19. august 2016 – Læger uden Grænser meddelte i går, at de trækker alt personale ud af seks hospitaler i det nordlige Yemen efter angrebet den 15. juli på hospitalet i Abs udført af den saudiskledede koalition, som, sagde de, »er det fjerde og mest dødbringende angreb på nogen LuG-støttet facilitet i denne krig, og der har været utallige angreb på andre sundhedsfaciliteter og tjenester i hele Yemen.«

Joan Tubau, generaldir. for LuG, sagde: »LuG beder den saudiskledede koalition og de regeringer, der støtter denne koalition, især USA, UK og Frankrig, om at sikre en omgående indførelse af forholdsregler til markant at forøge beskyttelsen af civile.« Men indtil dette sker, er de aktuelle protokoller utilstrækkelige og faren alvorlig.

De seks hospitaler ligger i det nordlige Yemen, i de administrative distrikter Saada og Hajjah. Faciliteterne vil fortsætte med at arbejde med frivilligt personale fra Sundhedsministeriet, men tjenesteydelserne var i forvejen forfærdeligt overbelastet. Evakueringen af LuG-personale omfatter fødselslæger, børnelæger, kirurger og specialister for intensivafdelinger.

I bombeangrebet den 15. juli af Abs-hospitalet i Hajjah-distriktet blev 19 mennesker dræbt og 24 såret. LuG erklærer, at de har mistet tilliden til, at den saudiskledede koalition vil gøre noget for at forhindre sådanne fatale angreb. LuG’s pressemeddelelse fra 18. august slutter, »At sundhedspersonale og syge og sårede mennesker dræbes i et hospital, taler sit tydelige sprog om denne krigs grusomhed og umenneskelighed.«

Den 17. august siger en lederartikel i New York Times med overskriften, »Amerika er medskyldig i blodbadet i Yemen«, at »Saudi-Arabien, der startede luftkrigen i marts 2015, bærer det tungeste ansvar for at opflamme konflikten … «, og at, »Hr. Obama aftalte at støtte interventionen i Yemen – med Kongressens formelle godkendelse – og at sælge endnu flere våben til saudierne … « Redaktionen konkluderer, »I betragtning af de civile tab, kan en fortsat amerikansk støtte til denne krig ikke forsvares.«

Foto: Abs-hospitalet i Hajjah-provinsen blev bombet i mandags, hvor 19 mennesker blev dræbt. Læger den Grænser evakuerer nu personale fra stedet, og fra fem andre hospitaler i det nordlige Yemen, pga. bombeangrebene.

19. august 2016 – En delegation fra Würzburg, Tyskland, der netop er hjemvendt efter et besøg i Kina, rapporterer, at den havde møder i Xi’an med flere ledende kinesiske regeringsfolk og tyskere, der arbejder i byen, om planer om at opføre en helt ny storby ved siden af Xi’an. Dette projekt, »Porten til Silkevejen«, vil involvere deltagelse fra Frankrig og Tyskland, inklusive et museumselement, der skal fremvise udvalgte, vigtige, historiske bygninger i Frankrig og Tyskland, så som f.eks. en replika af Berlins Brandenburger Tor. Så meget for turistattraktioner.

Vigtigere er imidlertid det industrielle aspekt: Den Kinesiske Statskommissions afdeling i Xi’an har bedt et rådgivningsfirma med base i Würzburg, som Kina tidligere har arbejdet sammen med, om at udarbejde en køreplan for lovende investeringer i den nye by, som er attraktive for tyske selskaber, med vægt på den produktive Mittelstand. Selskabet vil især tage kontakt til de selskaber, der gerne vil gøre forretninger med Kina, men som ikke har det. Ud over at være forbundet til den Ny Silkevejs jernbanelinje til Europa vil den nye by også få en lufthavn.

Info: Xi’an er hovedstaden i provinsen Shaanxi i det nordvestlige Kina og én af Kinas ældste byer og én af de fire, antikke hovedstæder i Kina. Xi’an er begyndelsespunktet for den gamle Silkevej, som i århundreder var den tråd, der forbandt øst og vest. Fra så tidligt som år 200 f. Kr. rejste købmænd med deres kamelkaravaner fra Xi’an (Chang’an), Kinas hovedstad dengang, mod vest, så langt som til Konstantinopel, for at sælge silke. Xi’an er hjemstedet for kejser Qin Shi Huangs terrakottahær. Desuden rummer Xi’an bl.a. centrer for Kinas rumfartsindustri. Xi’an har 4,4 mio. indbyggere. De to kinesiske tegn i navnet Xi'an, 西安, betyder 'Vestlig Fred'. 

Würzburg: Med bl.a. Fraunhofer Institut for Forskning i Silikat, som er en del af Fraunhofer-selskabet, Europas største organisation for anvendt forskning.  Det udvikler materialer for morgendagens produkter og tilbyder samarbejde med små og mellemstore virksomheder og med industriselskaber i stor skala.

Universitet for Anvendt Videnskab for Würzburg-Schweinfurt blev grundlagt i 1971 som et teknologisk institut med afdelinger i Würzburg og Schweinfurt. Det er med sine 8.000 studerende det næststørste universitet for anvendt videnskab i Franken i delstaten Bayern, med studiegrene inden for blandt andet arkitektur, civilingeniør, geodæsi og logistik. Würzburg har 125.000 indbyggere. (-red.)  

19. august 2016 – Med et løfte til den besøgende leder fra Myanmar, Aung San Suu Kyi, om, at Kina ønsker at sikre, at landenes relationer udvikler sig i den »rigtige retning«, sagde Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i dag, »folket i Myanmar står ved et nyt begyndelsespunkt for en strålende fremtid for landet«, rapporteres det i Singapores Channel News Asia. »Vi bør knytte os til den rigtige retning og satse på nye fremskridt i bilaterale relationer og på at bringe mærkbare, gavnlige effekter til de to folkeslag«, tilføjede Xi iflg. nyhedsrapporteringen.

Som respons til Xis udtalelser understregede Lyndon LaRouche, at dette er godt for hele området.

Forud for sit møde med Xi i dag sagde Suu Kyi til reportere i Beijing, at hun »forventer, at Kina vil støtte historiske fredsforhandlinger med bevæbnede grupper nær landenes urolige fællesgrænse«, rapporterede The Straits Times. »Vi er overbevist om, at Kina, som en god nabo, vil gøre alt, hvad der er muligt, for at fremme vores fredsproces. Kina er, som en nabo, der har en meget vigtig, fælles grænse, langs med hvilken der er mange bevæbnede, etniske grupper, vigtig mht. sin goodwill«, tilføjede hun iflg. The Straits Times. Der er planlagt en fredskonference i Myanmar senere på måneden.

Alt imens medierapporteringerne var nødtørftige mht. den brede diskussion mellem Xi og Aung San Suu Kyi, så tales der meget om Myitsone-vandkraftværket tæt på grænsen mellem Kina og Myanmar, hvor de to, nordlige floder i Irrawady-flodbækkenet løber sammen. Kina havde investeret US$ 3,6 mia. i dæmningsprojektet, før arbejdet blev suspenderet i 2011 af den tidligere præsident for Myanmar, Thein Sein, pga. udbredte protester, der var arrangeret af etniske grupper og miljøfolk. Kina har arbejdet på at genoptage arbejdet på dæmningen, der iflg. den oprindelige plan ville have sendt 90 % af sin elektricitet til Kina, rapporterer Channel News Asia. Man fornyer nu engagementet i projektet, så vel som også andre infrastrukturprogrammer, til de to landes fælles fordel.  

Lad os sige, at, en skønne dag, f. eks. en søndag morgen, præsidenterne for hhv. USA og Kina og et par andre, efter et weekend-møde siger: »Vi har denne weekend besluttet, at vi, baseret på vore rådgivere samt den kendsgerning, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot, som ansvarlige statsoverhoveder, af hensyn til almenvellet må erklære disse bankerotte institutioner konkurs og sætte dem under konkursbehandling. Og det er i vores interesse, at vi samarbejder om dette som nationer, for at undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet.«

Engelsk udskrift.

WHY HAVE WE ALLOWED AN EMPIRE TO DOMINATE OUR EXISTENCE FOR FAR TOO LONG?

International LaRouche PAC Webcast , Aug. 19, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's August 19th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden. You're joining us for our weekly broadcast here
on Friday evenings of our LaRouche PAC webcast. I'll be your host
tonight. I'm joined in the studio by Jason Ross, from the
LaRouche PAC science team; and we're joined, via video, by Kesha
Rogers and Michael Steger, both leading members of the LaRouche
PAC Policy Committee.
        As we broadcast this show here tonight, the second edition
— newest copy — of the weekly publication, {The Hamiltonian} is
going to press. This is going to be flooding into the streets of
New York City close on the heels of the first edition, which came
out two weeks ago. Both Kesha Rogers and Michael Steger have
articles that are on the front page of this week's copy of {The
Hamiltonian}. Michael Steger wrote an article called "LaRouche
Was Right. End Wall Street, Now", and Kesha Rogers wrote a very
profound and beautiful article called "A Truly Human Culture —
an Expression of the Creative Human Mind."
        What Kesha addresses in this article is the inner
relationship between the minds of Lyndon LaRouche, Albert
Einstein, and Krafft Ehricke, and their conception of what a
truly human culture is.
        Joining us here today is Jason Ross, who has actually
prepared a condensed presentation on the subject of some of the
unique discoveries of Albert Einstein, which will add to our
discussion here today.
        But before we get to that, we've agreed to begin today's
broadcast with a sort of travel back into time. Now that we are
on the verge of a total consolidation of this new Eurasian
system, which is based around the original idea of the
Russia-India-China Strategic Triangle, which was championed by
Lyndon LaRouche and also championed by Prime Minister Yevgeny
Primakov of Russia in the 1990s, we are finding ourselves in a
completely unprecedented situation. It's, I think, very clear, as
we approach the G-20 Summit, the Vladivostok Economic Forum, and
also the United Nations General Assembly, that the entire
strategic geometry of the planet has shifted and has realigned.
        As is rightly pointed out in the lead of today's LaRouche
PAC website, this is not just a "practical" realignment of
nations, but, since we are talking about Einstein here today,
this is almost the "gravitational effect" of an idea which was
introduced almost 20 years ago by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche.
        The video that you're about to see is a very short excerpt
of a speech that Mr. LaRouche made at a forum in Washington, DC
in 1997 in conjunction with the release of the {Executive
Intelligence Review} {first} edition of the special report on the
subject of the Eurasian Land-Bridge. This was a presentation that
was made as part of a series of so-called "development
conferences" that were held in Washington during those couple of
years — 1996, 1997, 1998 — and I think what you'll see in this
video is the fact that it was Lyndon LaRouche's "marching
orders." It was sort of his creative vision of what the role that
China, with the New Silk Road, and also the role that Russia
would play in completely reshaping the strategic geometry of the
world.
        So, this is a short excerpt of that speech from 1997:
        LYNDON LAROUCHE: There are only two nations which are
respectable left on this planet, that is, nations of respectable
power: that is the United States, particularly the United States
not as represented by the Congress, but by the President. It is
the {identity} of the United States which is a political power,
not some concatenation of its parts. The United States is
represented today only by its President, as a political
institution. The Congress does not represent the United States;
they're not quite sure who they do represent, these days,
[laughter] since they haven't visited their voters recently.
        The President is, institutionally, the embodiment of the
United States in international relations. The State Department
can't do that; the Justice Department can't do it; no other
Department can do it; only the President of the United States,
under our Constitution, can represent the United States as an
entity — its entire personality, its true interest, its whole
people.
        Now, there's only one other power on this planet which can
be so insolent as that toward other powers, and that's the
Republic of China. China is engaged, presently, in a great
infrastructure-building project, in which my wife and others have
had an ongoing engagement over some years. There's a great reform
in China, which is a "trouble reform." They're trying to solve a
problem. That doesn't mean there is no problem. But they're
trying to solve it.
        Therefore, if the United States, or the President of the
United States, and China, participate in fostering {that}
project, sometimes called the Silk Road Project, sometimes the
Land-Bridge Project, if that project of developing development
corridors across Eurasia into Africa, into North America, is
extended, that project is enough work to put this whole planet
into an economic revival. I'll get into just a bit of that, to
make it more sensuously concrete.
        China has had cooperation with the government of Iran for
some time. Iran has actually been completing a number of rail
links which are an extension of China's Land-Bridge program (or
Silk Road project). More recently, we've had, on the side of
India, from Indian leadership which has met with the
representatives of China, to engage in an initial route, among
the land routes, for the Land-Bridge program. One goes into
Kunming in China. I was in that area, in Mishana, during part of
World War II. Out of Mishana we had planes flying into Kunming,
"over The Hump," as they used to say in those days. I'm quite
familiar with that area.
        But if you have water connections, canal connections, and
rail connections from Kunming through Mishana — that area —
across Bangladesh into India, through Pakistan into Iran, up to
the area just above Tehran, south of the Caspian — you have
linked to the Middle East; you have linked to Central Asia; you
have linked to Turkey; you have linked to Europe.
        Then you have a northern route, which is pretty much the
route of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, which was built under
American influence and American advice, by Russia. You have a
middle route, which is being developed, in Central Asia, with
China and Iran.
        India is working on a plan which involves only a few
hundreds of kilometers of rail to be added — there were a lot of
other improvements along the right-of-way — which would link the
area north of Tehran through Pakistan, through India, through
Bangladesh, through Myanmar, into Kunming, into Thailand, into
Vietnam, down through Malaysia and Singapore, across the Straits
by a great bridge, into Indonesia.
        There's a plan, also, for the development of a rail link
through what was northern Siberia, across the Bering Strait into
Alaska, and down into the United States. There's a Middle East
link — several links — from Europe, as well as from China, but
from China a Middle East link into Egypt, into all of Africa.
        So, what we have here, is a set of projects which are not
just transportation projects, like the trans-Continental
railroads in the United States, which was the precedent for this
idea, back in the late 1860s and 1870s. You have "development
corridors," where you develop, on an area of 50-70 km on either
side of your rail link, your pipeline, and so forth. You develop
this area with industry, with mining, with all these kinds of
things. Which is the way you {pay} for a transportation link.
Because of all the rich economic activity. Every few kilometers
of distance along this link, there's something going on, some
economic activity. People working, people building things, people
doing things.
        To transform this planet, in great projects of
infrastructure-building, which will give you the great
industries, the new industries, the new agriculture, and the
other things we desperately need. {There is no need for anybody
on this planet, who is able to work, to be out of work.} That
simple. And that project is the means.
        If the nations which agree with China — which now includes
Russia, Iran, India, other nations — if they engage in a
commitment to that project which they're building every day; if
the United States — that is, the President of the United States,
Clinton — continues to support that effort, as he's been doing,
at least politically, then what do you have? You have the United
States and China and a bunch of other countries ganged up
together, against the greatest power on this planet, which is the
British Empire, called the British Commonwealth. That's the
enemy!
        If on one bright day, say a Sunday morning, after a weekend
meeting, the President of the United States, the President of
China, and a few other people say, "We have determined this
weekend, that based on our advisors and the facts, that the
international financial and monetary system is hopelessly
bankrupt, and we in our responsibility as heads of state, must
put these bankrupt institutions into bankruptcy reorganization,
in the public interest. And it is in our interest to cooperate as
nations in doing this, to avoid creating chaos on this planet."
        The result, then, is that such an announcement, on a bright
Sunday morning, will certainly spin the "talking heads" on
Washington TV. [laughter] But otherwise it means that the entire
system, as of that moment, has been put through the guillotine,
and the head is rolling down the street. Alan Greenspan's head,
perhaps.
        That means we have at that point the impetus for building,
immediately, a new financial and monetary system. Now, in putting
a corporation which is bankrupt, into viable form, what do you
do? You've got to find the business that it's going to do, which
is the basis for creating the new credit to get that firm going
again.
        The Land-Bridge program, with its implications on a global
scale, is the great project which spins off directly and
indirectly enough business, so to speak, for every part of this
world, to get this world back on a sound basis again.

