtier, havde han næppe mødt en eneste person, der både var enig i, og forstod, disses betydning. Men det er takket være denne »næppe en eneste person«, såsom Werner von Braun, at vi fik den revolution, som var rumprogrammet.

På et spørgsmål om, hvordan vi kan afgøre, hvorvidt vore forestillinger er fantasteri eller er sandfærdige, svarede LaRouche:

»Hvorfor siger vi simpelthen ikke, lad os identificere et sandfærdigt eksempel, en sandfærdig identitet. Jeg er. Og enhver, der vil benægte dette, ville tage fejl, ville være tåbelig.

Jeg er kendt som, identificeret som en historisk skikkelse igennem det meste af det 20. århundrede, og de fleste mennesker fra det 20. århundrede bør vide, hvem jeg er, og de bør vide, hvad jeg gør. De kender måske ikke alle detaljer omkring, hvad jeg gør, men sådan er det: Jeg er en prominent, en særdeles prominent, skikkelse på denne planet, blandt de mest prominente.«

Den senere del af det 20. århundrede ville have været uigenkendelig, hvis det ikke havde været for LaRouches sejr over det britiske, økonomiske system i en debat i 1971 på Queens College, New York, som dernæst, ad indirekte veje, førte til hans sejr med det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ i Reaganregeringen i 1983.

Dette banede igen vejen for hans og hans hustru Helgas initiativ, som nu er blevet til den Eurasiske Landbro og den Nye Silkevej, og som er det 21. århundredes hovedudvikling frem til i dag.

Hvorfor er det så irriterende at lytte til det indlysende: at LaRouche er en hovedskikkelse i det 20. og 21. århundrede? Fordi vi i skolen lærte om demokratiets dyder? Er det den virkelige årsag, eller skyldes det snarere, at vi lukker ørerne, fordi vi finder det mere beroligende for os personligt at benægte, at nogen mand eller kvinde rent faktisk kan være ansvarlig for menneskets tilstand og menneskehedens skæbne?

Læs her Helga Zepp-LaRouches hovedindlæg på konferencen i San Francisco, Californien, den 8. juni:

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Jeg vil indlede vores diskussion med at påpege, hvad hr. LaRouche i de seneste dage meget klart har sagt: Vi befinder os i en ekstraordinært farlig periode i verdenshistorien. Det kan ikke ses tydeligere end af disse militærmanøvrer, der finder sted på de østeuropæiske grænser (Ruslands vestlige grænser). Disse kombinerede NATO-øvelser, der finder sted hele vejen op og ned langs Ruslands grænse, fra De baltiske Stater, ind i Polen og derfra mod syd. Dette er en kombination af fire forskellige, angiveligt uafhængige krigsspil, men det involverer live troppemanøvrer, af hvilke den største hedder ”Anaconda 2016”. Denne manøvre involverer 30.000 tropper fra 24 forskellige lande, inkl. 14.000 amerikanere, 12.000 polakker, 1000 faldskærmstropper og den virkelige krydsning af nøglefloden dér, Vistuta-floden; samt træning af natlige angreb, tungt militærisenkram, 35 helikoptere, 3.000 militærkøretøjer, flådemanøvrer osv.

Engelsk udskrift.

 WE MUST BECOME TRUE AMERICANS AGAIN!

LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast; June 10, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's June 10th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and you joining us for our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com. As you'll notice,
we're taking a little bit of a different format than customary
today. We have a roundtable format, joined in the studio by Megan
Beets and Ben Deniston, from the LaRouche PAC basement science
team; and also Kesha Rogers and Mike Steger are both joining us
from the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee via video. So, we're going
to have a little bit of a freer kind of roundtable discussion
here.
        I'd like to begin our discussion by just pointing out, what
I think has been said very, very clearly in the recent days by
Mr. LaRouche, that we're in an extraordinarily dangerous period
of world history. This couldn't be made more clear than seeing
these military maneuvers which are happening on the eastern
border of Europe (the western border of Russia). These combined
NATO maneuvers which are happening all the way up and down the
border of Russia, from the Baltic States, into Poland, and then
south from there. This is a combination of four different,
supposedly independent, war games, but it involves live troop
maneuvers, the largest of which is called "Anaconda 2016." That
one involves 30,000 troops from 24 different countries, including
14,000 Americans, 12,000 Polish soldiers, 1,000 paratroopers, the
actual crossing of the key river there, the Vistula River; and
the exercise of nighttime assaults, military hardware, 35
helicopters, 3,000 military vehicles, naval maneuvers, and so
forth.
        If you take that, together with the three other maneuvers
that are happening right now, you have approximately 60,000
troops that are engaged in military maneuvers all along the
border of Russia. As Helga LaRouche pointed out, this the
greatest troop and military hardware maneuver that you've had on
Russia's border since World War II — the mobilization by Hitler
of the Nazi forces prior to the invasion of what was then the
Soviet Union. Obviously, this many troops engaged in live
military maneuvers, not only creates a very strong possibility
for some accident occurring, which could trigger a rapid
escalation towards a very hot war, which could escalate very
quickly; but also it's very clearly a provocation, which is being
taken by NATO with Obama in the leadership, directly towards
Russia. And it's being seen as such in the context of other
things, by the Russian President and other leading members of the
Russian military. It's also being recognized as such by various
forces within Europe. {Der Spiegel}, one of the leading news
magazines in Germany, put out a story on Wednesday, saying these
war maneuvers along the Russian borders, are "going too far", and
"are playing at real war". Clearly, any war that were to break
out between NATO and Russia would very quickly lead to not a
limited, not a tactical, but an all-out strategic, thermonuclear
war.
        If you combine this with Obama's upcoming to trip to attend
the NATO Heads of State Summit in Warsaw, Poland, while these war
games are actively taking place, along with his refusal to sit
down with President Putin to discuss the deployment of these
AEGIS anti-missile systems along the Russian border, which have
been characterized as a "Cuban Missile Crisis in Reverse," along
with the trillion dollar allocation that Obama has recently
signed off on, to modernize the U.S. military arsenal, including
these B61-12 nuclear warheads, and the long-range LRSO [Long
Range Standoff] cruise missiles; all of these, taken together,
along with the simultaneous provocations that are happening by
U.S. forces against China in the South China Sea.
        Any sane person should be asking themselves, "Why are we
driving the world towards the point of a war of extinction, when
we could be taking up Chinese President Xi Jinping's offer to
engage in a new strategic and economic architecture for the
planet, based on win-win cooperation?" This danger, and also the
very real possibility of a paradigm shift, were both put on the
table at a very significant seminar sponsored by the Schiller
Institute that occurred on Wednesday in San Francisco,
California. Both Kesha and Mike were participants. It was titled,
"Will the U.S. Join the New Silk Road? Global Scientific
Development, or Nuclear War?" Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave an
extensive and very thorough overview of this war danger in her
keynote address; and Mr. LaRouche, in his remarks, said very
clearly — this is the very beginning of what Mr. LaRouche said,
"The key thing I'm concerned about, is the threats to the
existence of the human species in the total area right now;
because right now, at this time, the existence of the entire
human species continues to be on the edge of jeopardy. And
therefore we have to attune ourselves to understanding what the
problems are that are involved in this, and what are the remedies
for which we can get an escape for humanity in general. Humanity
in general right now is under serious threat of jeopardy on a
global scale." So, that's very clearly said by Mr. LaRouche.
        Also, I consider very significantly, in response to a
question which was posed from former United States Senator Mike
Gravel, who was also a participant, a speaker in this seminar. He
posed a question to one of the other participants, Sergey Petrov,
the Consul-General of the Russian Consulate in San Francisco, to
which Mr. Petrov said that there is no such thing as a limited
nuclear war, as some as some people would be delusional enough to
believe. What the Consul-General of Russia said at the Schiller
Institute gathering in San Francisco, is the following: "I share
the understanding that we are very close to a major conflict. And
I add that there is no possibility of a 'limited nuclear war.' If
that starts, it will be the end of the world."
        I think the starkness of this statement, combined with what
Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. LaRouche both had to say, really
underscores the sobriety with which we have to approach the
discussion which we will have here today. Since both Kesha and
Mike were participants in that seminar, I'm going to leave a
little bit of the further discussion of the proceedings of that
event until a little bit later in the show. The seminar also
involved Mr. Howard Chang, an internationally renowned expert on
water projects.
        But before we open up the discussion, I would like to play a
short — approximately 10 minute — excerpt from the keynote
speech that Mrs. Helga LaRouche gave. This is the concluding
excerpt of her remarks. She asked two questions: (1) How did we
get here?; and (2) What is the solution to the crisis we now
face? I just want to underscore, what you'll hear Mrs. LaRouche
say in this excerpt, is what Mr. LaRouche reiterated, and I think
is the subject that we have to pay attention to here today: that
both the LaRouche movement in general, and Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche
as individuals, {have played the crucial, central, historical
role} in not only creating the possibility for a solution to this
crisis, going all the way back to their proposal for the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, in the aftermath of the collapse
of the Soviet Union; but also continued to play the crucial role
in providing the possibility for humanity to escape this crisis.
        This seminar in San Francisco was a crucial element of that,
but it's part of an ongoing series of interventions
internationally, which include a very prominent conference in
Europe that the Schiller Institute is sponsoring, coming up
within the next two weeks. So, we'll have more discussion on all
of that after we hear this short except from Mrs. Helga
LaRouche's keynote speech.

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Okay, now, let me introduce the third
[subject I want to talk about]. The solution to all of this would
be a piece of cake. It is already there! A New Silk
Road is integrated. We called it at that time, first, the
Productive Triangle; in 1991 we called it the Eurasian
Land-Bridge: the New Silk Road, which was the idea that when the
Iron Curtain had fallen, [to integrate] the populations in the
industrial centers of Europe with those of Asia, through
development corridors. This New Silk Road program would have
changed the world in the direction of a peace order already in
'91, but, unfortunately, you had Bush, Sr., you had Margaret
Thatcher, you had François Mitterrand, who all had completely
different ideas. They [wanted to reduce Russia] from a superpower
into a Third World, raw-material-producing country, and they
imposed the "shock therapy" in the Yeltsin period. They
dismantled the Russian potential in three years , and
they had no intention to allow Germany to have any kind of
economic relation with Russia. So it did not happen.
        You had the '90s, which were genocide against Russia. You
had all of the consequences of the Bush period. You had the eight
years of Clinton, which was a certain interruption; but then with
Bush, Jr. and Obama, you went back to the old project of an
American Century doctrine and the idea of a unilateral world.
        Fortunately, in 2013, President Xi Jinping announced a New
Silk Road to be {the} strategic objective of China. In the almost
three years which have passed since, this idea to end
geopolitics, to establish in the tradition of the ancient Silk
Road, a win-win cooperation among all nations on the planet, is
progressing extremely quickly. Remember, the ancient Silk Road
was a fantastic cooperation in terms of exchange of culture,
goods, paper, technology, porcelain, silk, silk-producing, and
many other cultural manifestations. It led to a tremendous
benefit for all the countries which participated, from Asia to
Europe.
        The New Silk Road, obviously, is doing exactly that. The
amount of projects which have been concluded between China and
ASEAN countries, China and Latin American countries, China and
Europe, China and African countries, China and East European
countries, and now, in a very clear fashion, the economic
integration between the Eurasian Economic Union, headed by
Russia, and the New Silk Road, [is progressing very well. An
alliance] has been formed between Russia and China, with India
being the third factor in the situation. Many, many other
countries have been joining.
        Contrary to what you read and hear in the mass media, China
is not doing badly. They are shifting their economic orientation
from an export orientation, because the export markets in the
trans-Atlantic sector are shrinking. They are now going more in
infrastructure investment in many countries in the world, and to
develop the inner region of China. [To raise the] consumer [to a]
higher standard of their own population, since they have lifted
600 million people out of poverty, [into a] decent living
standard in China. This is indeed the absolute correct policy, to
say we will uplift the remaining people who are still poor, and
also make them participate in the Chinese economic miracle.
        Xi Jinping has [offered] to President Obama that the United
States [should] not only by helping to ,
which I think is the moral obligation of the United States, given
the fact that they were the key reason why these countries are
now in such disarray; by participating in the building of Africa,
which I think the West has an absolute moral obligation. The
reason why you have millions of people as refugees, not only
risking their lives, drowning in the Mediterranean, dying in the
Sahara, which has even more victims than even the Mediterranean.
Fifty years of IMF policy has denied economic development to
Africa! The reason why people are taking a risk of a 50% chance
that they will die, to cross the Mediterranean, is because they
are running from war, from hunger, from epidemics, and this is
the result of Western policy denying this continent economic
development! We have a moral obligation to join hands to develop
southwest Asia, to develop Africa.
        The United States also needs a Silk Road. If you look at the
figures of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity has
collapsed over seven years in a row. All the indexes are going
down. The United States population is in a terrible condition, or
at least in the poorer parts; while the rich become more rich and
Wall Street is having a heyday with cocaine parties and plotting
destruction for the rest of the world.
        The United States needs an infrastructure project. The roads
are bad, the traffic is ridiculous. People spend hours and hours
every day in commuting, risking to disappear with their cars into
a pothole. They have no rail system. China has built 20,000 km
fast train system up to the end of last year; they plan to have
50,000 km by the year 2020, uniting every major city in China
through a fast train system, which are fantastic — they're
smooth, they're fast, they're quiet. How many kilometers of fast
train systems has the United States built? Zero!
        So, for the United States to build its own Silk Road, to
connect with the global development perspective is a question of
its own best self-interest. We have to get the United States off
this confrontation course, and simply say, we have to shift this
policy and all this trillion-dollar investment in modernization
of nuclear arsenals and the largest military budget in the world,
trying to maintain an empire which is collapsing anyway.  Rather,
shift, get rid of Wall Street, impose Glass-Steagall, get back to
a policy of Alexander Hamilton, a credit policy; invest in
infrastructure and go in the direction of a win-win cooperation
with the other nations of the world — with Russia, China,
European nations, India; build up Latin America, build up Africa
and Southwest Asia.
        This is really the choice before the United States. I know
this is very difficult for you to think how this should be done,
but you know, think about Kennedy; think about the kind of
optimistic country the United States used to be. Think about the
idea that America was built to be "a beacon of hope and a temple
of liberty," where people from the whole world would go and try
to be free. The U.S. singing the National Anthem, "the land of
the free." Is the United States the land of the free today? I
don't think anybody who is in their right mind would say that
today.
        Go back to the values of the American Republic, as it was
founded by people like Benjamin Franklin, or George Washington;
go back to the policies of Alexander Hamilton, Franklin D.
Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King. I think if the
United States could mobilize itself to bring back that nation,
the whole would world would love to be friends of the United
States again. Right now, I can tell you, the rest of the world
has almost given up on the United States, and when they look at
the election process, the choice between a very, very irrational
Donald Trump and unfortunately a very, very predictable Hillary
Clinton, given her statements about confrontation against Russia
and China. I think you have to really mobilize now. And I think
the 28 pages, Glass-Steagall — these are flanks which can derail
the situation long before this election is going to take place.
        We have to have a completely new world. Remember, mankind is
not a beast, and mankind is not bound to do what seems to be
inevitable. Mankind is the only species capable of reason,
capable of free will, of defining and designing a beautiful
future, and then going to implement that. The last time was with
Kennedy, the Apollo Project. I think we can absolutely do it
again! I think you have a great possibility in front of you. I
would encourage you — be American! Be true Americans again, and
the whole world will be the most happy and embrace you!

OGDEN:  So, that was a short excerpt from Helga LaRouche's
opening remarks at the San Francisco seminar; and the full
proceedings of that seminar will be made available as they are
processed.  The first panel is available on YouTube now.  And as
I said, both Kesha and Michael Steger were participants in that
event; so maybe I can just throw the discussion open to one of
the two of you guys right now, to follow up on what we just heard
from Helga.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Sure, thanks Matt.  One of the most
interesting, one of the key aspects of this whole process and
what our organization does, was demonstrated at the discussion
process in San Francisco on Wednesday.  You have key people in
their areas:  Obviously, Senator Mike Gravel represents what is a
true American political tradition; to recognize that you fight
for what's true, you go against popular opinion and peer
pressure.  And he was very clear on that question; you don't go
along to get along.  As Lyndon LaRouche often says, "You can't
fight politically and go along with the popular opinion."
        Dr. Howard Chang is a leading civil engineer; obviously the
Consul-General of Russia was someone who spoke on behalf of his
country.  But the key question is that the standards our
organization represents in this existential crisis is something
unique; it gives these individuals an opportunity to wage a
political fight at the level necessary that inspires them towards
what mankind can accomplish, and also addresses the real crisis
in the world today.  It's far too often that people who want to
address the economic crisis, people who want to address the
increasing and escalating war danger, fall far short of the
necessary to want to work with us.  And two, to recognize the
quality of method which is necessary to address these problems.
These problems are of great scope and magnitude; it's not fixing
a pothole, although we have many potholes to fix as Helga points
out.  And apparently, the Chinese won't even be allowed to build
— they wanted to build a small segment of high-speed rail
between Los Angeles and Las Vegas; very easy.  Actually, east of
Los Angeles in the desert.  And I guess apparently they won't
even be allowed to build that in the United States.  So, we can't
build any high-speed rail; it's just been outlawed basically.
This just came out.
        But the size and scope of these problems cannot be — steps
cannot be taken that simply alleviate one's guilt; or the tension
on one's own identity regarding the dangers of nuclear war, or
the increasing crisis that the economic collapse presents to many
Americans.  Too many people want to look for a quick solution; an
easy mechanism that "Maybe I can vote for this person, or that
person."  At this point, I think most people realize they can't
vote for either of these people; yet you'll still find them
consumed to discuss "Well, who do you vote for, though?"  They're
not willing to recognize that there's a higher method which is
required to act to address this kind of crisis.  And I think if
you look at Lyndon LaRouche's comments at the discussion, he
makes this somewhat clear in his remarks.  Because there is
something unique towards mankind's ability to advance.  Mankind
does not advance — unlike any other animal species on the planet
— simply because it doesn't like the problems it sees.  It's
able to advance and evolve because of a unique creative capacity;
essentially to become more beautiful, to become more creative. To
make the discoveries about the Universe that have not been
discovered before.  And that commitment, that approach is
oftentimes what's lacking; and as Helga said, we need real
leadership in the United States, we need leadership in Europe
today.  The problem can be solved so easily.
        The New Silk Road, the Eurasian development projects are so
extensive, they're ongoing; there are collaborations between
China, India, and Russia.  And then the nations of central Asia,
of Southeast Asia; the strategic intervention in the war domain
in Southwest Asia; all of these are now being addressed in a
fundamentally different way than they were by the United States
and NATO for the last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks.  Which has
just been ongoing war and destruction.
        So, there's a comprehensive picture that the United States
and Europe could participate in.  So, why aren't we?  Why don't
we take those steps?  Simply raising red flags that we're near
nuclear war, or simply complaining and trying to figure out which
of the lesser evils you vote for, are just obviously
insufficient.  So, why does that remain the discussion?  The
discussion has to take on a higher standard; and I think that's
what Lyn has already recognized over these 50 years.  Because if
you think of it, 50 years ago, there was a quality of leadership
of this nature.  John Kennedy recognized that the way you uplift
and strengthen a country is to set out on a mission that's never
been accomplished before; but it wasn't just the Moon.  It was
the largest water projects, and the development of Africa.  John
Kennedy's view of the world and of the Universe had a great scope
and magnitude to it, to help uplift the population; it wasn't a
practical campaign.  Someone like Martin Luther King had a
similar outlook; and you saw that inspire people like Bobby
Kennedy and Malcolm X, but there was a resonance.  You saw the
same thing from the great scientists like Krafft Ehricke; the
visionaries in the space program didn't look at it as kind of fun
engineering projects.  They saw it as something of a cultural
advancement of the human species. And there was a resonance with
this quality of leadership politically, that unfortunately, I
think what was made clear by the seminar, is that many people are
attracted, they gravitate towards this quality of leadership if
they have a sense of honesty; but that the ability to demonstrate
this method, to act upon that quality of the human mind and human
creativity is a challenge for much of the population in the
United States and Europe today.  And the standard that they have
to come up to, is not just acknowledging the dangers, but a
standard of operating to embolden and strengthen the population
to solve these problems and to move our civilization upwards.
        And I think that really was the culminating nature of the
discussion on Wednesday at the seminar; and it really is to bring
more people into this quality of an organization.  Of what we are
as a political organization, but that we are must become what the
nation is.  And that requires our population must become better;
they must become more courageous, more intelligent, and more
beautiful if we're actually going to address these problems.
Because they're not going to be addressed from any simple
mechanisms; and I think that really was the fight we waged here
for the seminar, and I think the only way to deal with the
current crisis you presented at the beginning.