OGDEN: As you can see, this is a very prescient speech, and in
fact it was Lyndon LaRouche's active intervention, travelling to
Russia, his wife travelling to China in this period, the
publication of {EIR} Special Report about the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, which has shaped the current situation we find
ourselves in. One thing that's interesting to point out, is those
maps that you were seeing. At that time many of those rail routes
and other pipeline routes were merely proposals, but now many of
them are actually in the process of being built.
        I think it's clear, 20 years on, this is the emergent
dominant system on the planet. At the same time, the
trans-Atlantic system is in completely blowout mode. You have an
oncoming implosion of trillions of dollars of non-performing debt
and derivatives exposures, which are being projected into every
major bank across the trans-Atlantic system.
        In the meantime, in the build-up to the G-20 Summit and into
the United Nations General Assembly, you've got the role that
especially President Putin is playing, in consolidating a series
of alliances, mainly between Russia, China, and India; but also
this emerging alliance between Russia and Turkey; and, very
significantly, the very strengthened alliance between Russia and
Iran, where Russia is now using bases in Iran as a point of
departure for fighter jets to go in and fight against ISIS in
Syria.
        Putin, who is being honored as the Number One guest at the
upcoming G-20 Summit in China, is certainly at the center of all
of this. His career and Mr. LaRouche's career, over the past
twenty years since that speech was delivered in Washington, have
very closely paralleled each other.
        I think we can open up the discussion with that as a basis.

        KESHA ROGERS: Did you want to start, Jason?

        JASON ROSS: You can go ahead Kesha, or Michael.

        ROGERS: Okay. I think Michael might be having some technical
difficulties, so I will go ahead and get started.
        When we look at Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, first of all,
going back to this video that you just showed, it's extremely
important to look at this video as a characteristic of who Mr.
LaRouche is, and his 40- to 50-year track record in economic
development, and what he has been organizing around, from the
standpoint of the center of economics being based on the human
intervention, the human creative process.  And what actually
distinguishes him from all of the other so-called "economists"
out there, because as you just said Matt, what we're dealing with
right now is a breakdown crisis in the society that Mr. LaRouche
has recognized going back to his first forecast of the late
1960s, 1970s.  What were these forecasts based on?  They were
based on the fact that if you went along with a mathematical idea
about how society should function, then you were completely
misunderstanding — or should I say wrong in your understanding
of what actually fosters progress in society.  What fosters
progress in society is not money per se; and this has been Mr.
LaRouche's focus on the role of Alexander Hamilton. [That’s] why
right now as many people have seen, we've already put out one
edition of a new newsletter that you just showed Matt, called
{The Hamiltonian}.  This is extremely important because now we're
putting out the second edition of {The Hamiltonian}, which is
having reverberating effects, particularly throughout Manhattan;
which is the center of the fight for the nation.  That is the
fight where Alexander Hamilton led the fight for the development
of our US Constitution against the British criminals like Aaron
Burr, and against those who wanted to destroy what the United
States actually represented.
        But it goes deeper than that; because I think what we've
discussed a lot around Mr. LaRouche's current fight in Manhattan
and what we're doing with this {Hamiltonian} is what has defined
the mission for bringing about the new Presidency.  Michael wrote
an article last week on the question of the new Presidency
fostered by Mr. LaRouche's Four Laws and the bringing in of those
Four Laws.  The article that's in this week's {Hamiltonian} is by
Michael around LaRouche's track record in economics and why Wall
Street has to be brought down now.  It is followed by the article
that I wrote on the human creative process.  I think we'll get
more into that, but when we bring up this question of a New
Paradigm for mankind and the identity of a renaissance, some of
it becomes in most people's minds because of the society and
culture we live in, a little superficial.  It is based on this
idea that a renaissance has a different meaning to it.  When we
speak of the idea of creating a New Paradigm for mankind, first
and foremost, it is the idea of creating something that has not
yet existed; something that the human creative mind has to bring
into existence.  When you go back and you start to look at the
idea of what the conception of the Italian Renaissance was based
on historically, it was the idea of putting mankind and the human
creative process at the center of the Universe.
        I think it's important that we'll get into this; that this
is what has shaped the identity of Mr. LaRouche around his
emphasis on the unique creative role of Albert Einstein and the
unique creative of others such as was mentioned earlier — Krafft
Ehricke.  I think it's important for people to look at this,
because the question now is that with the collapse of the society
that we're seeing right now, the detrimental collapse of the
culture, what we're seeing in terms of what's taken over the
thinking of the population.  The population is not capable of
actually making decisions as human beings; they're making
decisions based on what somebody tells them is possible or is not
possible.  I think this is a problem we're running into.  How can
you actually say that you have the ability to make decisions as a
free citizen when you're making your decisions based on what you
think is already possible and has been determined as precedents
set and possibilities that are already a determining factor of
what can and cannot happen.
        So, I think that's important to look at as people are
thinking about this insane election process.  Instead of thinking
about what is going to shape your future; is it going to be
something that happens to you?  Or something that you actually
bring into existence?  That's what Mr. LaRouche has been
completely focussed on.  The population has to have a sense that
you're responsible for your future; you must bring that which
does not exist into existence, based on your understanding that
human beings are not animals.  We don't have to go along with the
insanity of what we're told we have to accept.
        So, I'll start with those remarks for now, and let you guys
go on with more.

        OGDEN:  Well, we just got Michael back, so maybe we should
hear him.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Hi.

        OGDEN:  Great!  Welcome back.  We were just discussing some
of the implications of going back and looking back at that video
of Mr. LaRouche's speech in 1997.  I think you actually had
something to point out about the timing of that speech and what
happened just immediately afterwards.

        STEGER:  Yeah, and part of the dynamic in organizing some of
the layers of China at that time was that it was not clear to
many in China at that time, or in Asia, that the western
trans-Atlantic system had major failings and weaknesses.  It was
just two months after that speech was made that the Asian
financial crisis erupted; dominating Southeast Asia and Japan —
the so-called "Asian tigers".  It really made it very clear that
the entire financial system could go.  It was just a year later
that the whole LCTM crisis happened.  So when Mr. LaRouche is
referencing the bankruptcy of the financial system, that was very
apparent in just months to come to almost everyone on the planet;
as apparent as it was in 2008 when the financial system blew
again.  As we point out in the article in the new {Hamiltonian},
the level of insanity that now dominates 20 years later, creates
what is clearly the largest financial breakdown in modern
history.  This is a kind of financial bankruptcy only comparable
to perhaps the blow-out in Italy in the 1300s; which brought a
Dark Age to Europe.
        But what is remarkable is how much these nations like China
— it's just striking; and maybe this has already been stated —
but the context of China and India collaborating on major routes
is an ongoing diplomatic process today.  Far more engaged, far
more serious than anyone can probably imagine; let alone the
integrations of countries like Iran, Turkey.  Everything that Mr.
LaRouche laid out about 20 years ago, is now on a far greater
active collaborative effort among these nations.  It is somewhat
a testament to the power of ideas and how that can shape history
at crisis moments; as we saw in '97 and what we see today.

OGDEN:  I think one thing that is very clear from just looking at
Mr. LaRouche's role in the middle of this, is his emphasis on the
mission that has to bring nations together.  In other words, this
is not just geopolitics in a cynical sense.  This based around a
concept of what is the human species?  What is real profit?  How
do we create a future for a growing population; and how do we
establish the kind of optimism that mankind has a future towards
which the current generations can work?  It's pointed out, I
think a lot of what we're seeing right now is not just a
projection of the past into the present.  This is a reflection of
a future intention.  You can look at what China is doing, for
example, in terms of their space program.  The fact that two
years from now, you're going to have a Chinese probe going to
where no man has gone before; to the far side of the Moon, to
discover things that perhaps we don't even know are questions
yet, in terms of man's relationship to the Universe.
        When we were discussing some of these questions with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, he had one thing to say which I just would
like to quote verbatim from him which I think can provide the
basis for a furthering of this discussion.  What Mr. LaRouche
said was the following:  "Mankind is not based on the limitations
of individual human behavior; but, in fact, man as a species is
based on the individual powers of the human mind to go beyond
what mankind had conceived of prior.  Giving mankind a power over
the Universe greater than anything achieved heretofore."  We've
been putting a lot of emphasis on the personality of Albert
Einstein, but for what reason?  For the very reason that Albert
Einstein is paradigmatic of exactly that sort of individual,
revolutionary characteristic of genius.  That the genius takes
what was believed prior to that point and calls it into question,
and overturns major aspects of what mankind had believed and had
put into practice up to that point; and revolutionizes mankind's
understanding of the Universe and of himself.  So, I think that's
sort of a window into why the emphasis on Albert Einstein right
now.

        JASON ROSS:  It's difficult to speak for LaRouche; and he's
got opportunities to speak for himself on this site, too, which
he'll continue doing.  But the example of Einstein as a real
{mensch} you might say, a real human being, what it is to be a
person is essential for a couple of reasons.  One, if you think
about the role of LaRouche in history and the economic
breakthroughs he made several decades ago now, you look at the
courage that he had to stick with what he knew was right despite
whatever opposition might come his way; despite what was
effectively a life sentence in prison, to not compromise in the
face of that.  An economic forecasting record that's unparalleled
and proposals for polices that are now — as you heard in that
video, and as is taking place right now with China's One Belt,
One Road taking the world.  So, in terms of how Einstein fits
into that, I want to take up something that Kesha had brought up
about popular opinion.  Because where do you get a freedom in
your thoughts from?  How are you able to be a free thinking
citizen; or how are you able to come to conclusions that are your
own, as opposed to having a basis in their popularity.  Or
whether you think other people might think them, or whether you
think you ought to look like you think them to get ahead somehow.
Is there an actual standard for whether something is true or not?
Yes, there is; and unfortunately and deliberately, that's really
not part of our culture or our education right now.
        So, LaRouche has emphasized that the general understanding
of Einstein is false; it's wrong.  Most people's images of who
Einstein is as a person, his work to some degree, it's just not
true.  And we've got to clean that up in order to make a case
about what his approach was to the Universe, to mankind, to life;
and how that was important, it made it possible for him to make
the scientific breakthroughs that he did.  But he was a whole
person; he was an entire human being, including the role of his
violin — something that LaRouche has referred to a number of
times.
        So today, I want to go through a few things — somewhat
briefly. We're going to have a "New Paradigm for Mankind"
Wednesday show this coming week on Wednesday after a hiatus of
some period.  So, we'll be able to get into this in a bit more
detail then, but I want to take up three things.  First is
briefly, some thoughts from Einstein; quotes from Einstein.  How
did he think about things beyond his scientific work also.
Second, I want to talk about his most famous discovery —
relativity; and what that implies.  And then third, talk about
quantum mechanics as an example of Einstein's courage against
popular opinion; which is something that he had from a very young
age.  Then we'll see how that plays into these other concepts.
        When he was 67, Einstein was asked to write down a sort of
an autobiography; which he felt was like writing an obituary
before he had passed.  He was a nice guy, so he still did it.
I'm going to read some quotes from this; it's called his
"Autobiographical Notes".  He starts off very early; he says,
"Even when I was a fairly precocious young man, the nothingness
of the hopes and strivings which chases most people restlessly
through life, came to my consciousness with considerable
vitality.  Moreover, I soon discovered the cruelty of that chase;
which in those years was much more carefully covered up by
hypocrisy and glittering words than is the case today."  So, the
vain chase for success, this isn't a real identity.  He says, "It
was possible to satisfy the stomach by such participation, but
not a human being insofar as he is a thinking and feeling being.
Thus, I came — despite the fact that I was the son of entirely
irreligious Jewish parents — to a deep religiosity; which,
however, found an abrupt ending at the age of 12.  Through the
reading of popular scientific books, I soon reached the
conviction that much of the stories in the Bible could not be
true.  The consequence was a positively fanatical free thinking,
coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being
deceived by the state through lies.  It was a crushing
impression.  Suspicion of every kind of authority grew out of
this experience.  A skeptical attitude towards the convictions
which were alive in any specific social environment; an attitude
which has never left me."  It's not some popular opinion.
        He wrote that, "The contemplation of the huge world, the
vast riddle of the Universe around us," this to him was the
proper goal of life.  And that by considering it, you could be
really liberated from things that are merely personal or
insignificant.  He wrote: "Similarly motivated thinkers of the
present and the past, as well as the insights which they had
achieved, were friends that could not be lost.  The road to this
paradise of knowledge was not as comfortable and alluring as the
road to the religious paradise; but it has proved itself as
trustworthy, and I have never regretted having chosen it."
        In his thinking process, Einstein — who was a musician with
a deep love of Mozart in particular — didn't believe that
thinking required words.  He wrote: "For me, it is not dubious
that our thinking goes on for the most part without the use of
signs or words.  And beyond that, to a considerable degree, it
takes place unconsciously."  He writes that "Through our
experiences as we understand conflicts between our thought of how
the world works and experiences which counter that, we develop a
sense of wonder," which he says is the key to the development of
new thoughts.  So, how can that be developed?  How can that be
fostered?  Well, he complained about the school in his day; he
said there was too much testing and not enough freedom or actual
thought for the students.  I can hardly imagine what he would say
about schools now.  He wrote then that "It is, in fact, nothing
short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry.  For
this delicate little plant, aside from stimulation, stands mainly
in need of freedom.  It is a very grave mistake to think that the
enjoyment of seeing and of searching can be promoted by means of
coercion and a sense of duty."
        On the kinds of thoughts that make true discoveries, he said
that there are two requirements for such a theory.  One, it can't
be contradicted by observations; and second, he said it has to
have an inner perfection.  About that, he wrote — sounding very
much like Johannes Kepler, the first modern astronomer —
Einstein wrote:  "We prize a value more highly if it is not the
result of an arbitrary choice among theories which — among
themselves — are of equal value and analogously constructed."
That is, to be right, an idea also has to be necessary; not just
in keeping with observations.
        In his life, he was a courageous man; he stood up against
World War I; even when many great scientists like Max Planck had
written a letter supporting the war, supporting Germany's cause
in it.  Einstein didn't; he wrote a letter opposing it, and even
got Max Planck got rescind his support for the war.  He stood up
against racism in the US in many famous cases such as Marian
Anderson, who when she went to perform in Princeton, wasn't able
to actually spend the night anywhere; she was turned away by
hotels.  So, she stayed at Albert Einstein's house, which is
where she'd stay whenever she visited that town.  And his
opposition to the FBI and the thought policing it was doing.
When he was coming to the US, they had a list of questions for
him; they wanted to do an interview, find out what kind of
thoughts Einstein had.  He said, I'm not going to answer these.
If this is the condition for coming to the US, I'm not going to
come; forget it.  They gave in.  So, I'll let those brief words
from Einstein stand for themselves.
        Let's take a look at the second part, which is a few
thoughts about his famous discovery of relativity.  As far as the
context for this, ever since the general hegemony of Newton's
outlook — which didn't have to happen, but it did — according
to Newton, when we make observations, when we do science, things
take place in a space that is indifferent to those things; it's
just there.  It existed before anything was in the Universe.
According to Newton, space existed before God created everything;
it was just the primordial space.  Newton also believed that
there was a time; a single time, a universal time that flowed on
of its own accord, had no particular characteristics and was not
dependent on or related to anything that actually took place over
time.  So, according to Newton, there was an absolute space, an
absolute time; and objects in that space at various times.  Now,
this had already been shown to be wrong by Gottfried Leibniz, who
in a debate with Newton, demonstrated that requiring an absolute
space and then saying that God created everything somewhere in
that space, as opposed to somewhere else; would be a decision
without any good reason.  And that God couldn't do something like
that; everything in the Universe had a reason for it, and that
therefore there couldn't have been this space in the first place.
Newton used the same example to say that shows you how powerful
God is, because He could do whatever He felt like.  So, He put
the Universe somewhere.  Anyway, Leibniz had already shown that
this Newtonian idea was wrong; but Newton gained hegemony.  So,
it has the result that people think of facts, of things taking
place in locations at certain times.  But Einstein showed that
this actually isn't true; that there is no time that any event
takes place.  That the time an event occurs, depends on who is
looking at it.  Not in the way of uncertainties or anything like
that; but the time itself doesn't exist as one thing that's
independent of who's doing the looking, or of their location.
What he did was, he created a new concept that resolved the
contradiction between two concepts that were actually mutually
contradictory.  So, these two concepts were, first off,
relativity; which existed before Einstein as a concept or
equivalence.  Leibniz believed this, for example; which was that
no matter where you are, or how you're moving — any of those
kinds of particular conditions — mind is universal.  Mind is
everywhere; mind is everywhere in the Universe; mind doesn't have
a speed or motion or anything like that.  Concepts that govern
how the Universe unfolds — true physical principles — are
independent of how you look at any particular fact or observation
that's occurring.  So, you can't change mind by moving something
physically — more on that in a minute.
        The second concept was that the speed of light is the same
for any observer; and that's not something that was immediately
apparent.  This was definitely debated.  To contrast that,
imagine that you're driving on a road and there's a car next to
you that's moving at a similar speed.  To you, it looks like the
car isn't really moving; to a pedestrian, the car is moving at
whatever speed you're driving.  Light is different than a car
moving, where you can catch up with its speed and make it look
like it's still.  For light, no matter how you're moving, light
beams to you all appear to move at the speed of light.  So, you
can't put those two concepts together; you can't have relativity
and a constant speed of light if you have one time and one space.
Instead, what Einstein said was that the time between events or
the distance between locations can actually differ based on how
you're looking at them.  So that simply being in motion — it's
not perceptible except at very high speeds — but simply being in
motion changes the lengths of everything around you, the time
between events that take place.
        I'll just briefly outline one example of this — we can get
into it with some pictures and things on Wednesday.  He shows a
lot of examples of thought experiments using trains moving
through train stations or embankments.  He gives one example
which is, let's say that as a train is moving, someone on the
ground sees flashes of lightning hit both sides of the train at
the same time.  For them to say "at the same time", what it means
is if you're standing in the middle, the light from both of those
flashes reaches you at the same time.  You say, "I'm in the
middle between these two points, therefore they must have
happened at the same time and then it took the light a little bit
of time for me to see it."  But you'd also recognize that if
someone on the train was to see those same two lightning bolts,
which to you occur simultaneously, as the train is moving this
way and you picture light moving at a constant speed from your
viewpoint, the light that was at the front of the train is going
to be observed first by somebody standing in the middle of the
train.  Someone on that train would say that those lightning
flashes didn't occur at the same time; that one preceded the
other.  What that means is that there's no simultaneity; there's
no ability to say anything took place at a certain time.  Time
now depends on who's looking at it.  If there's no simultaneity,
then there's nothing instant that can take place in the Universe;
because there's no instant for anything to occur instantly in.
So, for example, gravitational pull can't occur instantly; there
can't be an instant action at a distance.  In fact, nothing, no
effect could go faster than light; including gravitational
changes.  It meant a couple of things.  One is that you can't
separate space and time; but the other thing is that it makes you
really have to reconsider what makes up reality.  The idea that
objects at places in times are facts; that's not reality.  The
thing that's most real is the principles that you're able to
discover that don't change based on how you look at them, or how
you're moving.  Something like the way that light moves — that's
a physical principle; no matter how you look at it, it's the same
thing.  It's a principle.  A distance between two things?  That's
not a principle; that's not invariant.  That can change,
depending on how you look at it.  So that the naïve sense that
we get of the world around us, of our very concept of space, is
just not right.  Even though it seems totally intuitive and very
popular, you have to force a different kind of understanding.
        Now, there's a lot more to relativity than that, that's just
a component of it.  But it's undergone many, many tests over the
decades.  Things like starlight being deflected as it passes
around the Sun; atomic clocks going in airplanes and rockets;
light made by stars being a different color by virtue of their
gravitation.  Gravity waves, recently discovered somewhat
directly by the SLIGO experiment, but a paper written about them
in the '70s; having discovered indirect evidence for them from a
pulsar.  So, his thoughts have definitely stood the test of time
on this.  Nothing shows that he was wrong.  So that says
something about how we think about the world.
        Just to say something about Einstein's courage, on the third
topic is the quantum world.  In 1900, Einstein later colleague,
Max Planck had made a discovery that he was able to explain the
kind of light that hot bodies emit.  Something that's hot and
glowing like the filament in a light bulb; Planck was able to
explain that based on an hypothesis that the way light was
emitted from and absorbed by that hot body took place in pieces.
That the light energy had to interact with that body in
individually in quanta, the plural of quantum.  A few years
later, in Einstein's so-called "miracle year" of 1905, he
generalized this and said that's just how light is; it comes in
pieces.  Light is not purely a wave; light is also somewhat of a
particle.  The field developed, and one of the things that came
out of it that Einstein had realized, was a phenomenon called
entanglement.  To say it very briefly, it's the characteristic
where you're able to make two particles, say two photons that
have characteristics that are shared.  In the case of photons,
they have opposite polarizations.  Or maybe you can make two
electrons that have opposite spins.  After you make them, here's
the thought experiment Einstein would say.  Let's say you make
two of them; you don't look at them, and they go to very
different places.  One's in Tokyo and one's in New York.
According to the theory, once you measure one in Tokyo and you
get some sort of number for whatever its spin is; the one in New
York automatically has the opposite spin.  So Einstein said, does
this mean that measuring something in New York changed something
in Tokyo, or vice versa?  Could it have an instant effect
somehow?  How did it change the other particle that's so far away
from it?  Nothing can occur instantly anyway, because there are
no instants.  What's going on?
        What it came to was a debate over decades, that was
unresolved.  Einstein believed that the way work in this field
was going, was that people were giving up on reality; that they
were saying that all we really ever know is an observation.  That
the world doesn't exist in a certain state independent of our
measuring it.  Not just because our measurements affect things —
especially when they're very small; but that even God himself, so
to speak, doesn't really know the state of say an atom.  It
simply doesn't have one; all that is really real is when you
observe it later.  So, Einstein made a lot of polemics against
this, a lot of pedagogies about it, a lot of demonstrations; and
although there have been experiments since the decades after his
life that shed new light on it, I think the key thing to take
from that is that Einstein recognized that there was something a
bit unsettling about the way science was going.  That people were
willing to give up on the idea that things occurred for a reason.
To Einstein, that was throwing away reality; bidding farewell to
the idea that there is a real world.  Some of his thoughts on
that, you might have heard him say he'd like to think that the
Moon is still there even when he doesn't look at it.  But I think
the thing to take from that is his courage; even when almost
everyone was against him, he stuck to his guns on that.
        So, in terms of concluding on that, or drawing a reflection
from it, it's a constantly under-appreciated miracle that our
minds are able to understand the Universe in a way that gives us
power over it.  That unlike a koala bear or a grasshopper, that
are unable to use their understanding of nature to change their
relationship to it to transform their species, we're able to do
that.  There's something coherent between the way our minds piece
together and understand the world around us through our thoughts,
through our concepts.  There is a harmony between those concepts
and the way the Universe actually operates that gives us access
to act on those principles to bring about new states of
existence; and is the basis of economics.  So, I think that in
addition to a radical transformation and improvement in culture
that's needed, people like to think that they've got a lot of
scientific knowledge these days; because you own a smart phone
and you think you know something about science.  Or you say that
everybody knows there's global warming and only anti-scientific
people disagree with that.  That's not a basis of knowing
anything; and there's a lot of room for a dramatic improvement.
A real renaissance of taking Einstein's identity as an example
and really developing a fresh and powerful view of science to
solve many of the problems that we're confronted with right now,
that without a different approach, might never be solved.
        So, that's a very inadequate beginning about Einstein; but
it's a job for all of us to do.  To figure out who is this man;
what can we learn from his approach?  I think we'll be hearing
more from LaRouche and his thoughts on how he views his
importance as an individual for us today.