KESHA ROGERS:  I want to continue with that theme, and add that I
think what we have to look at is the unique role of Mr. LaRouche
over these years to identify a science of physical economy; which
characterizes him in a way that was the understanding of both
Krafft Ehricke and other leaders from the standpoint of the
rejection — shall we say people that Michael brought up, such as
John F Kennedy, such as Lincoln, Martin Luther King.  A rejection
of a limits to growth policy.  And this is what Mr. LaRouche has
organized as the founding principle of his economic policy in
terms of what is the essential role of the advancement of
mankind.
        During the presentation, I had an opportunity to actually
work with Michael and others there for the conference that was
just held in San Francisco.  And I presented on the unique role
of Krafft Ehricke, the German space pioneer; and what he
represented from the standpoint of putting forth the epistemology
and the philosophy on human nature's identity in terms of
creating an open world system.  Which was this idea that you
reject the Club of Rome meadows and foresters limits to growth
population reduction; the Malthusian policy that human beings are
nothing more than small lily pads, mindless beings.  That they
have no conception of advancing human creativity.  And this is
what was the unique role defining Krafft Ehricke from the
standpoint that he knew that is was not just a matter of
promoting technological advancements; but what do these
technological advances do to improve upon the conditions of human
life and the progress of mankind overall.
        And this has been something that Mr. LaRouche understood is
crucial in his science of physical economy, from the standpoint
that you're not just looking at technological advancement from
speaking of just one leap.  But you're talking about a succession
of leaps in economic progress in society.  And during the
relationship that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche developed with the
identity and role of Krafft Ehricke as a scientist and genius of
his time, is really exemplified in what Mr. LaRouche continued to
develop around his policy for a Moon-Mars colonization program. I
think that people who have not actually studied the significance
of Mr. LaRouche and why he became a threat to this zero-growth
policy, because he continued to push the limits, push mankind
beyond the so-called limitations that have been put on mankind;
just as Krafft Ehricke understood that our extraterrestrial
imperative was to actually remove all limitations and barriers
from the progress of mankind.  And the best way to do this was
through the advancement of man into the colonization of space.
        And I think it's important to note, that some people start
to put themselves into this smallness of thinking, in this
mindless thinking.  "Well, how are we going to travel into space
if we can't actually solve the problems here on Earth?"  And Mr.
LaRouche made it a priority to actually organize an understanding
of what real technological advancement is; this was exactly the
thinking of John F Kennedy in the progress of the commitment of
the Moon landing, of sending a man to the Moon and bringing him
safely back to Earth.  That this was going to lead to
technological advancements that would pay themselves off several
times over; but what was going to be essential for it, is that
you had to have breakthroughs as Mr. LaRouche called for, in
several categories of technology that was actually going to be
essential for bringing about an increase in the productivity of
society.  You take the example; you look at this massive
undertaking of what Krafft Ehricke did in the design and
development of what took men to the Moon, in terms of the Saturn
V rocket.  It wasn't something that was just thrown together on
the cheap; you couldn't have just Wall Street and Elon Musk going
in there and saying, "OK, let us just throw a spacecraft up."
This took some real engineering; it was a total transformation in
terms of the economic conditions of society.  Thousands, millions
of people were put to work; the spin-off technologies that went
into it.  Mr. LaRouche called for the advancement of four
categories of technology, in thermonuclear fusion and related
plasma technologies; or development of electromagnetic radiation
of high energy density.  Basically promoting new synthetic
materials or the production of the colonization of Mars; that you
were going to actually have to have flotillas in developing
low-Earth orbit.  And putting materials on the Moon to actually
lead to the colonization of Mars.  How are we going to get there?
We had to have engineers, we had to have astrophysicists.
        The technical considerations are all laid out very
prominently, but I think what it really represents is a
transformation of the human species; and that's what Mr. LaRouche
was very crucial in, saying that you had to actually have a
different identity of who we are as human beings.  That we are
actually distinct from the animal species; and that no
limitations can be put on mankind to keep them in a state of
bestiality.  And the question of technological advancement is,
are these advancements being made in a so-called barbaric society
that wants to keep human beings down and keep them enslaved; and
promote a policy of limitations on growth and population
reduction so these policies would not be advanced.  Or, are we
talking about a cultural Renaissance, where these advancements
are made as Krafft Ehricke understood, from the standpoint of a
new conception of mankind.  This is what has really brought
together the minds, and why Mr. LaRouche sees Krafft Ehricke as
extremely fundamental to how we overcome the threats facing us
today in society.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think that's something that certainly you
elaborated very clearly in your speech at the conference, and I
think as we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche yesterday;
everybody who is on this show was engaged in that discussion. Mr.
LaRouche put a very emphatic emphasis on the personality of
Krafft Ehricke and his courage in fighting for a vision which was
not a popular vision even among the people in the space
community.  And Mr. LaRouche asked that more research be done on
this; and I know that both you, Ben, and Megan have been immersed
in this a little bit in the recent few days and weeks.  So, maybe
you want to give people a broader idea of some of this.

MEGAN BEETS:  Well, I can say something briefly.  I was just
looking back at comments that were made by both Helga LaRouche
and Lyndon LaRouche at the memorial conference that was held in
honor of Krafft Ehricke in 1985, following his death in 1984. And
both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche reflect something which I think
really does go to the essence of the importance of the
personality of Krafft Ehricke in what we were able to achieve in
the space program.  And what they both reflected was the fact
that his life made a contribution to moving the species as a
whole forward; but why?  It's exactly because he was not
motivated by the kinds of practical considerations that were
impinging on most of the population at the time; and both Lyn and
Helga reflected the fact that Krafft Ehricke was motivated by a
total cultural optimism.  That not only was it necessary, but it
was also possible to move mankind forward into the Age of Reason;
to move man into a paradigm where we completely left the cultural
vestiges of the beast behind us.  And if you look at Krafft
Ehricke's work, which ranges from extremely technical papers on
the use of liquid hydrogen fuel to fictional stories which are
envisioning the first manned mission to Mars; but all of them I
think are motivated by this passion and vision for a better
mankind as a whole.  And he came to the conclusion himself as a
young man, that the way to realize that had to be space travel;
had to be space colonization.
        Just to add one more thing, Mrs. LaRouche was reflecting on
a speaking tour that Krafft Ehricke did with the Schiller
Institute in the 1980s in Germany.  And what she reported was,
that at that time, the resistance from the Greenie movements was
so intense at some of these meetings, the police had to be called
in.  What Krafft Ehricke reflected on at the time was that these
Greenie movements were very reminiscent of the fascist movements
of the 1930s; and that's why the only way to move forward had to
be by addressing exactly what you just raised, Kesha.  The
essence of the cultural morality of mankind; is mankind a culture
of beasts, or is mankind actually representing a culture of what
Schiller would call beautiful souls?

        BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think highlighting the fight for that;
he fought for that.  He went against the opposition even within
the scientific community for that kind of idea; and I think that
also goes back to something that Michael was saying about what's
needed today.  It's people like that; it's people who are going
to fight for what's true.  Not because they think it's what their
neighbors will like, or because they think it's what will make
them popular; it's because they have an internal drive that they
know that's what's needed.  You pulled up this quote — it's just
one thing among many — I just thought it was indicative; this
quote of Krafft testifying in Congress in, I believe it was in
1960, the early '60s.  And really emphatically pushing the need
for nuclear power for space; he said, the Universe runs on
nuclear power.  The stars are run by nuclear power; this nuclear
power is an inherent part of the Universe and mankind is going to
be obsolete in his attempt to be part of the Universe more
broadly — go beyond Earth, fulfill this extraterrestrial
imperative — if we reject nuclear power.  That's one thing.
Already in the early '60s, he said, if we don't do this by the
end of the decade, we're going to be obsolete in terms of our
space efforts.  Nuclear power is one issue; one critical issue,
obviously, for mankind as a whole, for space development.  But
you see this visionary quality of fighting against the opposition
to these breakthroughs; and being the force that says, "No, this
is what's needed," against massive opposition.  The tragedy is
that the opposition has taken over.
        We had, under the leadership of Krafft Ehricke and people
working with him, we had a nuclear rocket pretty much built by
the early '70s; it was basically a few steps away from being
ready to go, and it was just cancelled.  It was not found to be
too difficult; it was not found to be some failure; it was not
found to be too expensive; it was just cancelled.  And we've had
this zero-growth policy take over at that crucial pivot point —
the late '60s, early '70s — when Lyn really came on the scene
and started to continue this fight.  Obviously, Krafft resonated
with that, and came to work with the LaRouches directly based on
that; but you see the failure of departing from this visionary
quality and this fight to move into the future.  But I think he
exemplifies what's needed from the US population right now;
you're not going to find solutions from the existing cultural,
social framework.  It's failed; that's expressing the failure of
society.
        We heard at the beginning, one of the things that strikes me
in discussing this whole war danger and the fact that we're
taking steps towards nuclear war, which I think it's important,
it was stated clearly.  There's no limited nuclear war; there's
no small nuclear war, you don't take small steps.  If it happens,
everything's over; it's gone.  But what's potentially even more
striking than that actually being a reality on the table?  Who's
talking about it?  We have a Presidential election; are these
candidates raising this as an issue?  Is there any discussion
about this?  I think it just underscores the importance of that
quality of leadership needed; and exemplified by what was done in
San Francisco.  We're going to be having, coming out of the
Schiller Institute conference in Germany coming up; and what
really this movement represents in the United States.
        And I think this should also be an appeal to our viewers.
Really, this is a time when we need escalation; we need increase;
we need more support; we need more people to be these type of
creative leaders like Krafft Ehricke, like Lyndon LaRouche.
That's the only thing that's going to save the country at this
point.

OGDEN:  Yeah, Michael made a point which I thought was very
significant.  That, at a time like this, when it's very clear how
huge the dangers are, you cannot allow yourself to be any less
than the magnitude of the crisis challenges one to be.  And the
magnitude and scope of thinking which is necessary to solve a
crisis of this sort, of a civilizational scale, must be huge in
those terms.  And I think one thing out of this discussion about
Krafft Ehricke, that occurred to me is, when you're thinking
about where the entire idea of the geopolitics of the last 70
years has been rooted; it is rooted in the zero-growth
technology, no development kind of paradigm.  The idea that there
are limited resources that a growing population is fighting over,
and these territories and so forth; that is the fundamental tenet
of the geopolitics that has dominated this paradigm which has now
failed.  When you talk about a New Paradigm, when you talk about
"win-win" as Xi Jinping says it, instead of winner take all, all
are winners.  That fundamentally requires, it begs a new attitude
towards our concept of growth; that there is no idea of limits to
growth, of fixed natural resources.  But that you have an
ever-expanding possibility of ever-increasing potentials of
growth.  I think as very demonstrated, China, in a certain way,
does understand that in the way that Krafft Ehricke understood
it; is a central element of their current policy, is not only the
One Belt, One Road policy, but it is also this exploration of the
Moon. Now just going to the Moon, as a sort of space race or
setting your foot on a foreign body or something like that; but
saying we're going to discover fundamentally new about the
Universe.  And as Mr. LaRouche has been emphasizing, this Chang'e
mission to explore the far side of the Moon and everything that
is there to be discovered.  We don't even know; we don't know the
extent to which we will discover brand new things about the
structure of the Universe when we explore this new territory.
That, I think, speaks to this idea that the idea of a New
Paradigm, a new "win-win" system, is rooted in overturning the
last 70 years of this Malthusian concept of zero-growth, zero
technological development, and fixed resources.
        And it's only natural that Krafft Ehricke understood it in
those terms.

        DENISTON:  Anything else just goes to the longer legacy of
the Zeus vs. Prometheus fight.  You talk about this zero-growth
paradigm; where did this come from?  The British; the British
royal family.  People like Prince Philip; people like Prince
Bernhard.  This oligarchical mindset.  These guys are so
explicit, their view of mankind is just disgusting cattle to be
managed.  Zeus would just pal up with these guys; they wouldn't
even need to introduce themselves.  They would just get together
like they've know each other for ages.  That mentality of this
imperial conception of the management of mankind as a bestial
species; that's where this zero-growth paradigm came from in this
recent period, but it stretches back through history.  You look
at the writings of Aeschylus on the Prometheus vs. Zeus fight;
the attack on Prometheus.  And you see that as a reflection of a
true negative principle of society at the time, which is carried
through to today.  This hatred of human progress; this hatred of
creative development; this desire to keep mankind suppressed to
this lower level.  What angered Zeus wasn't just that he had
something stolen from him; it's that he had a whole class of
people he was managing, that Prometheus then gave an ability to
uplift and realize their own humanity.  And for that, Zeus
punished him.
        It's the same fight today; but today, Zeus has thermonuclear
arsenals at his fingertips.  We're at a clear, and I think this
was very well expressed even in the discussions back in the '80s
that we're talking about, with the need to move to the Age of
Reason.  We're at the point where mankind has developed
technologically to the point where if we allow that type of
process to continue, you're talking about mankind annihilating
himself; and that's what we're talking about right now, with
these NATO deployments.  It's complete insanity.  But again, as
we're saying, it's not going to be solved in the negative, by
just saying, "Stop that. Don't do that."  It's going to have to
be resolved in the higher realization and actualization of the
true nature of mankind as a Promethean force; as Krafft Ehricke
represented.  Today, as much as then, this need for an Age of
Reason is the imperative; and space is emblematic of the Age of
Reason, the age of mankind, really.

OGDEN:  Well, I think it's important in the context of everything
that we've discussed, also to note that we really are on the edge
of a meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system.  It was
noted this week that now major European banks are beginning to
cease their investment into the ECB, because of the ECB's
negative interest policy.  They said, why should we be putting
money into the ECB if they're just going to be charging us for
putting our money there?  So, Helga LaRouche said, there's a lot
of European bankers who are sleeping with billions of dollars
underneath their pillows in the current days.  But this is, even
without the instability of what could happen in the build up to
the Brexit vote at the end of this month.  I know our
institutional question for this week, which we haven't addressed;
was on the subject of the Brexit.  And Mrs. LaRouche said, if
this means that Ireland and Scotland are going to leave the UK,
and the UK will break up; then sure, I welcome this.  But in
seriousness, we are on the verge of the meltdown of the
trans-Atlantic financial system; the productivity of the United
States is through the floor; unemployment in this country is
unbelievable, especially youth unemployment.  It's at levels that
are unprecedented in the modern history of this country.  And at
the same time, you have the possibility of an entirely economic
paradigm presenting itself in the form of the New Silk Road;
everything that's coming out of the BRICS.  We have the visit by
Narendra Modi to the United States this week; he spoke to a joint
session of Congress.  There's a lot that could just happen; as
Helga LaRouche said, it would be very easy.  It would be a piece
of cake for the United States to join this New Paradigm; and I
think that's the ongoing of the LaRouche Movement
internationally, is making that possibility very, very real.  It
requires a policy revolution in the United States to bring that
about; but as was clear from the seminar in San Francisco this
week — and I think will continue to be clear in our
interventions in New York City around the Manhattan Project that
Mr. LaRouche has initiated; and then this upcoming conference
that's being sponsored by the Schiller Institute in Europe in the
coming weeks.  The activities of the LaRouche Movement
internationally are crucial; and it's very significant that we're
at the breaking point in terms of several aspects of this.
        Mrs. LaRouche also put a big emphasis on the continued fight
around the declassification of the 28 pages, because of what this
would imply in terms of the potential to bring down the entire
Anglo-Saudi empire.  And also everything that was contingent on
the lies that were told in the aftermath of 9/11; and what that
has led to in terms of the perpetual war policies, the refugees
who are coming into Europe from North Africa and the Middle East.
        So, all of these things taken together, represent a
situation which is dynamic, it's changing very rapidly, and it is
fertile ground for the types of interventions that the LaRouche
Movement is making internationally right now.
        So, let me invite Kesha or Mike, if you want to say anything
more, in terms of reflections at the conclusion of this
discussion, you're welcome to.

        STEGER:  I'd say, let's get rid of Obama and join the New
Paradigm.

        ROGERS: Yeah.  I think it's true; we are at the end of an
era of representation of barbarism, war, and these limits to
growth consequences that Krafft Ehricke was very well aware of.
We're seeing the emergence of a new system of cooperation, a new
collaboration and dialogue among civilizations that's being led
by Russia and China.  And I think the continued question being
presented by our activity is, will people actually join with
LaRouche and join with the nations who are representing this new
direction for mankind?  And that means doing what Krafft Ehricke
did, and breaking with all practicality, and as you said Ben,
popularity; and actually going out and doing that which is
seemingly impossible.  I think China gives us the light and the
inspiration as to human beings; that is our mission, that is what
we do.  We do those things which seem almost impossible.  And we
do those things that actually help to bring about the solutions
that are going to lead to a greater condition for mankind.  So, I
think that's what we're representing right now, and we're on the
brink of a total breakthrough; unlike anything that's been seen.
But also, as Mrs. LaRouche said in her opening remarks, this
breakthrough is going to come with rejecting the absence of any
discussion on the threat of this thermonuclear war and what
mankind really faces.  Because the question is, what kind of
society are we going to actually demand be brought into
existence?  What kind of future are we going to actually bring
about for those generations not yet born?  And Mr. LaRouche is
committed to that, and many more people as we've stated, need to
do the same.