ROGERS:  I think that's very important.  What I think is
important to go back to in terms of LaRouche's role and what he
said in the presentation that we showed earlier.  And going to
the understanding of what is actually happening with the role
that Russia, under President Putin, and the role that President
Xi Jinping is playing in relationship to what Mr. and Mrs.
LaRouche had set into motion several decades ago with the
development of the Productive Triangle, of the Eurasian
Land-Bridge, the Silk Road Development Plan.  This coming into
motion now, and at that very time, during that presentation that
we saw in the beginning of this program, made the point that
these nations would be brought together in collaboration and form
a coalition of nations representing nations such as Iran, China,
Russia, India, and so forth, to put an end — once and for all —
to the British Empire.  And the intentions of the British Empire
to destroy this very conception of what is the truly human
identity; the identity of the creative human process.  I think
it's very important to look at that from the standpoint of the
presentation you just gave, Jason.  Because that's what missing.
        What we're talking about is not a political fight from the
standpoint of how do you bring down one political candidate over
the other; but how do you destroy a system, particularly the
British Empire, in all of its facets and what it represents, that
denies this creative human process.  Right now, what we're
looking at from the United States is that as the rest of these
nations are moving in the direction of creating a New Paradigm
for mankind, moving with the Silk Road economic development plan;
where is the United States right now?  The United States is
continuing to go along with the evils and destructive policies of
the British Empire.  This has been the case for decades now; this
has been the case under the murderous, insane agenda of President
Obama, who should have been removed a long time ago.  Or the
policies of the Bush administration, and the lies and the
cover-up.  Now, we have an opportunity.  What we're discussing
here is not just some nice scientific ideas, and let's look at
Einstein and people think they have their different conceptions
and understanding and "Oh, I studied this in elementary school."
No; the idea is, what has been taken away from society?  Why have
we allowed an Empire to dominate our existence and our nation and
culture for far too long?
        So, I think it is the case that in 1997, when Mr. LaRouche
made the point that what we're dealing with is nations have to
come together to bring about that truly human identity to destroy
this empire once and for all; that's what we're going to use
Einstein to do.  I'll just make that point.

        STEGER:  Just to add, because I think it's worth
considering; there are so many developments that we're on the
verge of.  This coming six weeks have such a dramatic nature that
we've already seen a certain sense of in terms of a consolidated
effort to end this British Empire system; the very key emphasis
Lyn took up in 1997.  That there is now an orientation to resolve
the question of the Balkans, the Caucuses, Kashmir, the South
China Sea; even North Korea are essentially on the agenda of
these major nations.  To end the potential of world war, and to
really consolidate a new economic system.  So, it is kind of
striking that Lyn's emphasis is, as Matt you raised, on Einstein.
Why the emphasis now?  But it's clearly because in the minds of
this collaborative effort among these nations and among any
patriotic Americans, as we see in the performances we're
developing in New York around the 9/11 anniversary, the question
has to be the long-term development of mankind.  Not one's
children, not one generation ahead, but the actual ongoing
development that now is possible to embark upon as a human
species on this planet.  And I think Einstein craved and desired
no less.  His discoveries and passion unleashed that kind of
potential, which he probably saw as a young man himself, and that
quality.  It's not just simply a liberal emotion; it is of a
scientific endeavor which Einstein really captured.  I think
Lyn's comments then and today also do as well.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's with a full amount of confidence
that we can move forward and understand that the epic
era-changing kinds of developments that are occurring around us
right now, are things that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have been in the
middle of for decades, literally.  They've had their fingers on
the pulse of history right up to this point.  Helga LaRouche
pointed out yesterday that the speech that she gave at the Rasina
Dialogue in India just a couple of months ago, seems like it's
exactly what is now being undertaken by the Indian government in
terms of their collaboration with China and Russia to project the
Silk Road into the Middle East to resolve this terrible crisis
that exists there.  And Mr. LaRouche's continuing role in terms
of the intellectual sounding board around which the rest of
history is continuing to move.  It's with confidence that we can
look back at that speech and everything else that is on the
record in terms of their role.  It's an identity which we need to
maintain within ourselves and those who are collaborating with
us, that yes, your finger is on the pulse of history; the
imagination of what the future can become is what is continuing
to shape the actions in the present.  And it's a moment of
decision; it's the {punctum saliens} moment in terms of which
direction does mankind go right now.  We have a rich potential,
and I think it's extremely clear; but it's also extremely
dangerous.
        I'd really like to thank Jason for giving a little bit of a
foretaste of what's going to be elaborated much more, I'm sure,
on the show next Wednesday.  That's going to be broadcast, and we
would ask you to tune in to that.  I also want to encourage
people to continue to participate in the process of inundating
Manhattan with this new publication, {The Hamiltonian}.  This is
issue 2, and it continues to be the center of our intervention
into shaping the United States and answering the question that
Kesha asked:  Why is the United States not yet a part of this
emerging dynamic on the planet?  What must be done to cause that
to occur?
        So, I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in; and
encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  And we'll see
you next week.

18. august 2016 (Leder) – Den nutidige historiske periode er fuldstændig ny i sine karakteristika; den kan ikke sammenlignes med noget andet i menneskehedens hidtidige historie. Af denne grund er det kun nogle få personer, der har været i stand til, i deres intellekt, at frembringe et begreb om, hvad karakteristika er for denne epoke, der intet fortilfælde har: personer som Albert Einstein, Krafft Ehricke og Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Fordi det store flertal af almindelige dødelige mennesker ikke i deres erfaringsmateriale har noget sammenligneligt, og intet, som de har hørt eller læst om, har de ingen kriterier, ud fra hvilke de kan bedømme eller forstå det; de er på herrens mark. Af denne grund kan grupper, bestående af så få personer som i Lyndon LaRouches Manhattan-projekt, få en afgørende indflydelse netop på dette tidspunkt. Alene de kan se vejen frem, om end denne vej undertiden kan synes utydelig, og de må famle sig frem. De øvrige går i blinde, eller, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche ofte siger, »har ikke den fjerneste idé«.

I 2018 vil en kinesisk mission nå Månens bagside – under forudsætning af, at det inden da lykkes os at besejre Det britiske Imperiums kaosmagter. Denne mission vil blive en del af et helt, generelt program for at opdage og udforske de endnu ikke virkeliggjorte implikationer af Einsteins fundamentale opdagelser, som Lyndon LaRouche har påpeget. Og, som rumforskningsgeniet Krafft Ehricke – sammen med LaRouche – forudså, så vil den aktuelle energigennemstrømningstæthed, der for tiden står til menneskehedens disposition, være en forløber for fusionskraft, og herfra føre til stof-antistof-reaktioner, og herfra atter videre frem til niveauer, som vi i dag ikke engang kan give et navn.

Under forudsætning af, at vi overvinder de aktuelle forhindringer, som repræsenteres af Obama og det Britiske Imperium, så er vi i færd med at glide ind i det, Helga Zepp-LaRouche har kaldt »en æra, i hvilken vi bliver ægte menneskelige«.

På lignende måde er det, man måske kunne have kaldt det »system af alliancer«, der nu spænder over og gennemkrydser Eurasien og breder sig ud herfra, i realiteten slet ikke et »system af alliancer« i den betydning, vi har kendt til fra fortiden. Det er i realiteten snarere en projektion tilbage i tiden og ind i nutiden, fra det fremtidige univers, der inkorporerer de fremtidige opdagelser, der bringes tilbage fra Månens bagside. Putin har, sammen med Kina, inkorporeret principperne fra Den Westfalske Fred, men de er gået langt, langt videre end det. Begynd blot med den ekstraordinære relation, der er opnået mellem Rusland og Kina. Er man klar over, at vi taler om nationer, der så sent som i 1969 udkæmpede en syv måneder lang, ikke-erklæret krig over Ussuri-floden? Nu har de ikke alene regelmæssige topmøder mellem præsidenterne, og regelmæssige topmøder mellem premierministrene; det er det mindste af det. Der er ikke mindre end tretten mellemregerings-kommissioner, der hele tiden er i kontinuerlig kontakt med hinanden. Alle de mange meningsforskelle og uoverensstemmelser – og der er mange – bliver kontinuerligt løst på et både bredt og dybt plan i begge regeringer.

»Og vi finder altid frem til løsninger«, føjede Putin til denne beskrivelse.

Processen med at fuldbyrde denne ekstraordinære relation har været genstand for en dybtgående undersøgelse af Kinas dr. Ren Lin, der talte på Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin i juni måned, og af mange andre kinesiske og russiske, akademiske lærde.

Fuldbyrdelsen af en sådan relation udgør hjertet af BRIKS-processen og udviklingen af Den nye Silkevej. Det var kernen i Putins forgænger, nu afdøde russiske premierminister Jevgenij Primakovs idé om Den russisk-indisk-kinesiske Strategiske Trekant. Skabelsen heraf går tilbage til ikke alene Lyndon og Helga LaRouches idé om Den produktive Trekant og Den eurasiske Landbro, men endnu længere tilbage, til LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ[1], der havde en formativ indflydelse på Rusland til trods for, at Ruslands daværende leder, Juri Andropov, havde afvist initiativet på vegne af sine britiske herrer.

Dette nye system med fremtidens relationer mellem nationalstater, der går ud over nationalstatsbegrebet, som LaRouche længe har forudsagt, går med syvmileskridt hastigt frem hen over hele det eurasiske kontinent og mere generelt på et tidspunkt, hvor vi nærmer os det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok den 2. – 3. september, FN’s Generalforsamling, der begynder den 13. september, og BRIKS-topmødet i Goa, Indien, den 15. – 16. oktober.