        OGDEN:  OK.  Well, thank you very much, Kesha.  With that,
I'm going to bring a conclusion to this webcast here this
evening.  I'd like to thank both Kesha and Michael for joining
us; and also thank you to Megan and to Ben.  So, please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com; and as I think you can tell, we have a
very busy few weeks ahead of us, and a lot of responsibility. So,
thank you very much; good night.

Schiller Instituttets Strategiske Seminar i San Francisco den 8. juni tiltrak 70 gæster og eksperter for at diskutere det presserende nødvendige spørgsmål: »Vil USA gå med i Den Nye Silkevej? Global, videnskabelig udvikling, eller atomkrig«. Denne plan går ud på at tilslutte sig en plan for infrastruktur i hele verden, med navnet Ét bælte, én vej, og som Kina har fremlagt, eller også blive sammen med de kollapsende, vestlige økonomier, hvis bankerot leverer ved til det bål, som er en global atomkrig. Listen to the entire seminar on SoundCloud

De højtplacerede talere inkluderede Lyndon LaRouche, berømmet strategisk og økonomisk tænker; Helga Zepp-LaRouche, også kendt som »Silkevejsladyen« pga. sin verdensomspændende kampagne for at skabe den »Silkevejspolitik«, som Kina nu har fremlagt, og for at få denne politik vedtaget på verdensplan som alternativet til krig; den amerikanske senator Mike Gravel (senator 1969-1981), der indlæste de hemmeligstemplede »Pentagon Papers« ind i Kongresprotokollen i 1971; honorære konsul Sergei Petrov, generalkonsul for det Russiske Konsulat i San Francisco; dr. Howard Chang, internationalt kendt ekspert i vandsedimentering, samt Kesha Rogers, to gange demokratisk kandidat i Houstons 22. C.D. (kongresdistrikt) – hjemsted for NASA. De stedlige russiske, kinesiske, japanske og filippinske lokalsamfund var repræsenteret blandt publikum.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche præsenterede tilhørerne for det faktum, at NATO’s deployering på Ruslands grænser, med AEGIS-systemet i Rumænien, og krigsskibet USS Ross i Sortehavet, efterlader russerne i en position, hvor NATO-missiler kunne nå Moskva på fem minutter – hvilket nødvendiggør en politik med »Affyr ved varsel«. Ulig i 1980’erne, hvor tusinder af mennesker demonstrerede imod atommissilerne i Europa og Rusland, der var sat til »affyring ved varsel«, så har de neokonservative i Obamaregeringen genskabt denne fare, uden nogen protester i Vesten. Faren for en konfrontation med Kina i Det sydkinesiske Hav er også til stede.

I dette klima traf Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i 2013 beslutningen om at gøre en ende på geopolitik og at genetablere den Nye Silkevej, og at bygge infrastruktur for vand, elektricitet og transport i hele verden. Zepp-LaRouche påpegede Kinas 20.000 km højhastigheds-jernbanelinjer, som er bygget i løbet af 2015, hvorimod der ikke findes nogen hurtigtog i USA. Hun konkluderede: »Gå sammen med Kina i jeres egen interesse, eller stå over for atomkrig.«

Fr. LaRouche adresserede problemet med, at Obama fortsat er præsident, ved at påpege den presserende nødvendige frigivelse af de klassificerede »28 sider« af Den Fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport om 11. september, 2001, og Obamas afvisning af at frigive disse sider, der vides at indeholde bevis for saudiernes finansiering og sponsorering af terrorangrebet 11. september, hvilket kunne sprænge hul i amerikansk politik og gøre det muligt at vælge en kvalificeret kandidat, af samme støbning som Franklin D. Roosevelt eller præsident Kennedy. Herefter fulgte spørgsmål fra tilhørerne.

Efter Helga Zepp-LaRouche kom et indlæg fra den russiske konsul i San Francisco, Sergei Petrov: »For et stort land som USA, er det gavnligt at se på verden.« På et spørgsmål fra senator Mike Gravel om, hvorvidt han (Petrov) var enig i Helga LaRouches vurdering, svarede han: »Jeg er enig i den forståelse, at vi er meget tæt på en storkonflikt. Og jeg tilføjer, at der ikke er nogen som helst mulighed for en ’begrænset atomkrig’. Hvis den begynder, bliver det verdens ende.«

Hr. Petrov beskrev USSR’s opløsning i Statssamfundet af Uafhængige Stater, med alvorlige, økonomiske problemer, og trinnene i den lange proces med at opbygge den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union. EAEU søger nu at indgå aftaler med Mercosur, SCO og EU om økonomisk og humanitært samarbejde. Næste skridt bliver at indgå forbindelse til Nordamerika. På denne dag, sagde hr. Petrov, »vil jeg føle, jeg har været en god diplomat«.

Show Helga Zepp-LaRouche Keynote and Q&A
Show Lyndon LaRouche Q&A

Jeg tror, at, hvis man ser på verdenssituationen, især på den amerikanske offentlighed, der næsten intet ved om situationen; folk i Europa ved lidt mere, men, hvis man sammenligner den umiddelbart forestående fare for en eskalering af konfrontationen mellem NATO, USA og Storbritannien og så Rusland og Kina på den anden side, så er viden om det så svag, at dette for mig står som det mest skræmmende aspekt; for, fraværet af en offentlig debat om den mulige udslettelse at hele civilisationen, om det så skyldes mange folks ligegyldighed, fordi de simpelt hen er ligeglade, eller det skyldes, at de er for bange til at tænke tanken til ende¸ men manglen på en offentlig debat er det, vi må ændre.     

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: 2. del:

Lyd:

Vi står på kanten af atomkrig. 

Alt dette finder sted over for flere akutte, strategiske kriser: én på den russiske grænse i Østeuropa; en anden i Sydvestasien; endnu én omkring Korea; og atter igen en anden omkring Det sydkinesiske Hav. Hver af disse konflikter kunne blive udløsermekanismen for en global atomkrig. Og folk flipper virkelig ud, for det forestående NATO-topmøde, der vil finde sted i begyndelsen af juli i Warszawa, er planlagt til at manifestere alle mulige former for forandringer, som at flytte fire store bataljoner med 1000 tropeenheder i hver ind i de baltiske lande; som, på dagen, hvor dette julitopmøde finder sted, da at forbinde den nyligt installerede BMD-komponent (ballistisk missilforsvar) i Rumænien med krigsskibene af Aegis-klassen, som allerede er deployeret i det baltiske område og i Sortehavet og andetsteds. Og dette er nu i færd med meget hurtigt at nå til et punkt, hvor Rusland har sagt, at de ikke kan tolerere en fortsat opsætning af dette ballistiske missilsystem, fordi det tydeligvis er rettet mod Rusland, og det tilsigter tydeligvis at ødelægge Ruslands gengældelsesevne, og det har aldrig, hvad der ellers altid har været påskuddet, det har aldrig været rettet mod den angivelige missiltrussel fra Iran.

Allerede for to eller tre år siden har det russiske militær fremstillet videoanimationer, der viser, at de systemer, der nu er installeret i Polen, i Rumænien, i Bulgarien, i Spanien og på disse krigsskibe, i virkeligheden er tiltænkt at skulle ramme Rusland. Men især efter, at man har indgået en aftale mellem P5+1, med Iran, og som hæmmer faren for missiler, der kommer fra Iran, findes et sådant påskud ikke længere. Det er nu blevet bemærket af sådanne personer som professor Stephen Cohen fra New Yorks universitet, at dette meget klart har til hensigt at lancere en krig. En anden, meget betydningsfuld taler fra Rusland, general Leonid Ivashov, sagde, at det, vi nu ser, er klare skridt som forberedelse til krig.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

8. juni 2016 (Leder) – Fra Tysklands Der Spiegel her til eftermiddag kom en advarsel i sidste minut: NATO’s »Anakonda« kombineret med krigsøvelser langs de russiske grænser i Polen og de baltiske stater »går for vidt« og »leger rigtig krig«, atomkrig. EIR har allerede advaret om, at disse massive »krigsspil« kan udløse en meget virkelig Tredje Verdenskrig, og i dag har vi netop lært, at øvelserne er større endnu og involverer henved 50.000 NATO-tropper. Samtidig har Obamaregeringen afbrudt al diskussion med Rusland om de ballistiske missilforsvarssystemer, som NATO er i færd med at bygge rundt om Rusland i øst og vest; og piloter og fly fra det russiske luftvåben er nu i øjeblikket selv ved at træne angreb, der skal tilintetgøre de selv samme BMD-systemer rundt om Sortehavet.

På Schiller Instituttets seminar i dag i San Francisco, USA, responderede Ruslands generalkonsul i samme by på et spørgsmål fra den amerikanske senator, Mike Gravel:

Jeg er enig i den forståelse, at vi er meget tæt på en storkonflikt. Og lad mig tilføje, at der ikke findes nogen mulighed for en ’begrænset atomkrig’. Hvis den begynder, bliver det verdens ende.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche fremlagde ligefremt den eskalerende trussel om verdenskrig – hvis hensigt er at skræmme både Rusland og Kina til at underkaste sig Obamas regler og diktater – for seminaret i dag. Hun stillede også spørgsmålet, og svarede på det: »Hvordan er alt dette blevet til?« og »Hvordan overvinder vi det?«

Obamaregeringen og NATO bluffer virkelig – et bluff, der i sig bærer truslen om menneskets udslettelse, men et bluff ikke desto mindre. De transatlantiske økonomier er bankerot og har mistet ethvert produktionspotentiale, og er ved at opbygge det næste kollaps. Obamas amerikanske økonomi har nået vejs ende, hvis der ikke kommer en total genopbygning. Og de asiatiske magters »Nye Silkevej« og lignede aktiviteter, med ny infrastruktur og udforskning af rummet, udgør den eneste potentielle kilde til denne totale genopbygning.