Foto: Portræt af Einstein i 1905, da han offentliggjorde sin opdagelse af den specielle relativitetsteori.[2].

17. august 2016 (Leder) – Hvis Deutsche Bank for lov til at synke ned i et ukontrolleret kollaps, der får den største pulje af derivater blandt verdens banker til at nedsmelte, vil ikke alene den tyske økonomi, men også hele Europa og USA, hermed blive lagt øde. Alligevel er det, hvad der er på dagsordenen, bogstaveligt talt hvad dag, det skal være. Endnu en stemme fra den finansielle elite råber i dag alarm: »Deutsche Bank befinder sig i større vanskeligheder, end folk gør sig klart«, sagde Brad Lamensdorf fra hedgefonden Ranger Equity Bear i et interview med Lodonavisen The Express. »Noget er i den grad brudt sammen.«

»Der er intet i det europæiske banksystem, der er stabilt«, var Lyndon LaRouches respons. »Den tyske økonomi er på randen af en eksplosion. Merkel og Schäuble prøver på at håndtere det umulige. De må gå af. Det er kun et spørgsmål om tid, hvornår sammenbruddet vil indtræffe.«

Der findes midler til at løse denne krise, men ikke, medmindre der i Tyskland omgående træder ledere frem, der kan genoprette stabiliteten. Dette kræver for det første en genkapitalisering af Deutsche Bank under en nyt program, der afskriver den værdiløse derivat-boble og genopretter kommerciel bankvirksomhed under en regulering i stil med Glass-Steagall. Hvis dette gøres nu, sagde LaRouche, så kan Tyskland, i samarbejde med Putins Rusland, undgå et pludseligt sammenbrud og blive drivkraften for et nyt paradigme for samarbejde mellem de transatlantiske nationer og det russisk-kinesiske partnerskab, der nu leder verdensøkonomien fremad, det vestlige kollaps til trods.

Ledende kræfter i Tyskland forsøger at forbedre relationerne med Rusland. Udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier mødtes med sin russiske modpart Sergei Lavrov i Jekatarinburg den 15. august, hvor de to enedes om at »tilskynde til kontakter mellem regeringsagenturer for regioner i den Russiske Føderation og Forbundsrepublikken Tyskland«, udtalte Lavrov og tilføjede, at »vi mener, at den interesse for at samarbejde med Ruslands regioner, som Frank-Walter har udvist, fortjener al mulig støtte«. Som rapporteret i TASS, diskuterede de to, ifølge Lavrov, også bilaterale relationer inden for »politiske, kulturelle, humanitære og historiske områder«. Hvor længe kan det vanvittige sanktionsregime og NATO’s krigsmobilisering tolereres?

Tiden er knap. Putin har ramt Obamas krigsplan på to sårbare flanker: først i Syrien, hvor han under international lov har arbejdet med Syriens suveræne regering om at besejre terrorist-apparatet på forskellige fronter i Syrien, og således udstillet Obama som en promoter af de saudisk-kontrollerede al-Qaeda-netværk for at fuldbyrde hans aggressioners mål om kriminelt regimeskifte; og for det andet, så har Putin bragt Tyrkiet til fornuft og afsluttet Obamas brug af landet til at kanalisere våben og terrorister ind i Syrien.

Obama har reageret ved at sætte neonazistiske bander ind i Ukraine for at udløse terroristangreb i Krim – dvs. på russisk territorium – og optrappe krigen i Donbas-regionen. Putin meddelte, at det planlagte møde i Normandiet-gruppen (Frankrig, Tyskland, Rusland og Ukraine) ved det kommende G20-møde i Kina, med henblik på at forsøge at redde Minsk-aftalerne, var meningsløst nu, hvor Kiev har satset på terror på russisk territorium. Hollande, Merkel og Porosjenko talte i telefon i dag – uden Putin – og opfordrede til at fortsætte med Normandiet-processen. Andre har foreslået, at Tyskland og Rusland fortsætter på egen hånd for at løse problemet med Ukraine, og for at kræve en afslutning på Kievs Obama-støttede provokationer.

Der er krig på dagsordenen – en krig, der hurtigt ville blive global og atomar. Alt imens Tyskland, under et nyt lederskab, og i tandem med Rusland, kan forhindre det økonomiske kollaps og standse den fremstormende krig, så vil det kræve mod af amerikanske statsborgere at standse Obama (og hans håndlanger Hillary Clinton) i at udsætte USA for Wall Streets destruktion af den fysiske økonomi og føre verden ud i krig. Disse beslutninger skal træffes nu – ikke igennem et svindelvalg mellem to fjender af det Amerikanske System, men nu, ved forfatningsmæssige midler, der fjerner Obama for hans flere mange forbrydelser mod Forfatningen og mod menneskeheden, og som indfører Glass-Steagall, genopretter nationalbankvirksomhed og genopretter Amerikas forpligtelse til en fremtid på Jorden og i rummet med fusionskraft.

Ingen »praktiske«, delvise forholdsregler vil lykkes.

Foto: Præsident Putin og den tyske udenrigsminister Frank-Walter Steinmeier trykker hinanden i hånden efter et møde den 23. marts, 2016.

.

17. august 2016 – Sergei Glazyev, en rådgiver til den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, gav et interview til det russiske nyhedssite Russkaya Vesna, som blev udlagt i går.

Efter at have beskrevet, at Ukraine kontrolleres af nazisterne, der i realiteten agerer som en besættelsesmagt for USA, samt andre meget barske udtalelser om Ukraine, kommenterede Glazyev Ruslands ekspanderende samarbejde med Tyrkiet og Kina. Han blev spurgt, om de forbedrede relationer mellem Rusland og Tyrkiet »er et strategisk initiativ fra de to landes myndigheders side, og endnu et opportunistisk fænomen? Og hvor store var chancerne for en russisk-tyrkisk økonomisk union på længere sigt?« Glazyev svarede:

»Med hensyn til målene er vore økonomiske interesser i samklang, således, at udviklingen af det russisk-tyrkiske handels- og økonomisamarbejde går rigtig godt. Vore partnere fra Kasakhstan i EAEC (Eurasisk Økonomisk Fællesskab) har fremsat et initiativ om at indgå en præferencehandelsaftale med Tyrkiet. Dette er imidlertid uforeneligt med Tyrkiets aspirationer om optagelse i EU. Hvis Tyrkiet er ude af EU og NATO, kan samarbejdet vokse mange gange, og politiske uoverensstemmelser kan med lethed løses.« [Medlemmer af den Europæiske Union har ikke lov til uafhængigt at tilslutte sig en anden handelsblok. Tyrkiet er selvfølgelig endnu ikke i EU og kan meget let tilslutte sig en hvilken som helst handelsblok eller indgå handelsaftaler med andre lande, hvilket det da også allerede har gjort.]

Forespurgt om sin evaluering af de aktuelle kinesisk-russiske relationer, og om det repræsenterer politik for en total »orientering mod øst«, sagde han: »Dette er et gensidigt ligeværdigt, strategisk partnerskab, i hvilket vore lande har det samme mål. Der har fundet en orientering mod øst sted i den globale økonomi, og vi må aspirere til fuld deltagelse i denne nye orientering i verdensøkonomien, det fremvoksende Kina og andre lande i Sydøstasien.«

Russkaya Vesnas engelske site: http://rusvesna.su/english

Artiklen kan læses her: http://www.fort-russ.com/2016/08/glazyev-ukraine-under-us-occupation.html

Foto: Sergei Glazyev (venstre) med Vladimir Putin.

Alt imens de asiatiske Stillehavsnationer har brug for den videnskabelige viden, teknologi og fordele ved vores form for regering, såsom et statsligt kreditsystem efter Alexander Hamiltons principper, så står det klart, at, med hensyn til inspiration, så må vi nu se hen til Stillehavsområdet.   

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelfoto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Kinas kyst, »Den Eurasiske Landbros Terminal Øst«, 1996.

16. august 2016 (Leder) – Den Internationale Betalingsbank (BIS) har forberedt et dokument til det forestående G20-topmøde for statsoverhoveder i Kina, med en advarsel om, at en nedsmeltning af derivatmarkedet kunne ske når som helst, og at clearinghouse-systemet (CHIPS) er totalt uforberedt til at håndtere et sådant chok. Husk på, at Deutsche Bank har den største eksponering til derivater af alle banker i verden, og den har modparts-kontrakter med næsten alle TBTF-banker i USA, Europa og Japan – og Deutsche bank er korrekt blevet beskrevet som en »dead bank walking« (en ’bank på dødsgangen’). De bedste estimater lyder, at den globale derivathandel stadig ligger på et godt stykke over en billiard dollar, selv efter tab i år, der allerede har hobet sig op.

På dette sene tidspunkt er der kun én mulighed tilbage for det gennemført bankerotte transatlantiske system: Genindfør Glass-Steagall, afskriv alle derivatkontrakterne, gå tilbage til et fastkurssystem à la Bretton Woods, og lancer en massiv anlægsinvestering i projekter, der understøtter reel produktivitet gennem statslige bankmetoder i traditionen efter Hamilton, inklusive en forceret indsats for at opnå fusionskraft. Dette er hjertet i Lyndon LaRouches Fire Kardinallove.

Det betyder, med hensyn til den virkelige verden, at Vesten må opgive det afdøde, britiske system og endelig tilslutte sig det nye, eurasisk-centrerede system, der hastigt er ved at manifestere sig, under Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putins overordnede lederskab og gennem virkeliggørelsen af Kinas program for ’Ét bælte, én vej’ (OBOR). I mandags startede det første kølegodstog ud fra den kinesiske havn Dailan, med destination Moskva, en rejse på 8.600 kilometer, som vil blive klaret på henved ti dage. Dette er den seneste gren af OBOR og sætter fokus på samarbejdet mellem Rusland og Kina.

Under diskussioner med europæiske kolleger den 15. august erklærede Lyndon LaRouche, at vi befinder os på randen af en stor sejr for menneskeheden. De eurasiske nationer, forklarede han, er i færd med at etablere en gruppering, centreret omkring ledende nationer i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde, nationer, som er i voldsom vækst, i skarp kontrast til andre områder af verden, der er syge og døende rent økonomisk. Sydamerika er blevet overtaget af voldtægtsforbrydere, Frankrig er en fiasko, Spanien er en katastrofe. Fokus må være på de ledende nationer, som har taget initiativet i denne udviklingsproces. Putin, fortsatte LaRouche, er trådt frem som en drivkraft i denne eurasiske alliance. Der er kræfter, der er i bevægelse internt i USA, især i Manhattan, og som kan tilslutte sig indsatsen under anførsel af Eurasien for at knuse det britiske system, der har været menneskehedens fjende i de forgangne århundreder. Tyskland må, hvis det ønsker at overleve, tilslutte sig denne eurasiske udvikling, hvilket betyder at dumpe enhver politik associeret med Merkel og Schäuble.

Den russiske præsident Putin har, i løbet af de seneste år, spillet en afgørende rolle i organiseringen af en magt, hovedsageligt bestående af nationer centreret i Eurasien, og som er i færd med at få karakter af en militærmagt, der kan ændre alt og kan vinde krigen for fred.

I de kommende uger vil denne fremvoksende alliance være i centrum for en række historiske møder: Det Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok, Rusland; G20-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Kina; Kina-ASEAN-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Laos; FN’s Generalforsamling i New York City; og BRIKS-mødet for statsoverhoveder i Indien. Denne aktivitetstæthed fra nu og frem til midten af oktober byder på en enestående mulighed for, at dette nye, fremvoksende, globale lederskab kan fastlægge historiens kurs og gøre en ende på det bankerotte, britiske system.    

Den 28. juli 2016, v/næstformand Michelle Rasmussen.

»Jeg inviterer dig til at lære Schiller Instituttet at kende og til at kontakte os.

Verden er i en dyb krise, en civilisationskrise. Det er en brydningstid. Det kan blive meget værre, med et fuldt finanssammenbrud, måske sat i gang af de italienske banker, som er i krise, eller sågar af Deutsche Bank, som står øverst på listen over de store, systemiske krisebanker, og som teknisk set faktisk er bankerot.

Det kan også være krig med Rusland og Kina, ført af dem, som gerne vil forhindre, at disse nationer fører an i skabelsen af en alternativ økonomisk politik.

Vi oplever efterdønningerne efter Brexit-afstemningen i Storbritannien, og det har rystet hele EU. Men det giver os nogle muligheder. En ting, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche og Lyndon LaRouche har krævet, er en redningsplan for Deutsche Bank, men på betingelse af, at Deutsche Bank vender tilbage til den ånd, der var, da Alfred Herrhausen var chef i 1989, hvor han havde en produktionsbaseret politik for banken, og hvor han kom ud med et krav for gældssanering for de fattigste lande og for udvikling af Østeuropa. Dengang var Berlinmuren endnu ikke faldet.

Vi kan takke ja til samarbejde i stedet for krig med Rusland og Kina, om at bygge en Ny Silkevej hele vejen fra Asien til Europa. Vi kan udvide det til at blive en Verdenslandbro, en bro over land, gennem Sydvestasien og hele vejen ned til Afrika. Vi kan følge den tråd, der for nylig er kommet frem, med Saudi-Arabiens rolle bag angrebene den 11. september 2001, og følge denne tråd helt til det nuværende Britiske Imperiums fraktions rolle bag terrorisme; og så kan vi takke ja til samarbejde med Rusland om at bekæmpe terrorisme.«

Præcisering: Chefen for Deutsch Bank,  Alfred Herhausen, blev dræbt af terrorister den 30. november 1989. Berlinmuren faldt den 9. november 1989. Hvis han, som var en ledende rådgiver til den tyske kansler Helmut Kohl, havde levet, ville verden have set anderledes ud.

Denne video blev lavet i forbindelse med omdeling af Schiller Instituttets materiale i jyske og fynske byer.

Kontakter i Jylland:

Kolding: Preben Samsøe, 4146 4714

Aarhus: Hans Schultz, 4841 4096; 6016 4096

Randers: Poul Gundersen, 2082 0350

Her er nogle vigtige links:

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

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Menneskehedens skønne fremtid – hvis vi undgår dinosaurernes skæbne.

Hovedtale på Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Berlin, 25. – 26. juni, 2016

Baggrundsmateriale:

Lyndon LaRouches 3-punktsprogram for genopbygning af realøkonomien:

1. Hvorfor en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling ville løse finanskrisen og ødelægge Wall Street

2. Hvordan man skaber ikke-inflationære kreditter gennem et nationalt kreditsystem

3. Infrastrukturprojekter og fusionsøkonomi

16. august 2016 – Den russiske udenrigsminister Sergei Lavrov sagde til TASS, at det forestående BRIKS-topmøde for statsoverhoveder (der skal afholdes i Goa, Indien, 15. – 16. oktober), vil hæve alliancen op fra at være et overvejende økonomisk partnerskab til at blive en politisk alliance.

»I betragtning af, at BRIKS repræsenterer nationer fra alle udviklingsområder i verden, er dette en ekstremt betydningsfuld organisation, der kan bringe fremgangsmåder for løsning af internationale hovedproblemer på linje inden for sine rammer«, lød det fra Lavrov. Initiativet til den foreslåede udvidelse kom fra andre BRIKS-medlemmer, ikke Rusland, sagde Lavrov til TASS. Selv om der ikke vil blive optaget nye medlemmer ved det forestående topmøde, så opfordrede Lavrov »meningsfæller« til at samarbejde med blokken.    

Foto: Mangueshi Tempel, et hindutempel i Gamle Goa, Indien. Det 8. BRIKS-topmøde for statsoverhoveder skal afholdes i delstaten Goa den 15. – 16. oktober, 2016.

Det følgende videoklip er et meget kort uddrag af en tale, som hr. LaRouche holdt ved et forum i Washington i 1997 i sammenhæng med EIR’s førsteudgave af specialrapporten om den Eurasiske Landbro. Denne præsentation var en del af en række af såkaldte »udviklingskonferencer«, der blev afholdt i Washington i løbet af disse år – 1996, 1997 og 1998 – og jeg vil mene, at det, I får at se i denne video, er Lyndon LaRouches »marchordrer«. Det var på en måde hans kreative vision om, hvilken rolle, som Kina, med den Nye Silkevej, og ligeledes hvilken rolle Rusland ville komme til at spille i den totale omformning af den strategiske geometri i verden.

Her følger det korte uddrag: 

Lyndon Larouche: Der er kun to respektable nationer tilbage på planeten, dvs. nationer med en respektabel magt: det er USA, nærmere bestemt ikke det USA, der repræsenteres af Kongressen, men af præsidenten. Det er USA’s identitet, der udgør en politisk magt, ikke en eller anden sammenkædning af dens bestanddele. USA repræsenteres i dag udelukkende af dets præsident, som en politisk institution. Kongressen repræsenterer ikke USA; de er ikke helt sikre på, hvem, de repræsenterer nu om stunder, eftersom de ikke har besøgt deres vælgere for nylig.

Præsidenten som institution er legemliggørelsen af USA i internationale relationer. Det kan Udenrigsministeriet ikke gøre; Justitsministeriet kan ikke gøre det; intet andet ministerium kan gøre det; kun USA’s præsident kan, under vores forfatning, repræsentere USA som en enhed – hele dets personlighed, dets sande interesse, dets hele folk.

Der findes kun én anden magt på denne planet, der kan være ligeså respektløs (arrogant) over for andre magter, og det er Den kinesiske Folkerepublik. Kina er i øjeblikket engageret i et stort projekt for konstruktion af infrastruktur, i hvilket min hustru og andre i en årrække har haft et uophørligt engagement. Der finder en stor reform sted i Kina, som er en »reform af vanskeligheder«. De forsøger at løse et problem. Det betyder ikke, at der ikke er et problem. Men de forsøger at løse det.

Hvis derfor USA, eller USA’s præsident(skab), og Kina, deltager i at begunstige dette projekt, der undertiden kaldes Silkevejsprojektet, undertiden Landbro-projektet, som, hvis dette projekt med udviklingskorridorer over hele Eurasien og ind i Afrika, ind i Nordamerika, udvides, så er dette projekt tilstrækkeligt til at sætte hele denne planet på en kurs for økonomisk genrejsning. Jeg vil gå lidt i detaljer med dette for at gøre det mere konkret.

Kina har i nogen tid haft et samarbejde med Irans regering. Iran har faktisk været i gang med at fuldføre en række jernbaneforbindelser, der er en forlængelse af Kinas Landbro-program (eller Silkevejsprojekt). For nylig har vi fra Indien set, at det indiske lederskab er mødtes med repræsentanter for Kina for at påbegynde en indledningsvis rute, blandt landruterne, under Landbro-programmet. Én rute går ind i Kunming i Kina. Under Anden Verdenskrig, i dette område, Myitkyina (Burma/Myanmar), havde vi fly, der fløj ind i Kunming, »over Knolden«, som de plejede at sige dengang. Jeg er ganske godt bekendt med dette område.

Men, hvis man har vandvejsforbindelser, kanalforbindelser, og jernbaneforbindelser fra Kunming gennem Myitkyina – dette område – tværs over Bangladesh og ind i Indien, igennem Pakistan og ind i Iran, op til området lige over Teheran, syd for det Kaspiske Hav – så har man en forbindelse til Mellemøsten; man har forbindelse til Centralasien; man har forbindelse til Tyrkiet; man har forbindelse igennem til Europa.

Dernæst er der den nordlige rute, der stort set er den samme rute som den transsibiriske Jernbane, der blev bygget under amerikansk indflydelse og amerikansk rådgivning, af Rusland. Så har man en mellemliggende rute, der er i færd med at blive udviklet, i Centralasien, med Kina og Iran.

Indien arbejder på en plan, der blot involverer at tilføje nogle få hundrede kilometer jernbanelinje – der var mange andre forbedringer langs med den lige linje – og som ville forbinde området nord for Teheran, gennem Pakistan, gennem Indien, gennem Bangladesh, gennem Myanmar og ind i Kunming, ind i Thailand, ind i Vietnam, ned gennem Malaysia og Singapore, over stræderne via en stor bro og ind i Indonesien.

Der er ligeledes en plan for udviklingen af jernbanelinjen gennem det, der var det nordlige Sibirien, over Beringstrædet og ind i Alaska, og herfra ned og ind i USA. Der er en forbindelsen til Mellemøsten – flere forbindelser – fra Europa, og også fra Kina; men fra Kina en forbindelsen til Mellemøsten og ind i Egypten, ind i hele Afrika.

Så hvad vi har her er en række projekter, som ikke blot er transportprojekter, ligesom den transkontinentale jernbane i USA, der var forløberen for denne idé tilbage i slutningen af 1860’erne og 1870’erne. Man har »udviklingskorridorer«, hvor man i et område, der strækker sig 50-70 kilometer på hver side af jernbaneforbindelsen, har olie- og gasledninger, og så fremdeles. Man udvikler dette område med industri, minedrift, alle sådanne ting. Og det er sådan, man betaler for transportforbindelsen, pga. al den rige, økonomiske aktivitet, der skabes. Med en indbyrdes afstand på nogle kilometer langs hele denne forbindelse foregår der noget, en eller anden økonomisk aktivitet. Folk, der arbejder, folk, der bygger ting, folk, der gør ting. For at transformere denne planet ved hjælp af store projekter for byggeri af infrastruktur, som vil skabe store industrier, nye industrier, nyt landbrug og de andre ting, vi har så desperat brug for. Der er ingen som helst grund til, at noget menneske på denne planet, der kan arbejde, skulle være arbejdsløs. Så enkelt er det. Og dette projekt er midlet til dette mål.

Hvis nationerne – som nu omfatter Rusland, Iran, Indien og andre nationer – kommer overens med Kina, og engagerer sig i en forpligtelse til dette projekt, som de bygger hver dag; hvis USA – dvs. USA’s præsident, Clinton – forsætter med at støtte denne indsats, som han har gjort, i det mindste rent politik, hvad får man så? Man får USA og Kina og nogle andre lande, der går i samlet flok op imod den største magt på denne planet, som er Det britiske Imperium, kaldet det Britiske Commonwealth (statssamfund). Det er fjenden!

Lad os sige, at, en skønne dag, f. eks. en søndag morgen, præsidenterne for hhv. USA og Kina og et par andre, efter et weekend-møde siger: »Vi har denne weekend besluttet, at vi, baseret på vore rådgivere samt den kendsgerning, at det internationale finansielle og monetære system er håbløst bankerot, som ansvarlige statsoverhoveder, af hensyn til almenvellet må erklære disse bankerotte institutioner konkurs og sætte dem under konkursbehandling. Og det er i vores interesse, at vi samarbejder om dette som nationer, for at undgå at skabe kaos på denne planet.«             

Resultatet vil så være, at en sådan meddelelse en skønne søndag morgen med sikkerhed vil få »snakkehovederne« på Washington Tv til at ’spinne’. Men bortset fra det, så betyder det, at hele systemet, fra dette øjeblik, har været en tur i guillotinen, og at hovedet ruller hen ad gaden. Alan Greenspans hoved, måske.

Det betyder, at vi nu har tilskyndelsen til omgående at opbygge et nyt finansielt og monetært system. Når man skal genrejse et selskab, der er bankerot, til en levedygtig form, hvad gør man så? Man må finde de erhvervsaktiviteter, som selskabet skal gøre, hvilket danner grundlaget for at skabe den nye kredit, der skal få firmaet til at køre igen.

Programmet for Landbroen, med sine globale implikationer, er det store projekt, der direkte og indirekte vil afkaste tilstrækkelig med aktivitet, så at sige, i alle dele af verden til, at vi atter kan få denne verden tilbage på et sundt fundament.

Matthew Ogden: Som man kan høre, så afslører denne tale stor forudviden; og det er i realiteten Lyndon LaRouches aktive indgriben, med rejser til Rusland, med hans hustrus rejser til Kina i denne periode, og med udgivelsen af EIR’s specialrapport om den Eurasiske Landbro, der har formet den nuværende situation, vi befinder os i. En ting, der er interessant at fremhæve, er de kort, I så. Dengang var mange af disse jernbanelinjer og andre olie/gasledninger blot forslag; men nu er flere af dem faktisk under opførelse.

Jeg mener, at det, 20 år senere, står klart, at dette er det dominerende system, der er ved at vokse frem på denne planet. Samtidig står det transatlantiske system foran en umiddelbar nedsmeltning. En umiddelbart forestående implosion af gæld og eksponering til derivater i betalingsstandsning til billioner af dollars projiceres nu ind i alle storbanker i hele det transatlantiske system.

For et engelsk udskrift af hele fredags-webcastet, se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14279

14. august 2016 – En artikel fra 12. aug. på Sputniks nyhedstjeneste, skrevet af Nikolai Gorshkov, skyder på briterne som hovedkilden til den anti-russiske propaganda, som går flere hundrede år tilbage i tiden og begynder med den foragt, som engelske ambassadører og navigatører gav udtryk for i 1500-tallet, hvor de beskrev russere som »et folk, der går fra at være ubehøvlet og til hang til fæle laster«, og helt frem til regeringsmemoer fra 1980’erne, som for nylig er blevet frigivet af UK’s nationalarkiver, og som opfordrer Margaret Thatcher til at føre en kampagne imod den »russiske trussel«.

»Den første afbildning af Rusland som et vildt bæst fremkom i 1500-tallets Polen, der forsøgte at etablere dets indflydelse over dets ’mindre europæiske’ brødre. Men det var englænderne, der mestrede denne kunst næsten til perfektion«, skrev Gorshkov. »Den allerførste allegori med Rusland som en bjørn fremkom i en serie af engelske kobberstik, ’Den europæiske Race’, og som startede i 1737. The Punch, der blev etableret i 1841, gjorde denne allegori til hvermandseje. Fra da af har man fremkaldt billedet af det vilde bæst, hver gang, Vesten ønskede at skildre Rusland som et land af vilde.«

Således også under Krimkrigen: »Det var England, især indenrigsminister Lord Palmerston og den britiske presse under anførsel af The Times og det satiriske blad Punch, der gjorde stærkest fremstød for, at de vestlige magter skulle erklære Rusland krig.« (Gorshkov havde ikke nødigt at trække en parallel fra sin bemærkning om Krimkrigen frem til nutiden, den, at »briterne ligeledes var nedladende over for deres tyrkiske allierede, hvem London angiveligt ville ’redde’ fra den russiske ’bjørn’«.

Gorshkov peger på briterne som kilden til udbredelse af anti-russisk propaganda i USA på diverse tidspunkter i nyere historisk tid, fra udbredelsen af en anti-sovjetisk dækning i 1920’erne og til McCarthy-perioden, hvor »selv Hollywood-krigsfilm om den anti-nazistiske alliance med Moskva, bestilt af Det Hvide Hus, blev erklæret for pro-sovjetisk propaganda. Den russiske bjørn sprang fra briterne og ud af de amerikanske avissider … «

»Siden da har Rusland aflagt sin kommunistiske fortid, men Vesten synes ikke at være rede til at droppe sin propagandakrig.«

(’A People Passing Rude’: Brief History of Anti-Russian Propaganda)

http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20160812/1044174982/uk-anti-russian-propaganda.html

Tyskland og de andre europæiske nationer må omorganisere deres rådne finans- og banksystem og derefter, med perspektiverne for den Nye Silkevej, samarbejde om at opbygge verden. For at dette kan lykkes, må vi alle se ud over vores egen, europæiske næsetip og ærligt med hinanden diskutere spørgsmålet om, hvorfor vi er havnet i denne krise, og åbne os for den vision, der ligger i samarbejdet med Den nye Silkevej.

I Friedrich Schillers ånd: Alle kan bidrage med noget!

Download (PDF, Unknown)

15. august 2016 (Leder) – Vil USA genoplive videnskabelig kreativitet og økonomisk produktivitet for på lang sigt at samarbejde fredeligt med Kinas fremskridt?

Vil Europa beslutte at opgive det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche kalder »selvmordspagten« med Obama og en NATO-ledelse, der planlægger krige med både Rusland og Kina? Hvornår vil Europa i stedet gå med i Eurasiens Nye Silkevej med store infrastrukturprojekter – for ikke at tale om udforskning af rummet og udvikling af fusionskraft?

Dette er de virkelige spørgsmål, som borgere bør engagere sig i – og ikke de katastrofer, der i USA p.t. stiller op til præsidentvalget.

Meddelelsen i dag om, at tyske fusionsforskere går sammen med et statsligt, russisk laboratorium om udvikling af et nyt »polariseret deuterium«-brændstof til fusionskraft viser f. eks. den kreative retning for Europas bedste kapaciteter. Resultatet kan overhale det nylige gennembrud i Tysklands fusionsprogram – men disse resultater er allerede langt overgået af Kinas resultater. Kina gør teknologisk innovation og vækst til temaet for G20-mødet, som det vil være formand for 4. – 5. september i Hangzhou. Det samme gælder for Putins Østlige Økonomiske Forum i Vladivostok 2. – 3. september.

De eurasiske nationer rykker sammen i en proces, der kan vinde freden så vel som udvikling; og det er lederskabsinitiativer, taget af Ruslands præsident Vladimir Putin, der i vid udstrækning har gjort denne proces mulig.

Det har placeret USA foran et valg – og det er ikke et valg til præsident mellem to Dick Cheney-imitatorer.

Den 12. august forudsagde IMF, at Kinas årlige økonomiske vækst ville falde til 6 % frem til 2020. Hvis dette skulle vise sig at være sandt, så kunne USA – dersom det blev ledet af et revolutionerende nyt præsidentskab, der udsteder statskredit til ny infrastruktur, rumforskning og fusionsteknologier – håbe på til den tid at nå op på siden af Kinas vækst!

Amerikanske regeringsfolk og folk fra Federal Reserve (centralbanken) har langt om længe for nylig indrømmet, at de er bekymret over den amerikanske økonomis meget lave produktivitet, såvel som over økonomiens meget lave vækst. Økonomien under Obama har vist en hidtil uhørt lav vækst i produktiviteten, uanset, hvordan man måler den.

En almindelig måde at måle »produktivitet« på er simpelt hen at dividere BNP med præsterede arbejdstimer. Målt således har væksten i arbejdskraftens produktivitet aldrig nået en årlig rate på blot 1 %, siden Obama i sit første år i embedet underskrev sin »stimuleringslov«. I de seneste 12 måneder har USA’s økonomiske vækst udgjort sølle 1,2 %.

Men reelle forøgelser af arbejdskraftens produktivitet kommer fra videnskabelige og teknologiske fremskridt, og fra uddannelse. Den rapport, som blev udgivet af Statskontoret for Forskning i Økonomi (NBER) over den meget store vækst i produktiviteten under Franklin Roosevelts præsidentskab, siger: »Dette skyldtes en meget stærk vækst i generering og distribuering af elektricitetskraft, transport, kommunikation, civilingeniørers og strukturingeniørers arbejde inden for broer, tunneller, dæmninger, hovedveje, jernbaner og systemer til transmission; samt privat forskning og udvikling.« Udfordringerne i al dette moderne infrastrukturbyggeri frembragte teknologiske fremskridt inden for et stort antal industrier, og forskning og udvikling blev stærkt forøget.

Økonomer rangerer 1930’erne, ’40’erne og ’60’ernes Apolloprojekt som toppunkterne for reel vækst i produktivitet i USA’s historie – med en forbedring i produktiviteten på næsten 3 % om året.

Ifølge San Francisco Federal Reserve og NBER var der under George W. Bush’ otte år en stigning i denne vækst på 1,0 % om året; og under Obamas snart otte år, 0,75 %.

Tiden er inde til et nyt præsidentskab, og til at indhente Kina.   

Foto: De kinesisk producerede højhastighedstog afventer afgang fra jernbanestationen i Hankow, 19. april 2016.

.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

15. august 2016 (Leder) – »Putin er allerede den fungerende præsident for et nyt univers«, hævdede Lyndon LaRouche i sin ugentlige diskussion med Manhattan-projektet d. 13. august. »Putin har opbygget en meget respektabel organisation, som nu optager en stor del af hele planeten! … Putins indflydelsessfære er ikke kun Rusland; det er andre dele af hele det asiatiske område.«

LaRouche uddybede det med, at Putin, der arbejder i alliance med Kina, Indien og andre nationer, er i færd med at opbygge et alternativ til det rådnende transatlantiske system i form af en global fremgangsmåde efter Hamiltons økonomiske principper. »Man er ved at få noget, der er lig Alexander Hamilton, for Rusland; og ikke kun for Rusland, men for Asien! For hele Asien, praktisk talt. Det er en temmelig stor post.«

De næste 60 dage er fuld af farer, og også muligheder. Vi stirrer nu direkte ned i kanonløbet på en global finanskrise, understregede Helga Zepp-LaRouche i en diskussion med medarbejdere i dag, en krise, der meget vel kunne komme over os i løbet af september-oktober. Inden for samme tidsrum kommer der en række internationale konferencer – der kulminerer med det 8. BRIKS-topmøde i Indien i midten af oktober – som kan udgøre rammerne for en implementering af det påkrævede, politiske skifte, der er udtænkt af LaRouche, såfremt der mobiliseres tilstrækkelig international politisk vilje for at skabe dette revolutionerende Nye Paradigme.