NATO er i kun færd med at deployere »arrogance, og skinnet af magt«. Økonomisk bankerot får Obama til at se eurasisk udvikling som en trussel, der retfærdiggør krig – og som gør hans trussel om global krig til et bluff.

Denne tragiske situation kan fuldstændigt ændres, sagde Zepp-LaRouche til dagens seminar, gennem nonlineære handlinger. Mobiliseringen for at fremtvinge sandheden om saudiernes og briternes rolle i angrebene på Amerika den 11. september [2001] er nu oppe i højeste gear; hvis det lykkes i nærmeste fremtid, kunne det blive årsag til en ægte »katarsis«, sagde hun, og til en afvisning af hele politikken med evindelig krig, der udsprang – gennem løgne – af 11. september. Og jo flere amerikanske borgere og i landet boende personer, der bliver aktive i at gennemtvinge denne sejr, desto bedre er chancen for at genskabe den ægte, amerikanske republik.

Appellen »Warszawa-topmødet forbereder krig – Tiden er inde til at forlade NATO nu!«, udbredes ligeledes i hastigt tempo og cirkulerer i dag i nok et land, Ungarn.

Vær ikke bange for, at Ruslands lederskab ville starte en verdenskrig, men det vil afslutte den. Det er vores mission totalt at forandre Obamas og NATO’s fremstød mod krig med et nyt paradigme, og det kan gøres. 

 Foto: Vil det amerikanske folk komme til fornuft, før en atomkrig udløses? [flickr/usnavy]

7. juni, 2016 – I en lang artikel, der blev udgivet 6. juni af www.thefalingdarkness.com, foreslår den tidligere regeringsembedsmand under Ronald Reagan, David Stockmann, en ”Super Glass-Steagall” som eneste måde at løse den finansielle katastrofe, der eksisterer i USA i dag.

Han understreger, at, hvis Kongressen havde været seriøs omkring at ændre det system, der var årsag til finanskrakket i 2008, ”ville den overhovedet ikke have befattet sig med Dodd-Frank-loven – og lovens uforståelige 1700 siders lovgivningsmæssige, bagatelagtige spidsfindigheder”.

I stedet, fastslår Stockmann, burde den have ”taget fat om problemets rod og vedtaget en Super Glass-Steagall, der ville have sparket de Wall Street-baserede spekulationshuse helt ud af FDIC[1]”. Wall Streets gigantiske spekulationsmonstre, hævder han, har i årtier misbrugt og taget indskydergaranti til indtægt for sig selv, og indskydergarantien står nu som en ”enorm perversion af, hvad den oprindelige hensigt var … helt tilbage til de mørke stunder i 1934”.

Stockmann beskriver meget detaljeret For-store-til-at-lade-gå-ned-bankernes forbrydelser og påpeger, at under hans foreslåede Super Glass-Steagall, ville de finansielle enheder, der ønsker at fortsætte med deres kasinopraksis, derivathandel osv., gøre det på det frie marked og synke eller svømme uden beskyttelse. Ingen Multi-billion-bailout, eller TARP.[2]

”Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven” lyder titlen på et udlæg fra 6. juni på Golden Eagle investorers nyhedsbrev, der fremfører, at ”såkaldt finansiel åbenhed” – afregulering – har forhøjet odds’ene for et krak og forøget uligheden. Med en klage over de finansinstrumenter, som storbankerne bruger ”imod os folk”, advarer forfatteren om, at den eneste måde at løse dette på, er ”at genindsætte Glass/Steagall-loven som Landets Lov”. I øvrigt har hverken politikere eller centralbanker nogen anelse om, hvad man skal gøre ved den forværrende økonomi eller den ”finansielle tilstand for folk, byer, (del)-stater og lande i hele verden”.

7. juni 2016 (Leder) – Hvis Obama får sin vilje, kan menneskeheden meget vel blive drevet ud over klippekanten i form at en fremprovokation af atomkrig fra USA’s og NATO’s side imod Rusland og Kina, advarede Lyndon LaRouche i dag. NATO-manøvrerne i stor skala, der begyndte i går i Polen og De baltiske Stater, og som involverer 31.000 tropper fra 24 lande i en 10 dage lang øvelse, der simulerer en angivelig russisk invasion af området, udgør i sig selv en umiddelbar, potentiel udløser af krig. Ruslands ambassadør til NATO, Alexander Grushko, forklarede i går faren ligefremt, i bemærkninger, som hr. LaRouche vurderede i høj grad gik lige til sagens kerne:

»Det, vi i dag ser i De baltiske Stater, er rent faktisk ikke andet end forsøg på en magtudvikling, med den fjendtlige politik, som NATO har forfulgt i den seneste tid. Jeg ville ikke sige, at dette udgør en direkte trussel mod Rusland, men det skaber selvfølgelig alvorlige risici i takt med, at vi ser en absolut ny, militær virkelighed danne sig langs vore grænser.«

Grushko uddybede, at NATO-advarsler om non-eksisterende russiske trusler kan materialisere sig til handlinger.

»(NATO’s) politik lever i en surrealistisk virkelighed, og det farligste er, at det nu begynder at tage form af militær planlægning og militære forberedelser, der finder sted på territorier langs vore grænser.«

LaRouche understregede, at Rusland under præsident Putin vil træffe sine egne beslutninger på sin egen måde, som respons til disse forsøg. Hvis briterne, Obama og NATO ønsker krig, får de det, og det vil blive forfærdeligt: en atomar 3. Verdenskrig – det er, hvad vi taler om.

Der findes en strategi, som LaRouche længe har identificeret, til at overvinde denne »surrealistiske« politik for folkemord, som udgår fra Det britiske Imperium. Den nødvendiggør den omgående fjernelse af Obama fra Det Hvide Hus, både for at få hans finger væk fra atomknappen, så vel som også for fuldstændigt at vælte det skakbræt, som er det vanvittige præsidentvalg i USA, der i øjeblikket tilbyder amerikanere valget mellem cyanid og stryknin. Og det kræves også, at USA og Europa går med i det Ny win-win-paradigme, med økonomisk udvikling med videnskab som drivkraft, og som forfægtes af den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, og som fortsætter med at gå aggressivt frem i hele Eurasien.

Det spørgsmål, der ligger for os, indfanges af titlen på en stor Schiller Institut-konference, som LaRouche-bevægelsen vil afholde i San Francisco den 8. juni:

»Vil USA gå med i Den Nye Silkevej? Et valg imellem global, videnskabelig udvikling, eller en atomar verdenskrig«.

Underskriv og cirkuler appellen:

»Warszawa-topmødet forbereder krig – Tiden er inde til at forlade NATO nu!«

Foto: Enhver af disse konflikter ville kunne udløse en global atomkrig.

7. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Lederskabet af verden er, med rette, blevet overtaget af det voksende samarbejde mellem Rusland, Kina og Indien, og med andre eurasiske nationer, der entusiastisk går med i de nye udviklingsplaner, der er legemliggjort i programmet med ’Ét bælte, én vej’. London, Wall Street og Obama er alle desperate over dette ægte, igangværende paradigmeskifte.

I sin kommentar til dette skifte advarede Lyndon LaRouche om, at Obama er ved at blive afsløret som intet andet end en svindler og et falsum. Faren er, at et sådant falsum kan detonere på en farlig måde. Udfordringen består i fuldt ud at konsolidere skiftet over til udviklingsparadigmet, der ledes af Rusland/Kina/Indien, uden at fremkalde, at Obama og kompagni flipper voldeligt ud. Det betyder, understregede LaRouche, at »Obama og kompagni må forkrøbles«, så de ikke er i stand til at leve deres desperation ud i handling.

Dette står mere og mere klart: Verden har ikke brug for Obamas, eller briternes, eller Wall Streets klovneshow. Det, der behøves, er en virkningsfuld, økonomisk organisering, der erstatter disse desperate svindlere og dræbere. Vi befinder os ved et punkt, hvor hele det britiske system er i færd med at gå ned, netop nu. Det er oprindelsen til krigsfaren, og intet andet. »Dump disse elendige karle«, erklærede LaRouche. »Giv disse ledende, eurasiske nationer, sammen med de sydlige nationer, lederskabet, og støt dem i deres udviklingsplaner.«

Frem for alt andet, som Lyndon LaRouche gentagne gange har understreget i løbet af den seneste uge, så byg Kra-kanalen! Det ville markere en revolutionerende forandring for verden, der i enorm grad ville forøge handel og udvikling over hele Eurasien og ind i Afrika og videre endnu. Kra-kanalen ville skabe et fuldstændigt nyt billede af verden som helhed.

Flere og flere nationer er parate til at deltage i denne fremtid. Japan er nu i færd med at genoplive koordineringen med de andre hovednationer – Rusland, Indien, Kina – for eurasisk udvikling, at genoplive programmer, der tidligere blev legemliggjort i Mitsubishi Global Infrastructure Fund (GIF), der arbejdede for Kra-kanalen tilbage i 1980’erne. Kina er hen over de næste seks år parat til at investere $3,5 billion i store infrastrukturprojekter, der rækker langt ud over det umiddelbare asiatiske Stillehavsområde, iflg. en nylig undersøgelse fra Asia Society. Japan har annonceret sin egen, $110 milliard store investeringsplan for det asiatiske Stillehavsområde.