Kina fortsætter med at udfolde den rigtige fremgangsmåde: »Tiden er inde til at uddanne videnskabelige og teknologiske hjerner,« udtalte Li Zhimin, direktør for Udviklingscenter for Videnskab og Teknologi ved Uddannelsesministeriet, i forbindelse med annonceringen af udgivelsen af Statsrådets plan om dramatisk at forøge proportionen af statsborgere i Kina med videnskabelige færdigheder ved år 2020.

Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping har ligeledes gjort det klart, at hans ven og strategiske allierede, den russiske præsident Putin, vil være æresgæst nummer ét ved det kommende G20-topmøde i Kina d. 4.-5. september – til det Britiske Imperiums og dets stikirenddreng Barack Obamas store rædsel. Kineserne er i færd med, i tæt samarbejde med både Rusland såvel som Indien, at koordinere strategien for G20-mødet og det efterfølgende BRIKS-topmøde i Indien d. 15.-16. oktober. Deres erklærede politik er at imødegå »de udfordringer, som den globale økonomi i øjeblikket står overfor« ved »at sikre en succesfuld organisering af G20- og BRIKS-topmøderne.«

Denne succes vil blive målt på, at man omgående begraver det nuværende dødbringende og bankerotte finanssystem og erstatter det med et system efter Hamiltons principper, der bygger på LaRouches design, som det specificeres i hans Fire Love. 

Det reelle spørgsmål, som USA og verden står overfor i dag, er en omskabelse af det amerikanske præsidentskab omkring denne politik – og ikke den galskab, der finder sted i den amerikanske valgkampagne. LaRouche udtalte:

Vores præsident er Satans stedfortræder. De ledende kandidater er frygteligt korrupte; så I vil bekymre jer om, hvilken kandidat, I skal vælge? Når I ved, at, i hovedsagen, alle de kandidater, der er på tale, er eksemplarer på ondskaben! At de, på den ene eller anden vis, forkaster deres ansvar som menneskelige væsener for denne proces. Så vi må komme ind til årsagen til problemet … og sørge for at fjerne denne årsag. 

13. august, 2016 – Det er nu det italienske nyhedsmagasin L’Espresso, der skriver en mere realistisk analyse af topmødet d. 9. august, mellem den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin og den tyrkiske præsident Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Men, som Lyndon LaRouche kommenterede, mangler deres analyse den pointe, at der allerede, under præsident Putins lederskab, i hele Centralasien er vokset en ny kombination af lande frem for fred og udvikling, og som Tyrkiet nu har tilsluttet sig.

»Modviljen og harmen imod Vesten er den reelle basis for tilnærmelsen mellem Rusland og Tyrkiet«, siger artiklen i L’Espresso.

»Moskvas primære mål er at redefinere det eksisterende system af alliancer, der er fuld af uklarheder og befinder sig i en dyb krise, samt at opnå anerkendelse i Mellemøsten, og videre endnu«, alt imens Ankara ønsker at »slippe ud af den karantæneisolation, som det har befundet sig i efter regeringens reaktion på det fejlslagne kup i landet. Samt at finde så mange allierede som muligt i området, hvor det shiitiske Iran, samtidig med, at Syrien er ved t blive ødelagt, vinder momentum«.

L'Espresso fortsætter, »Moskva-Teheran-Ankara-trioen vil nu løse problemerne i Mellemøsten. Noget, som hverken Washington eller EU aldrig kunne have forudset for et år siden, da de underskrev en aftale om Irans atomprogram, som hævede alle sanktioner, der var relateret hertil, fra Teheran, så det kunne vende tilbage til systemet af internationale relationer.« Selvfølgelig har dette ikke behaget Saudi-Arabien, »Irans ærkefjende.«

Topmødet mellem Putin og Erdogan har sendt et stærkt signal til bade EU og USA. Europa er hermed blevet fortalt, at det »ikke længere er universets centrum.«

»Det europæiske lederskab befinder sig under nye vilkår, og bør nu flytte sig hurtigere og på mere effektiv vis finde frem til de rette beslutninger,« siger artiklen.

Budskabet til USA er, at Tyrkiet har »andre strategiske optioner på bordet.«

Som LaRouche tilkendegav, undlader L'Espresso at se det meget større strategiske billede. Hvad de kalder for Rusland-Iran-Tyrkiet kombinationen har ikke alene blikket rettet hen imod at løse den Syriske krise, men også at stabilisere hele strækningen gennem Kaukasus og ind i Centralasien mod øst og det Indiske Ocean mod syd. Tyrkiet kan bidrage til at løse krisen om Nagorno-Karabakh mellem Armenien og Aserbajdsjan, hvilket ville stabilisere Kaukasus og muliggøre en afgrening mellem Sortehavet og det Indiske Ocean af Nord-Syd Korridoren, der allerede er under udvikling i et samarbejde mellem Rusland, Aserbajdsjan og Iran. Dette kunne fuldføres ved at genåbne jernbanen gennem Armenien fra Aserbajdsjan og Tyrkiet, hvilken forbindelse har været blokeret på grund af den uløste Nagorno-Karabakh konflikt, og derved muliggøre nye transportkorridorer i forbindelse med Silkevejen, og en bevægelse henimod integration af hele den centraleurasiske region.

13. august 2016 – Et dossier over den indsats, som, med støtte fra »Vesten«, gennemføres af saudierne, for at ødelægge ikke alene houtierne og befolkningen mere bredt i Yemen, men også denne nations tusindårige historiske og meget rige kulturelle arv, er nu tilgængelig.

Det er skrevet af Christine Bierre, der rapporterer om afsløringer af den igangværende, overlagte ødelæggelse af Yemens historiske og kulturelle arv. Disse afsløringer fandt sted på et kollokvium (mindre videnskabelig konference), der blev arrangeret i Frankrigs Nationalforsamling i slutningen af juni af et socialistisk medlem, i opposition til præsident François Hollandes udenrigs- og indenrigspolitik, og i samarbejde med kendte specialister fra Yemen inden for arkitektur, arkæologi, samt arkiver og manuskripter. Vi er taknemmelige over for én af talerne ved dette kollokvium, Paul Bonnenfant, fra Frankrigs Nationale Forsknings- og Videnskabscenter (CNRS), som har givet os tilladelse til at bruge de smukke billeder, han tog af monumenter i Yemen mellem 1975 og 2004.

Dossieret er udlagt i dag på Solidarité & Progrès’ webside (»I Yemen bliver folket og deres minder myrdet, med Frankrig som medskyldig«), og, i betragtning af vores kamp imod saudierne og Vestens angreb i Mellemøsten, samt den kendsgerning, at Yemen stadig i dag ligger ved korsvejen for den økonomiske og kulturelle Silkevej, mente Helga Zepp-LaRouche, at vi skulle bruge det uden ændringer på alle vore websider, udgivelser, webcasts og konferencer i forbindelse med vore igangværende kampagner, og på en måde, hvor disse to spørgsmål – »drab på folkeslag og deres minder« – er fuldstændig forbundet. Det bør bruges til at fremprovokere et ramaskrig over folkemordet på dette meget gamle folk, i tidligere tider kendt som »Det Lykkelige Arabien«.

Her følger nogle afsnit af introduktionen:

»Krigshandlinger, der tilsigter den totale eller delvise ødelæggelse af nationale, etniske, racemæssige eller religiøse grupper« udgør FN’s definition af folkemord. Den 29. august indledte den saudiske koalition igen en krig, der stemmer overens med denne definition, mod Yemen. Et angreb imod en etnisk og religiøs gruppe, der har været en del af Yemen siden det 8. århundrede, zaydierne (et shiamuslimsk mindretal), og imod Yemens tusindårige arv.

Krigen, som den saudiske koalition, bestående af ti stater, lancerede imod Yemen i marts 2015, er en brutal krig, der på rekordtid allerede har ført til 7-10.000 dræbte og flere end 2 millioner fordrevne. Det er en illegal krig, der ikke er godkendt af FN, og som ikke har respekteret nogen af lovene for krig: 23 hospitaler er blevet bombet, 30 skoler er blevet ødelagt, og børn er målskive. En FN-rapport, der hurtigt blev trukket tilbage efter massivt pres fra Saudi-Arabien, anklagede koalitionen for at have forårsaget 60 % af dødsfaldene i civilbefolkningen siden marts 2015, heraf to tredjedele børn: 785 børn er blevet dræbt, 1168 bør er blevet såret, alene i 2015, dvs. tæt på 6 børn om dagen! Og ud over at dræbe folk, så gør saudierne også bevidst et folks minder til målskive, ved systematisk at ødelægge Yemens ekstremt rige og tusindårige kulturelle og historiske arv.

Titelfoto: Yemens hovedstad Sanaa.  

Herunder følger Christine Bierres dossier, på engelsk. Alle billeder kan ses på den franske webside for Solidarité & Progrès, se ovenstående link.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Titelbillede: Ud af fire prototyper for Leibniz’ »calculator machine« – en ’regnemaskine’ – er kun én tilbage: Han udviklede sin fjerde, såkaldte »machina arithmetica« i 1690. Efter hans død den 14. november 1716 forsvandt dette eksemplar ud i glemsel og blev først genopdaget i 1894 på Göttingen Universitetskirkens loft, og i dag udgør den én af de mest værdifulde kulturskatte fra det 17. århundrede. Den 14 kilo tunge original opbevares på Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz-biblioteket – Niedersaxens Nationale Bibliotek i Hannover, og den kan ses på første sal ved siden af Leibniz’ private arbejdsbibliotek i et glasgalleri.

Se/hør alle musikvideoer fra Schiller Instituttets Internationale Konference, 25. – 26. juni, 2016: Klik her

Korte artikler fra hele verden. I dette nummer bl. a.:

En bredere og dybere Panamakanal blev genåbnet under festligheder – 

Kina tilbyder udviklingslande at deltage i sin rumstation –

Rusland vil låne Bangladesh over $11 milliarder til deres første atomkraftværker –

o.m.a. 

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.

Uddrag af LPAC fredags-webcast, 12. august 2016. Se hele webcastet, med engelsk udskrift, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=14144

Matthew Ogden: En ting, jeg gerne vil sige i sammenhæng med den foreståede FN Generalforsamling; der foregår allerede en krig imod alt det, som BRIKS repræsenterer. Hvis man tænker ét eller to år tilbage i tiden, så blev aftalen i Fortaleza, Brasilien, indgået i sammenhæng med denne krig, som [dav. præsident] Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner førte i Argentina imod gribbefondene. Disse nationer kom sammen i solidaritet med Argentina og sagde, vi vil ikke tillade, at I dræber det argentinske folk for at få pengene til gribbefondene. Siden dette tidspunkt har vi set en samling omkring Putins, Xi Jinpings og Modis lederskab i BRIKS-strukturen; dette er det nye, fremvoksende paradigme. I den mellemliggende periode har der fundet en samlet indsats sted for at bryde BRIKS op; og lige nu befinder vi os midt i et sådant angreb. Vi så, hvad der skete med Cristina Kirchner i Argentina; nu sker det samme med Dilma Rousseff i Brasilien. Netop i denne uge har et flertal i det brasilianske parlament vedtaget at indlede afhøringer af Rousseff; hvilket vil sige, en rigsretssag mod Brasiliens præsident. Der har været en vis respons mod dette kup internt i USA; og dette er faktisk emnet for det spørgsmål fra institutionelt hold, vi har fået til i aften.

Jeg ved, at hr. LaRouche havde nogle detaljerede bemærkninger om dette. Jeg læser nu spørgsmålet op, og så kan Jeff måske træde ind og sige lidt om det. Spørgsmålet lyder:

»Hr. LaRouche: Kongresmedlem John Conyers, demokrat fra Michigan; Marcy Kaptur, demokrat fra Ohio; Keith Ellison, demokrat fra Minnesota, samt flere en 30 andre fra Repræsentanternes Hus sendte i denne uge et brev til udenrigsminister John Kerry, hvor de opfordrede ham til at afholde sig fra handlinger, der kunne fortolkes som støtte til Brasiliens midlertidige regering. Og til i stedet at »udtrykke sin stærke bekymring mht. rigsretssagen og angrebet på den brasilianske præsident Dilma Rousseff«; og til at »kræve beskyttelse af det forfatningsmæssige demokrati og regering ved lov i Brasilien«. Brevet er det første brev fra kongresmedlemmer, som udtrykker bekymring over Brasiliens demokrati, i mere end to årtier. Hvilke handlinger bør USA’s regering, efter Deres mening, gribe til, for at fremme retfærdighed og beskytte demokratiske institutioner i Brasilien på nuværende tidspunkt?«

Jeffrey Steinberg: Det første, han understregede, var, at vi ikke har med en »brasiliansk situation« at gøre, på samme måde, som vi heller ikke har med en »syrisk situation« at gøre.

Vi befinder os midt i en betydningsfuld, global, strategisk omorganisering. Som du sagde, så havde man, ved BRIKS-landenes møde i Fortaleza for to år siden, lanceringen af den Nye Udviklingsbank, efterfulgt af Kinas lancering af den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Der er tydeligvis et politisk initiativ centreret omkring de store, eurasiske magter, men som også omfatter Brasilien og Sydamerika, Sydafrika og Afrika, med det formål at reorganisere verden omkring en radikalt anden fremgangsmåde; en fremgangsmåde, der er orienteret mod fremtiden, centreret omkring store projekter for økonomisk udvikling, der er ægte win-win-projekter. Der er intet geopolitisk nulsumsspil. Og så har vi et dødt system, som er det britiske imperiesystem, og som i de sidste 15 år er blevet repræsenteret gennem den kendsgerning, at briterne har haft kontrollen over det amerikanske præsidentskab; først under George W. Bush, og dernæst under Barack Obama.

Så det første, USA bør gøre, er at opgive sin egen, direkte rolle i promoveringen af dette kup. Dette er ikke noget, der finder sted, fordi en flok personer internt i Brasilien har besluttet at angribe Dilma Rousseff. Der er hedgefondenes internationale apparat; der er Adam Smith Institutes netværker i Storbritannien; der er Chicago Skolens apparat her i USA; de er alle virkemidler i dette fremstød – ikke for at skade Brasilien – men for at ødelægge Brasilien, fordi det er en del af denne nye BRIKS-organisering. Jeg forsikrer jer for, at, hvis USA offentligt gik ud – hvis Kerry offentligt fremkom med en erklæring, der sagde, at USA mener, at dette er et statskup, der ikke nødvendigvis anvender skydevåben, men som anvender handlinger fra købt-og betalte, korrupte regeringspersoner for at vælte en lovligt valgt regering, der forsøger at bringe Sydamerika på linje med dette nye paradigme for udvikling, centreret omkring Eurasien; så ville det her forsvinde. De brasilianske senatorer, der har stemt for det her, er absolut skamløse; de personer, der står bag dette kup, er alle sammen selv underkastet en lovlig undersøgelse for kriminelle handlinger, for massivt økonomiske bedrageri. Hvis man undersøger det brasilianske element af skandalen omkring Panama-papirerne[1], vil man finde disse topregeringsfolk – formanden for parlamentet, præsidenten for Senatet, den aktuelle præsident (idet Dilma Rousseff er suspenderet, -red.), den aktuelle udenrigsminister; alle de personer, der har allieret sig imod Dilma, er selv en del af det mest korrupte apparat. Men de er beskyttet, fordi de er en del af det Britiske Imperium og Obamaregeringens beskyttelsesapparat; og deres mål er at forsøge at ødelægge BRIKS.

Så dette er et globalt spil; dette er ikke en brasiliansk historie. Det er ikke noget, der er snævert forbundet med begivenheder i Sydamerika, eller med korruption, eller sådan noget. Dette er en langt større, værre og farligere ting; og det er en del af det overordnede billede. Vil verden gå i retning af at forsvare et system, der allerede er dødt? Fremtrædende økonomer beskrev i denne uge Deutsche Bank som »dead bank walking« (amr. udtryk, ’dead man walking’: når den dødsdømte går den sidste, korte strækning fra sin celle til henrettelsesstedet, –red.); og det er en passende beskrivelse. Så det er et spørgsmål, om et dødt, Britisk Imperium, der i det store og hele har kontrolleret det amerikanske præsidentskab i de sidste 15 – 16 år, grundlæggende set vil bringe resten af verden til fald med sig – for det vil aldrig kunne overleve. Eller, om det skal kastes bort, besejres og erstattes af et nyt system, der allerede er godt på vej.

Det afgørende spørgsmål i dette præsidentvalg er, vil det amerikanske folk tolerere kandidater, der ønsker, at USA skal være på linje med et allerede dødt system? Eller, vil vi følge en anden kurs, hvor USA kommer på linje med dette nye, fremtidsorienterede alternativ? Rent historisk betragtet har Amerika altid befundet sig på denne fremtidsorienterings side; i det mindste, med udgangspunkt i USA’s grundlæggende principper – ideerne i Hamiltons tradition er i realiteten det, der ligger til grund for denne eurasiske udvikling. Vi må vinde kampen om at transformere USA tilbage til det, som det repræsenterede rent historisk, som byen, der ligger på et bjerg.[2]

Matthew Ogden: Jeg mener, at det er signifikant, at de kongresmedlemmer, der underskrev dette brev, overlapper kernegruppen af ledere omkring Glass-Steagall.

Steinberg: Det er rigtigt.

Ogden: En anden ting, du netop nævnte: Hvad er ’ideerne efter Hamiltons tradition’? Det, der er kernen i det sammenhængende, forenende princip i disse, hr. LaRouches Fire Nye Love, er den idé, som han udtrykker mod slutningen af dokumentet: At der ikke findes nogen målestok for økonomi inden for pengenes domæne; penge er ikke repræsentant for værdi, når vi taler om økonomi. Det er beredvilligheden til at afvise monetarisme, der gør den Asiatiske Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) og den Nye Udviklingsbank – til banker af en totalt anden art. Det er ikke blot en anden version af IMF/Verdensbanksystemet. Der er en helligelse til at forøge produktiviteten hos massive mængder af planetens befolkning; milliarder af mennesker vil blive berørt af den Nye Silkevej, af disse udviklingsprojekter, der har været vedtaget i 40, 50 og 60 år. Nu bliver de faktisk bygget, takket være de investeringer, der kommer fra BRIKS-banken (Ny Udviklingsbank) og fra Kina (AIIB), osv. Men det er udtryk for en opfattelse af økonomi, som jeg mener, har været det enestående bidrag, som hr. LaRouche har ydet til verdenshistorien i løbet af de seneste 40-50 år; og som er hans enestående opfattelse af, hvad den sande målestok for økonomi virkelig er. Det er en konstant forøgelse af akkumuleringen af menneskehedens evne til at indsætte nye, fysiske principper, som mennesket har opdaget, for at forøge vores magt i og over Universet.

Jeg mener, at Albert Einsteins eksempel på to specifikke måder er meget vigtigt med hensyn til dette.

For det første, blot i form af en analogi: Albert Einsteins opfattelse af, at man ikke kan have en målestok, der kommer internt fra et system; men at der må være en målestok, der er ekstern, og som er et princip. Lige som absolut tid og absolut rum ikke eksisterede for Einstein, så er dette den form for opfattelse, for forståelse, som man må anvende på fysisk økonomi.

Og for det andet: Måske mere end nogen anden person er Albert Einstein paradigmatisk for den form for menneskelig, kreative tænkning, der gør det muligt for menneskeheden at gøre fremskridt; der, som Helen Keller så smukt beskrev, bringer os op fra jorden, som dyr, der kryber på vores bug og reagerer på omstændighederne omkring os, og til at blive Universets medskaber.

Jeg syntes, at du forklarede dette på en meget smuk måde i slutningen af din artikel i denne uges udgave af The Hamiltonian[3] (pilotudgaven), Michael [Steger]; du måtte gerne sige lidt mere om dette spørgsmål.

Michael Steger: Jeg synes, du netop har sagt det meget fint. Hvad der måske kunne være af værdi at komme tilbage til, mht. den kreative personligheds rolle, som Keisha (Rogers) talte om under mandags-showet; Einstein indså også, at det er individets enestående rolle at udforme og skabe grundlæggende set de nye love, som samfundet dernæst vedtager. At opdagelsen af disse højere principper, eller naturlig lov, dernæst gør det muligt for det samme samfund at gøre fremskridt. Vi ser i dag, at mange mennesker er på ferie; alt for mange mennesker, mener jeg, ser Olympiade. Jeg mener, at den virkelige doping-skandale er at finde internt i Det Hvide Hus. Men det, som Putin har gjort med sin diplomatiske indsats, er, at vi nu ser på den mulige løsning af den syriske krise i Aleppo. Der finder en form for proces sted, der kan løse disse ting i de kommende måneder.

Og så har man i september måned præsidenterne for Sydkorea, Japan og Kina, der vil møde Putin i Vladivostok. Så drager de sammen til G20-topmødet i Kina – hvor Putin vil være æresgæst – med de 20 største nationer; med Brasilien, Argentina, Mexico, Tyrkiet, nationer fra Afrika, fra hele Asien og Europa, der deltager. Dernæst vil mange af disse statsoverhoveder komme til New York City på samme tid som vore koncerter; men de kommer til FN’s Generalforsamling. Og så vil mange af disse statschefer fra BRIKS mødes i Indien i begyndelsen af oktober.

På dette tidspunkt, som Jeff sagde tidligere på ugen, kunne hele dette finanssystem – Deutsche Bank og de øvrige storbanker – hurtigt gå i opløsning, bryde sammen. Bankerotten kan blive en opsprætning af banksystemet, som grundlæggende set kommer i den nære fremtid. Så har vi præsidentvalget. Selv om Donald Trump er nok så meget en nar, så har han vist sig at være i stand til at slå en masse af de andre, inkompetente politikere i debatter; og jeg mener, at det bør bekymre Hillary Clinton en hel del, at hendes historie sammen med Obama er en absolut og alvorlig svaghed. En Akilleshæl pga. det nuværende klima i den politiske situation, som vi konfronteres med i dette land. Så vi befinder os altså virkelig på et bemærkelsesværdigt tidspunkt. Og så kollapset af det transatlantiske system; en konsolideret indsats, der er ved at udspille sig, i Eurasien under Putins lederskab, og så denne egenskab med kreativt geni, som du henviser til mht. Einsteins eksempel. Det er i realiteten den indflydelse, som Lyndon LaRouche har haft på planeten; og det er virkelig, hvad nu må få indflydelse på det præsidentielle system i USA. Lyn må blive en del af udformningen af den præsidentielle politik, nu. Det er vi grundlæggende set; men det må blive det amerikanske folks forpligtelse, og ikke at blive indfanget af alt muligt andet, for vi har i dag en særdeles sjælden mulighed.

[1] Panamapapirerne er 11,5 millioner lækkede dokumenter, der afslører finansiel information og advokat-klientinformation for mere end 214.488 offshore-enheder. De lækkede dokumenter blev udfærdiget af en Panama-advokatfirma og udbyder af tjenester for selskaber, Mossack Fonseca; nogle af dem går tilbage til 1970’erne. De lækkede dokumenter fortæller, hvordan rige personer og offentlige (regerings-) personer er i stand til at holde personlig, finansiel information privat. Alt imens offshore forretningsenheder ofte ikke er ulovlige, så fandt reportere, at nogle af Mossack Fonseca facadeselskaber blev brugt til ulovlige formål, inklusive bedrageri, kleptokrati, skatteunddragelse og omgåelse af internationale sanktioner.    

"I stedet for at krybe ved jorden som et dyr, svinger menneskets ånd sig op til højere regioner. Og fra dette nye udsigtspunkt ser det på det umulige med forstærket mod og drømmer om endnu mere vidunderlige initiativer."  – Helen Keller ved et besøg i Empire State Building.

Engelsk udskrift. 

"Instead of crouching close to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions.  And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."

Helen Keller, upon visiting the Empire State Building.

Creating the New Presdency: The Launch of the Hamiltonian
International LaRouche PAC Webcast August 12, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! My name is Matthew Ogden. You're joining us for our weekly broadcast here on Friday evening for the LaRouche PAC webcast. It's August 12th, 2016. I'm joined in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg, from Executive Intelligence Review; and via video, by Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both
members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee.
        In the past week, as you heard in our discussion on Monday, here, LaRouche PAC has initiated a very significant escalation in terms of our intervention into crafting the new Presidency. This is vectored around the publication of a new LaRouche PAC publication, The Hamiltonian, which is a broadsheet which is
being distributed en masse in Manhattan, in the streets of New York City. Ten thousand copies of this have been printed and they are currently, as we speak, being distributed around New York. This is intended to be an escalation, one, right into the heart of the two nominal Presidential campaigns, both of which are headquartered in New York City; and number two, this has the express purpose of breaking open the controlled propaganda environment that the American people are being subjected to each and every day, and rather, providing a leadership voice for the sane and responsible citizens of this republic to rally around.
        As Mr. LaRouche stated a couple of weeks ago, "I am not running for President, but I am certainly intending to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period." This initiative around the publication of The
Hamiltonian is certainly intended to do just that — to affect the shaping of the government of the United States in the coming period.
        Joining us tonight we have Diane Sare and Michael Steger, both of whom authored articles in the new copy of The Hamiltonian. Diane Sare is, obviously, responsible for coordinating the distribution and deployment of this broadsheet,
and Michael Steger authored one of the main articles, which was titled "The New Presidency: It Begins with LaRouche's Four Laws." Jeffrey Steinberg authored the other of those main articles, this one called "Hillary is Obama's stooge for War and Wall Street."
        I want to ask Jeff to begin the discussion, with some of the content of what you wrote in that article, to kind of frame what we're going to discuss, and then we can have Michael and Diane join the discussion after that.

        JEFFREY STEINBERG: Well, I think it's essential to discuss the content of that article from the standpoint of another {major} development that has taken place this week, namely, a series of meetings involving Russia, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Iran, and now, today, Armenia. These represent major political interventions and initiatives by Russian President Putin. The most significant, clearly, was the meeting midweek in St. Petersburg between President Putin and President Erdogan of Turkey, in which Turkey has very clearly realigned itself with Russia on the issue of finally bringing an end to the five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        But, more broadly, Turkey is now positioning itself to be part of the whole Eurasian development framework which has been led by Putin and, of course, also by China's President, Xi Jinping. India's Prime Minister Modi is playing a major role in
this, and now we even see the Japanese Prime Minister Abe seeking to bring himself into this arrangement.
        The meeting that Putin had in Baku, just a day prior to his meeting with Erdogan, involved the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Iran. They resolved to rapidly accelerate the completion of the North-South Economic and Transportation Corridor, which is actually a new dimension, an added element within the overall
Chinese-initiated One Belt One Road program — what Lyndon and Helga LaRouche called for the last 20 years, the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
        The fact of the matter is, that this is the new emerging reality, that is dominating the global policy options. Anyone in their right mind will understand that the trans-Atlantic system is dead, and that this new system, which Putin has played a major
strategic role in engineering, in conjunction with China, is the future; it's the future of Eurasia, it's the future of Europe, it's really the future of the world as a whole. The big
policy issue for the United States in this Presidential election, is will the U.S. continue as it's been under Obama, and George Bush before that, to be a pawn of the British Empire — in which case the U.S. will pursue a policy of war, against Russia,
against China, and against the larger developments associated with the BRICS New Development Bank, the Chinese One Belt One Road policy, the AIIB, and all of that.
        The article that appears prominently in the first edition of The Hamiltonian warns about the fact that since the very day that she finalized her nomination by the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton has been sending out clear signals, through a
number of well-known leading policy surrogate voices, that she's aligned with the war party. That's the party of Bush, it's the party of Obama. Hillary, of course, in her position inside the Obama administration, made herself a pawn of that whole process,
as we saw in Libya, as we saw in the Benghazi cover-up, as we've seen in this horrific five-and-a-half year Syria war.
        Basically, since that time, since just a little over a week ago, you've had Leon Panetta, who was CIA Director and Defense Secretary under Obama — close, close ally, strong endorser of Hillary — coming out, basically calling for a major military
escalation to "regime change" the Assad government in Syria.
Michele Flournoy, who is widely believed to be Hillary's choice as Secretary of Defense, if she's elected, has come out with a series of reports. The institute that she [co-]founded and [serves on the Board of Directors], which is called the Center
for a New American Security, is the kind of follow-on to the PNAC, the Project for a New American Century. In fact, the same person who authored PNAC's plan for unipolar American world empire, Robert Kegan, was the principle author of the Center for a New American Security's study, drafted for either the Clinton or Trump campaigns just a few months back. It's all the same thing. It's empire, it's war, it's confrontation with Russia and China.

        OGDEN: Not to mention, Kegan's wife is Victoria Nuland.

        STEINBERG: Exactly, who is one of the people on the short list for Secretary of State, or some other very high position, if Hillary is elected.  The problem is that you can't avoid the fact that an intervention around steering the United States in a sane
policy direction, demands that you put enormous pressure on both candidates; that they're going to have to abandon the policy direction — in this case, Hillary's clear embrace of the neo-con unipolar world agenda — and change drastically. Otherwise,
before or after the November elections, we're facing an immediate, urgent, prospect of war with Russia, war with China; and that war would go thermonuclear and very quickly become a war of extinction for mankind.

OGDEN: The other aspect of the broadsheet was an article by Michael Steger. I think this goes hand-in-hand with what you were saying, Jeff; also from the standpoint of what I think we'll get into with the institutional question. The other reality, besides
the proximity of war, is the fact that we are right on the verge of a total meltdown of the trans-Atlantic financial system. The numbers are clear, with the situation of Deutsche Bank, the counter-party exposure of every single major bank in the world;
the fact that you have now unprecedented calls for the nationalization of Deutsche Bank coming from inside of Germany, which has never happened before; the initiative that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche have taken around Deutsche Bank, per se; but also the entire Four Laws — Glass-Steagall, where you've seen a resurgence of mobilization around this from inside the United States, layers that had been dormant for quite a while; and then the entire rest of the LaRouche program.
        I think, as you said, Michael, this is the beginning; this is how you craft a new Presidency. Maybe you can say a little bit more about the other subject of the broadsheet.

MICHAEL STEGER: Sure! I think it's worth stating, as Jeff laid out, in terms of the international picture, that over these last 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, which I think is pertinent to the discussion here today as well — every major political institution, whether it be a political party, a branch of government, or a grass-roots organization, has largely been discredited by the inability to either stand up to the Bush and Obama regimes, or to not be bought out and compromised by them; besides what our organization has largely done.
        That creates a real political vacuum in the United States. As we've seen with both of these candidates, they're despised by a majority of their parties, and an increasing majority of the American people. And so when you look at the new Presidency, the way Lyn's laid it out — he laid this out, this paper, "The Four New Laws to Save the United States Now," this was two years ago. The perspective was clear from Lyn's vantage point, that we're at a point where there is no institution in the United States — political body, think tank — that has any clue at all of how to
deal with the current unfolding crisis. On one side, there's the immediate war danger, and the political breakdown of the European Union, NATO trans-Atlantic system. At the same time, there's the breakdown of the financial system. But they're not separate. They are the same fundamental system that is now facing a kind of moral bankruptcy, a collapse of any real value to human society.
        That doesn't mean that those nations don't. Clearly, nations like Germany, Italy, the United States have a real role to play in the overall development perspectives. But you have to see things in the context of this breakdown. What Lyn put forward, we've see it, we've seen the resurgence of Glass-Steagall. Both parties' platforms now have it. There's a clear recognition, broadly, among the American people, for what would seem an arcane banking regulation policy. But, as many people have grown to recognize, it's really the major tool to dismantle this Wall Street apparatus, this kind of criminal financial fraud that's been perpetrated, recklessly, without any real control, for the last 15 years, and really much longer.
        The question, that Lyn raised, was what is a competent government at this point, especially in the United States – a real, competent form of policy? And there has to be a commitment towards the future of mankind, long term. He said this repeatedly
in the recent period. We cannot base these steps we're going to take, on the past. We have to base our solution on the future. This is where you see what Jeff laid out — what Russia, under Putin, and China are now doing, is consolidating a very bright
future for the majority of mankind, with the collaboration of nations which have huge geo-strategic past problems, but recognize now the economic question of collaboration between China and India, India and Pakistan, Iran with other nations in
the Caucuses, with Russia.
        This kind of collaboration and integration of Eurasia is really a remarkable question. And in that, you have a driving policy led by China regarding space exploration and fusion research. China is one of the world leaders today in fusion
research capabilities, as is South Korea. You have a capability there for the United States to orient, around the Four Laws, which is (1) Glass-Steagall. The second is a National Banking system. That means you have a banking system which now has the
capability regulated by the office of the Treasury under a kind of Greenback-like Lincoln policy. The Third Law is that we define what a federal credit system is for. It's not just a federal credit system. You don't just allow the federal government now to just print credit. We define it from a physical-economic standpoint of the future, what is necessary for mankind's long-term survival. And that's where the collaboration of nations like Russia, China, and India become so essential, because these questions of space exploration and fusion power really define that. And that really is the Fourth Law, which is collaboration with these nations, around this kind of scientific advancement of mankind.
        From our perspective, and I think what should be an increasing perspective of the American people, who tend to find themselves distraught by this Presidential election, is not to cower in fear, or hide somewhere in a hole, waiting for it to all
end; but to recognize there's a political vacuum, where our leadership is essential, and that these policies are the immediate steps that any President has to take.  If not, we're
not going to regain or reconstitute a Constitutional American Presidency.  But they're actually going to secure the physical livelihood of the United States for the generations to come; and that really is the intervention that has to be made on the new
Presidency.  There will be a series of articles.  Kesha Rogers' second article was released in EIR magazine yesterday; and there will be a follow-up article next week by Dave Christie, and there will be more to come.