Den russiske præsident Putin kommer til Kina senere i denne måned for at indgå de sluttelige aftaler om 52 rapporterede fællesprojekter; og russisk-kinesiske forhandlinger skrider nu frem om den planlagte bygning af en 7000 km lang højhastighedsjernbaneforbindelse mellem Moskva og Beijing. Indien er i færd med at udvide sine planer for handelskorridorer, der strækker sig fra Iran gennem Afghanistan, og med nyligt annoncerede planer om også at bygge en dybvandshavn i Bangladesh, tillige med Chabahar-havnen i Iran ved Oman-golfen. Indien og Kina støtter alle disse investeringer, der vil udvide hele det asiatiske Stillehavsområdes produktive evner, hvor Kina og Indien alene udgør en tredjedel af verdens befolkning.

Den tyske kansler Angela Merkel skal besøge Kina i næste uge. Den netop færdiggjorte Gotthard Tunnel gennem de Schweiziske Alper, verdens længste jernbanetunnel, åbnede officielt den 1. juni, og projektet, som det tog 17 år at færdiggøre, har udløst entusiasme over hele Europa. Denne entusiasme for store projekter må videreføres til, at ledende, europæiske nationer går med i fremtiden med ’Ét bælte, én vej’-programmet, på en langt mere seriøs måde. Det betyder at bryde med de britiske royale og med Obama.

Projekterne, der fremmes af Kina og Indien, vil samlet set accelerere udviklingen og legemliggøre ideen om det »win-win«-samarbejde, der er et varemærke for skiftet væk fra geopolitikkens imperiekrige og til ægte, menneskelig udvikling. Vi har ikke brug for krig. Faktisk ville endnu en storkrig betyde udslettelse. Det ved og forstår Putin, lige såvel som også Kina.  

Titelfoto: Premierminister Narendra Modi med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping og førstedame Peng Liyuan, der fejrer deres nationers voksende samarbejde og løsning af tidligere konflikter. [flickr/narendramodiofficial]

6. juni 2016 (Leder fra LaRouchePAC) – Den amerikanske forsvarsminister Ashton Carters præstation ved den netop afsluttede Shangri-La Dialog om sikkerhed i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde gør det klart, at, med mindre præsident Obama fjernes fra embedet længe før januar 2017, står verden over for en umiddelbart forestående, global krig. Ikke alene promoverede Carter aktivt behovet for at skabe en NATO-lignende struktur i Asien, for at konfrontere Kina. Han har også gjort fremstød for lignende, endda mere umiddelbare trusler mod Rusland. Om nogle få uger, når Obama mødes med andre NATO-stats- og regeringschefer i Warszawa, vil NATO-bataljoner blive deployeret til De baltiske Stater og Polen. I Rumænien er der allerede installeret landbaserede Aegis BMD-systemer, og nogle mentalt sunde røster i Vesten har sat lighedstegn mellem alt dette og nazisternes opstillinger langs de sovjetiske grænser, før de lancerede Operation Barbarossa i 1940 under Anden Verdenskrig.

Parallellerne mellem nazismens og fascismens æra og nutiden går længere end til denne »snubletråds«-deployering, som NATO har planlagt. Stemningen af kulturel pessimisme og xenofobi, der har fejet hen over hele Europa, i lyset af det økonomiske kollaps, Trojkaens program med ondsindet nedskæringspolitik, flygtningekrisen og truslen om gentagne, blinde terrorangreb, udgør i sig selv en alvorlig fare. Og stemningen i USA er ikke bedre.

Under en dialog med kolleger søndag understregede både Lyndon LaRouche og Helga Zepp-LaRouche kraftigt behovet for at genoplive princippet om individuelt menneskeligt geni, og for at lancere en ægte dialog mellem civilisationer, hvor de store bidrag fra alle kulturer og civilisationer fremføres som lysende eksempler på, hvad menneskeheden kan præstere, når samfundet organiseres omkring princippet om menneskets kreative evne til at gøre opdagelser af nye, fysiske principper, man tidligere ikke havde nogen forestilling om. Billedet af den store rumforsker, dr. Krafft Ehricke, er til særlig inspiration i takt med, at USA står over for udfordringen med at genoplive rumprogrammet, der er blevet skambeskåret og stort set ødelagt af præsident Obamas antividenskabs-ideologi og -politik. Krafft Ehricke, en af genierne bag det forgangne NASA-program, opstillede menneskehedens »udenjordiske forpligtelse«, eller imperativ, som fortsat er menneskehedens primære, uopfyldte mission i det 21. århundrede.

Dette tema om menneskeligt geni blev uddybet af Lyndon LaRouche i en hel time under ’Manhattan-Projekt Dialogen’ den 5. juni (videooptagelse), som værende den eneste løsning for menneskeheden.

»Indse blot, at der findes mennesker, der har geni-egenskaber, og ikke tværer dem ud!«, sagde LaRouche. »De erkender geniet i sig selv, og de indser, at dette talent, der er kommet til dem, er noget, der er af en meget seriøs natur, til gavn for menneskeheden. Det er, når menneskeheden ser sig selv som et opdagende væsen, hvis arbejde er uundværligt for menneskehedens fremtid – det er dér, skønheden kommer.«

Som respons på Ashtons Carters konfrontation med Kina, krævede admiral Sun Jianguo, vicechef for Kinas Centrale Militærkommissions Afdeling for Generalstaben, en fundamentalt ny sikkerhedsarkitektur for det asiatiske Stillehavsområde, baseret på samarbejde, gensidig forståelse og dialog. Alt imens det står klart, at flertallet af nationerne i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde afviser Obamas og Carters krigsprovokationer, som det reflekteres i det faktum, at admiral Sun havde 17 bilaterale forhandlinger på sidelinjen af Shangri-La, så kan faren for et faktisk krigsudbrud, det være sig enten direkte imod Kina eller imod Rusland, ikke undervurderes. Det tyske forsvarsministerium er, iflg. Die Welt, i færd med at udarbejde en ny regeringsrapport, der vil definere Rusland som truslen – og ikke længere en partner.

Det er ikke overraskende, at de russiske medier rapporterer om en appel, der nu cirkulerer i både Europa og USA, om, at mentalt fornuftige nationer nu fuldstændigt må trække sig ud af NATO. 

Sputnik bemærkede, at den fremtrædende franske, »venstre-gaullistiske« præsidentkandidat, Jacques Cheminade, allerede har underskrevet appellen.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche understregede i går, »For at undgå Tredje Verdenskrig er det nødvendigt, at folk indser, at menneskeheden er én, og at alle kulturer har frembragt juveler«, der demonstrerer det potentiale for genialitet, der holder nøglen til menneskehedens fremtid i sin hånd. Lyndon LaRouche var endnu mere ligefrem: Med mindre, man organiserer samfundet omkring en forståelse af menneskelig kreativitet som den afgørende faktor, ved at fremlægge det for befolkningen, »er man ikke andet end en galning«.

Titelbillede: Grafisk fremstilling af Verdenslandbroen iflg. Lyndon LaRouches og Helga Zepp-LaRouches vision.                  

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Selve ideen om, at AfD skulle være opstået som en reaktion på euroens krise, flygtningekrisen eller ”politisk islam”, er fuldstændig fejlagtig. Den Konservative Revolution, den tradition, som det Nye Højre udtrykkeligt går ind for, og hvis tekster Götz Kubitscheks publikation Antaia udgiver, har eksisteret i en ubrudt fortsættelse, lige siden dens fremkomst som en reaktion imod ”Ideerne fra 1789” – således i 225 år gennem manifestationer, der i heldigste fald kun tilsyneladende ændrede sig.

Læs del I her 

27. maj 2016 – Horst Seehofers påstand om, at Angela Merkels fejlagtige immigrationspolitik forklarer den hastige vækst af Alternative für Deutschland (partiet Alternativ for Tyskland), er totalt simplificeret, og derfor forkert. Selvfølgelig var stigningen af antallet af flygtninge præcis det, som visse politikere ventede på, såsom ”leder” af AfD, Björn Höcke, der opildnede befolkningens sociale ængstelse ved hjælp af demagogiske argumenter. Flygtninge har selvsagt ikke tidligere indbetalt bidrag til sundhedsforsikringsfonde eller den sociale sikkerhedspulje, sådan, som et af AfD’s favoritmantraer lyder, for hvordan skulle de have kunnet det? Skulle de måske for nogen år siden have henvendt sig til den amerikanske eller britiske ambassade i deres land for at oprette en kredit som kompensation for den fremtidige ødelæggelse af deres hjem i geopolitisk motiverede krige?

Dette eksempel tydeliggør, at man kan tage en udtalelse, der, snævert anskuet, ikke i sig selv er falsk – nemlig den, at ”flygtningene aldrig har indbetalt noget til det sociale sikkerhedssystem” – og videreformidle en falsk information herigennem, falsk, fordi den reducerer en kompleks situation, såsom hvorfor, flygtningene i det hele taget blev flygtninge, ned til et meget snævert aspekt af situationen. Den første impuls bag fr. Merkels flygtningepolitik – da hun sagde, ”Vi kan klare det!” – var korrekt og i overensstemmelse med Genève-flygtninge-konventionen. Dér, hvor hun til syvende og sidst gik forkert, var, at, alt imens, hun igen og igen sagde, at man måtte eliminere årsagerne til flygtningekrisen, så sagde hun aldrig, hvad disse årsager var.

Antiislamisk Pegida-demonstration den 12. januar, 2015, i Dresden, efter skudepisoden på bladet Charlie Hebdo i Paris.

For at gøre dette måtte man være opmærksom på den rolle, som Saudi-Arabien spillede i angrebene den 11. september, 2001, såvel som også de krige, der var baseret på løgne, og som USA førte i Sydvestasien som angivelige repressalier for disse angreb, samt også det ”allierede” Saudi-Arabiens rolle i Tyrkiet, i finansieringen af diverse wahhabi-islamistiske organisationer, fra al-Qaeda til al-Nusra og ISIS, snarere end at forlade sig på disse to nationer for at dæmme op for flygtningestrømmen.

I lyset af det ramaskrig, der nu raser i USA over Saudi-Arabiens veldokumenterede støtterolle for terrororganisationer – man erindrer sig det amerikanske Senats enstemmige vedtagelse af Loven for Retfærdighed imod Terrorsponsorer (JASTA), og kampen for ophævelse af hemmeligstemplingen af de berømte, endnu hemmelige 28 sider fra Den fælles Kongresundersøgelsesrapport over 11. september – i lyset af dette er det sigende, at fr. Merkel fortsat er tavs omkring skandalen med saudiernes rolle. For, de faktiske ”årsager til flygtningekrisen” ligger i hele dette begivenhedskompleks.

Den anden fejltagelse, som fr. Merkel begår, er at nægte, sammen med Rusland og Kina at fremlægge et funktionsdygtigt perspektivfor genopbygningen af de befriede områder – indledningsvis Syrien, og dernæst hele Sydvestasien – og som kun kan gennemføres inden for den større ramme af Den Nye Silkevej.

Ifølge FN findes der allerede 60 millioner flygtninge eller fordrevne mennesker i hele verden. Lederen af Det Verdensøkonomiske Forum, Klaus Schwab, sagde for nylig i Davos, at, i tilfælde af, at der finder et yderligere fald sted i prisen på råmaterialer, kunne en milliard mennesker fra de sydlige lande begive sig ud på rejsen mod nord. I tilfælde af, at et ukontrollabelt kollaps af det transatlantiske finanssystem finder sted – hvilket er en reel mulighed i betragtning af centralbankernes negative rentesatser, samt debatten om ’helikopter-penge’ (ubegrænset pengetrykning, -red.), kunne dette tal stige endnu mere pga. den globale indvirkning heraf.

De europæiske forholdsregler, som fr. Merkel gik med til – nemlig at beskytte EU’s ydre grænser gennem Frontex-organisationen og forhandlingen af en hestehandel med den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan – er derfor ikke alene totalt ude af stand til at fungere, men de nægter også flygtningene den beskyttelse, de har ret til iflg. international lov. Disse forholdsregler afslører, at de ”europæiske værdier”, som EU konstant reklamerer højlydt med, for længst er blevet forvandlet til barbarisme. Det er sådan, resten af verden ser det. Kendsgerningen er, at hele verden lægger mærke til og diskuterer EU’s foragtelighed i dette spørgsmål.

For at understrege pointen: Den eneste måde, hvorpå vi kan afhjælpe den største, humanitære katastrofe, siden 2. Verdenskrig, er igennem en omfattende, økonomisk udvikling – en Ny Silkevejs-Marshallplan, om man vil – for hele Mellemøsten og Afrika, og som opbygger disse ødelagte lande, såvel som også de totalt underudviklede lande, og som giver de mennesker, der lever dér, et perspektiv for en bedre fremtid. For at gøre det, må vi gøre en ende på konfrontationen med Rusland og Kina og samarbejde med Rusland, Kina, Iran, Egypten og mange andre lande om sådanne udviklingsperspektiver. Rammen hertil er allerede på plads med Kinas Nye Silkevej og tilbuddet om et win-win-samarbejde.

Det er netop dette unikke perspektiv for en løsning, som AfD udelukker, på grund af partiets mildt sagt chauvinistiske ideologi. Frem for alt gør partiets tilknytning til neoliberale, monetaristiske dogmer det totalt ude af stand til at søge løsninger, endsige finde dem.

Den konservative revolution

Selve ideen om, at AfD skulle være opstået som en reaktion på euroens krise, flygtningekrisen eller ”politisk islam”, er fuldstændig fejlagtig. Den Konservative Revolution, den tradition, som det Nye Højre udtrykkeligt går ind for, og hvis tekster Götz Kubitscheks publikation Antaia udgiver, har eksisteret i en ubrudt fortsættelse, lige siden dens fremkomst som en reaktion imod ”Ideerne fra 1789” – således i 225 år gennem manifestationer, der i heldigste fald kun tilsyneladende ændrede sig.

Blandt de omfattende skrifter om dette emne finder vi Armin Mohlers let redigerede afhandling fra 1949, som første gang blev udgivet i bogform i 1950 med titlen, Den konservative revolution. Den udløste en storm af vrede på det tidspunkt, for den var, kun fire år efter afslutningen af Anden Verdenskrig, et forsøg på at behandle fascistiske ideer kvasi-akademisk, som om de ikke direkte havde forårsaget katastrofale resultater for Tyskland og for verden. I sin bog forklarede Mohler, at den ”Konservative Revolution” er et synonym for det, der almindeligvis kendes som fascisme.

Ifølge Mohler er de, der udtænker dette, små, intellektuelt livlige celler, højeksplosive sekter og løse kombinationer af eliten, der forbliver i baggrunden. De udarbejder programmerne ”oppefra”, som dernæst præsenteres med simple ord til masserne, der ser sig selv som nogen, der har fået en rå skæbne. Mohler beskrev forholdet mellem de intellektuelle og det jævne folk på følgende måde:

”Den overordnede gruppe holder sine masser sammen gennem organisatorisk tilknytning til en doktrin, der er tilpasset den jævne mand og indskrænket til kun at omfatte slagord, og giver kun mulighed for en plads til mere overlegne hjerner i det omfang, de tager del i at tæmme masserne og begrænse disses mentale evner til det esoteriske område. Men flertallet af dem, der besidder et intellekt over det gennemsnitlige, samles i små cirkler, der skaber genklang i form af en konstant, mental spænding, mener, at de selv er de eneste, der besidder den ægte viden og anklager den store gruppe for realpolitik, for at forråde ’ideen’”.

(Kursivering tilføjet)[1]

Mange ledende medlemmer af AfD ser Instituttet for Statspolitik (Institut für Staatspolitik), det Nye Højres tænketank, som Götz Kubitschek og Karlheinz Weissmann stiftede i 2000, som en form for sted, der ”skaber genklang i form af en konstant, mental spænding”. Optræningskurser afholdes her med jævne mellemrum og er blevet taget af 5000 mennesker. Björn Höcke refererer til dette institut som sin ”spirituelle manna”.

En opdateret nationalsocialisme

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung citerede en e-mail, som Bernd Lucke, der for nylig blev smidt ud af AfD, skrev til partiets eksekutive komite på det tidspunkt, hvor Kubitschek og hans hustru, Ellen Kositza, søgte at blive optaget som medlemmer. Kubitschek var dukket op ved Pegida- og Legida-begivenheder[2] iført en sort skjorte og brun jakke, skrev han. ”Enhver, der ikke ser en henvisning til de fascistiske bevægelser i Europa i 1920’erne og 1930’erne, er et fjols.” På det tidspunkt blev de begge nægtet medlemskab. I dag er Lucke ude, og Kubitschek anses af mange AfD-medlemmer som det intellektuelle lederskab.

I slutningen af sidste år gav Höcke et slående foredrag på instituttet, hvor han med forbløffende oprigtighed fremlagde den radikale, biologiske determinisme, der er typisk for det Nye Højre. Han sagde, at fr. Merkels vanvittige asylpolitik havde igangsat en ”selvforstærkende malstrøm”, og at vi måtte forsvare os imod asylansøgere, fordi Afrika producerer ”et befolkningsoverskud” på 30 millioner mennesker om året. Der må sættes grænser ved at nægte asyl således, at Afrika kan opnå en miljømæssig bæredygtig rate af befolkningstilvækst.

Ifølge Höcke er problemet, at Afrika og Europa har to forskellige strategier for reproduktion. Afrika har den livsbekræftende form for reproduktion, som der refereres til med et ”lille r”, mens Europa har en negativ strategi for elementær befolkningserstatning, som der refereres til med et ”stort K”. De har derfor to totalt forskellige strategier for reproduktion, der nu støder sammen over den optimale brug af Lebensraum. (Levesteder) 

Enoghalvfjerds år efter afslutningen af det nationalsocialistiske herredømme er det utænkeligt, at nogen skulle vove at påkalde en bestemt befolkningsgruppes ”overskudsbefolkning” og Lebensraum. Og at underkaste folks demografiske udvikling til ”miljømæssigt bæredygtige” niveauer, er nøjagtig den samme, inhumane holdning, der karakteriserer den grønne bevægelses miljøfascisme.

Höcke lånte tilsyneladende termerne ”lille r” og ”store K” fra de amerikanske miljøforkæmpere Robert MacArthur og Edward O. Wilson og deres teorier om koloniseringen af levesteder.[3] Den tankegang, der her kommer frem, er værre end racisme; den nægter en stor del af den menneskelige race sin faktiske menneskelighed, den egenskab, der adskiller menneskelige væsner som en skabende art fra alle andre livsformer, i betragtning af deres evne til at udøve skabende fornuft.

Tyske borgere, der er bekymret for vort samfunds udhuling, for vort lands sikkerhed, deres egen personlige fremtid og meget andet, bør under ingen omstændigheder begå den fejl at falde for ”doktrinen reduceret til slagord”. For skjult bag disse sætninger findes der et billede af mennesket, der er uforeneligt med europæiske eller tyske værdier (for så vidt som man forstår disse som omfattende humanismen hos Nicolaus Cusanus (Nikolaus von Kues), Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Felix Mendelssohn, Friedrich Schiller og Albert Einstein), men som i stedet er i overensstemmelse med den racisme, der engang kastede vort land ud i katastrofen.

Fortsættelse følger.     

Foto: PEGIDA- demonstration i Dresden, Tyskland, 12. januar 2015, efter terrorangrebet mod det franske, satiriske blad "Charlie Hebdo" 7. januar 2015.