        OGDEN:  Well, absolutely filling that political vacuum is what The Hamiltonian is serving to do; and I think it's already having a radiating effect.  Diane, if you want to just jump in and discuss a little bit of the effect in New York.

SARE:  Well, first I'll just start by saying that Manhattan is the political center of the United States; and it's certainly the political center of these two campaigns.  Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are based in this area.  And I will also say the
population is clearly anguished.  We talked last week about Hillary's campaign, as Jeff just said, is providing cover for Obama to run his war and provocation policy.  And I think the weakness that we're filling in, which I experienced a bit on the call last night, is that Americans have been so bereft of a future, or thinking of a future, that they're not able to think strategically.  So, many people had questions about "Why is Putin working with Erdogan; isn't Erdogan horrible?  Didn't he do these horrible things?"  Well, he did do horrible things, but there is a strategic shift where it's become very clear that the interest of Turkey is tied up in the new BRICS dynamic.  That a New Paradigm has been created; and in a sense, that's what we are
creating here.
        I actually was sent something from one of our collaborators on the West Coast, which I think is really delightful in terms of an approach to how to think properly.  It's comments from Helen Keller when she got an opportunity to go up in the Empire State Building and "look" out at Manhattan.  I think everyone knows —
hopefully — that Helen Keller was both blind and deaf; but her insights into these matters are more striking and more profound. In fact, she speculates that she and her friend who was blind, had a much better view of Manhattan from the top of the Empire State Building than the people who had two good eyes.  Her description is somewhat delightful; she says that "It was a thrilling experience to be whizzed in a lift a quarter of a mile heavenward, and to see New York spread out like a marvelous
tapestry beneath us.  There was the Hudson, more like the flash of a sword blade than a noble river; the little island of Manhattan, set like a jewel in its nest of rainbow waters, stared up into my face.  And the Solar System circled about my head. Why, I thought, the Sun and the stars are suburbs of New York and I never knew it."  I think that makes her a New Yorker for sure. She said, "I have this sort of wild desire to invest in a bit of real estate on one of the planets.  All sense of depression and hard times vanished; I felt like being frivolous with the stars." Then, she talks about the construction of the Empire State Building as being poetical.  She says, "From everyone except my blind friend, I had received an impression of sordid materialism.
The piling up of one steel honeycomb upon another with no real purpose but to satisfy the American craving for the superlative in everything.  Well, I see in the Empire Building something else — passionate skill, arduous and fearless idealism.  The tallest building is a victory of imagination.  Instead of crouching close
to Earth like a beast, the spirit of man soars to higher regions. And from this new point of vantage, he looks upon the impossible with fortified courage, and dreams yet more magnificent enterprises."
        This reminds me so much of what President Kennedy about why we go to the Moon; or Krafft Ehricke's sense of the extraterrestrial imperative for mankind.  It's our job here — particularly in Manhattan, where I think people may be most
susceptible to it; because in Manhattan we are blessed with an extraordinarily diverse population from all over the world.  It's not simply that you have the headquarters of the United Nations; but if you think of what the population is in Queens and Brooklyn and New Jersey where I am and the surrounding areas, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island had something to do with this many years ago.  You have a population which actually is in touch with the rest of the world.  So, there are people in this area that have a sense that the whole world is not going to Hell; that in some places, having a pothole that could swallow up a double-decker bus is actually considered a sign of poverty, and you're supposed to repair it and do something about it – as opposed to what people have begun to take for granted here.  So, the idea is to rekindle a spark of a certain quality of American identity which is a love of the future; a love of the potential for what mankind can contribute to the future.  Which I think Helen Keller expresses so magnificently in that piece.
        I would just say — Mike alluded to this — the question of September 11th; one person who was on the call last night said her uncle had just passed away two days ago.  He was someone who had worked there and suffered from various kinds of lung disease and finally died.  The death toll from these attacks has not ended; and it's not only people in New York who were first responders.  It's people who were killed in these wars which I think we're going to take up a bit more; these wars that were
totally unjustified, that were based on lies and cover-ups from the Bush administration through the Obama administration.  If we can address that, at this 15 years, that we end this period of injustice and of criminal wars of aggression, I think you could see a real shift.  It's as if the American people have had a heavy manhole cover on top of their brains and on top of their identities, and they haven't even allowed themselves to think of what the potential is.  In those circumstances, I think all bets are off, even in terms of this ridiculous scenario that we're calling a Presidential election.  There's nothing to say that these two mentally unstable characters going for Presidential candidates, have to be the candidates by the time we get to November.  Or, as Jeff was saying, [it] would be caused to shift by a shift in the population.  So, it's a very, very rich moment; and it's just urgent that everybody who hears what we are saying and what the LaRouche Movement is doing, who gets our literature, moves to circulate it and mobilize as many people as you can.

        OGDEN:  I think both you, Diane and Michael, stated about how you have to understand, how did we get to this point from looking at the last 15 years?  We never would have had a situation like this in terms of two Presidential candidates such as what we have, if the injustices of Obama administration had not gone on unpunished; if the crimes of the Bush and Cheney administration had not gone unpunished.  If Bush and Cheney had been impeached, I guarantee you, we would not be at the point,
where we are right now.  I think this is a question which has been re-opened in a very dramatic way, with the victory that we've won in the last month; which was the declassification of the 28 pages.  Just this week — Jeff, I know you have a little bit of insight into this — but Larry Wilkerson, who was the former chief of staff of Colin Powell, gave a series of interviews in which he said effectively, that what Cheney did was not only convincing Colin Powell to put the lies about Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda into his testimony; which were obvious lies, but they were the pretext for the war against Iraq.  But also, Cheney played the central role in making the decision to keep anything having to do with the role of Saudi Arabia in funding and financing 9/11 out of the public eye.
        So, Jeff, I know you were saying yesterday, this actually opens up Cheney to criminal prosecution, if the implications of that are followed through.

        STEINBERG:  I think that there's another dimension as well to this, and I'll say something about the Cheney issue in just a moment.  Who would have imagined that President Obama would be boxed into such a corner that he would have to release the 28 pages?  I can tell you that since he lied to the 9/11 families for 7.5 years, and was very much under the sway of John Brennan who adamantly opposed the release of those 28 pages because of his own extremely close relationship with the Saudis; it's a very important object lesson that Obama was forced to do it.  It took a continuing battle; LaRouche Political Action Committee is widely known on Capitol Hill and around the country to have played a pivotal role.  Senator Bob Graham, the 9/11 Families — the leading activists — both the survivors of 9/11 and those who lost loved ones in the 9/11 attacks, did not give up; they persisted.  This was a fight for 15 years.  I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn in the context of what we're
discussing about a critical policy moment, when neither party has been able to produce a Presidential candidate who's worth anything.  We've got to make sure that the fight over these issues is continuously put forward, continuously escalated.
We've forced the issue of the 28 pages.  I think that the July 6th press conference by Walter Jones, Steven Lynch, and Thomas Massie along with members of the 9/11 Families and Survivors was crucial; because they came out and said what we had been urging to be said.  These 28 pages must come out; it's in the vital interest of the American people and the world that they come out. They made clear that they will be made public; and they invoked the Mike Gravel heroic action of releasing the Pentagon Papers, which altered the whole course of the Vietnam War during Nixon.
        So, I think there's a very important lesson to be drawn: Persistently leading a fight; the commitment of the American people to the kind of change that they clearly demanded in the way that the primary votes happened.  The majority of voters were
voting for a revolutionary change in policy, not for a candidate. You had Bernie Sanders voters who abandoned him the instant he endorsed Hillary Clinton for President.  Trump was always seen as a kind of a loud mouth voice for something different.  People want that change; they've got to be organized around a policy
agenda.  LaRouche's Four Cardinal Laws define that better than anything else in terms of the economic crisis and how to address insolvency.
        Now you do have Colonel Wilkerson, who was with Colin Powell throughout the four years that Powell was Secretary of State; was with him in the preparation of that UN disastrous testimony leading to the vote for the Iraq War.  He has basically said that he is an eyewitness to severe crimes; fraudulent representations of vital intelligence and covering up the role of the Saudis in order to launch an illegal war against Iraq.  We see the consequences of that right now.  There are many options on the table.
        Just in terms of follow-up on the 28 pages:  You have the JASTA bill that should come up and be voted almost unanimously out of the House of Representatives, so Obama can't veto it, the very first days that Congress comes back in September.  There should be a series of public forums walking people through the
content of the 28 pages.  There are probably millions of documents that are still suppressed, that are still classified; that lead to other leads that we don't even yet imagine.  We know the British, we know the Saudis in principle were the architects
on behalf of Bush and Cheney; but there's a great deal of work to be done on that issue.  We're coming up in early September on the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks; LPAC and the Schiller Institute have a series of major events taking place in New York, including three memorial concerts — performances of Mozart's Requiem — all over the New York area around that critical weekend.  So, I think that we've got to maintain a commitment to maintaining and building and escalating on the momentum.  If there's a lesson to be learned from the 28 pages, it's that
Glass-Steagall comes next; and it comes right away.

OGDEN:  Right; absolutely.  I thought one point you made which was just remarkable in the interview yesterday that you conducted with Virginia State Senator Dick Black, you said what Cheney did after 9/11 would be as if Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor said "We're not going to attack the Japanese; we're going to blame the
Chinese for Pearl Harbor."  It was so outrageous to say the Saudis didn't do it; it was Iraq, it was Saddam Hussein.  I think, when that sinks in for the American people, you're going to see even more of a response.  The fact that this has broken open in
the last few weeks with the victory around the 28 pages; and as you said, 28 pages means the next victory comes next — Glass-Steagall.
        But one thing that's the subject of this The Hamiltonian broadsheet this week, is the petition that Diane wrote and is now being circulated en masse in Manhattan. 

Point one is complete; but points two, three, and four still have to go.  We need to
open a Chilcot Commission-type of investigation into Bush, Cheney, the entire rest of that apparatus — Obama included. What was Obama's interest in keeping these covered up for 7.5 years?  The key, I think — and it ties into the discussion from
earlier — is you need to accept the offer that was made one year ago at the United Nations General Assembly by Russian President Vladimir Putin for an alliance of the type that we had in World War II to defeat fascism.  An alliance with Russia, with China, with other interested parties in the world, to defeat what this terrorist apparatus actually represents.  So, I think as we're on the verge of the opening of this year's UN General Assembly meeting, and also the series of concerts that Jeff mentioned, this petition needs to continue to have a widespread and radiating impact.
        Diane, maybe you want to say a little bit more about that.

        SARE:  I can just say that it's being circulated by our activists here in the streets; and they're reporting getting a very intense response to it — more intense than anything that we've circulated recently.  I think it's important, when the vote on JASTA was first in the press a couple of months ago, before the release of the 28 pages, there was finally an appropriate, fearless anger, or righteous indignation of people saying, "How dare you tell us not to pursue the Saudis? That's outrageous!  We don't care if they're going to sell their Treasury bonds; we are
going to demand justice in this case."  I think it's really important that we keep that sense alive; which is what the petition will do.  I would also say, just because you mentioned the United Nations here; it happened that we got not only the release of The Hamiltonian this past week, but we received off the press the proceedings of this extraordinary Berlin conference that Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche convened at the end of June.  Which had an incredible array of speakers, including Ambassador Chas
Freeman, including a woman from the Presidency of Assad in Syria, and many others; retired military from France, Germany, NATO, etc.  The thing taken as a whole, unfortunately there's not a way to put that incredible concert at the end of the program into a printed report; but nonetheless, we are also getting this out to each of the governments represented by their UN missions in this period going into the General Assembly in September.  So we are in a position to shape that discussion and to perhaps augment the kinds of things that surely are already being discussed; as we
see in the latest meeting, that Putin and Xi Jinping and others have been holding.

        OGDEN:  One thing I want to say in the context of the upcoming UN General Assembly; there is a war that is already happening against everything that the BRICS represents.  If you think back one year, two years, the Fortaleza Agreement was made
in the context really of this war that Cristina Fernando de Kirchner was leading in Argentina against the vulture funds. These nations came together in solidarity with Argentina and said we will not allow you to kill the Argentine people to get the
money for the vulture funds.  Since that time, you've had a coalescing around the leadership of Putin and Xi Jinping and Modi of the BRICS structure; this is the emerging New Paradigm.  Over the course of that time, you have had a concerted deployment to break the BRICS apart; and we're in the middle of one of those
major attacks right now.  We saw what happened to Cristina Kirchner in Argentina; now the same thing is happening to Dilma Rousseff in Brazil.  Just this week, you had the vote by the majority of the Brazilian Senate to open indictment hearings
against Rousseff; which means impeachment against the President of Brazil.  You do have the eruption of a certain response against that coup from inside the United States; and it's actually the subject of our institutional question we got for this week.
        I know Mr. LaRouche had some detailed remarks to say about
that.  I want to read this question, and then maybe Jeff, you can fill in a little bit about that.  It says: 

"Mr. LaRouche: US Representative John Conyers, Democrat from Michigan; Marcy
Kaptur, Democrat from Ohio; Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota; and more than 30 other members from the House of Representatives, sent a letter this week to Secretary of State John Kerry; urging him to refrain from gestures that could be
interpreted as supportive of Brazil's interim government.  And to instead "express strong concern regarding the impeachment process a targeting of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff; and to "call for the protection of constitutional democracy and the rule of law in Brazil."  The letter is the first Congressional letter expressing
concern over Brazil's democracy in over two decades.  In your view, with the impending impeachment trial, what actions should the United States government take to promote fairness and protect democratic institutions in Brazil at this time?" 

So, I know Lyn had some things to say about this.

        STEINBERG:  The first thing he emphasized is that you're not dealing with a "Brazil situation" in the same way that you're not dealing with a "Syria situation". 

We're in the midst of a major, global, strategic re-alignment.  As you said, at the Fortaleza meeting two years ago of the BRICS countries, you had the launching of the New Development Bank; followed by the launching of the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank by China.  Clearly, there is a move centered among the major Eurasian powers, but also including Brazil and South America, South Africa, and
Africa, to re-align the world around a completely different approach; an approach that's oriented towards the future, that's centered on great projects of economic development that are truly win-win projects.  There's no geopolitical, zero-sum game.  And you've got a dead system, which is the British Empire system, which has been represented for the last 15 years by the fact that the British have controlled the US Presidency; under first George W Bush, and then after that, under Barack Obama.
        So, the first thing, the United States should do, is abandon its own direct role in promoting this coup.  This is not something that occurs because a bunch of figures inside Brazil have decided to go after Dilma Rousseff.  You've got the international apparatus of hedge funds; you've got the Adam Smith Institute networks in Britain; you've got the Chicago School apparatus here in the United States; that are all instrumental in this drive — not to damage Brazil — but to destroy Brazil because it's part of this BRICS new alignment.  I guarantee that if the United States were to publicly come out — if Kerry were to make a statement and say that the United States believes that this is a coup d'état; not necessarily using guns, but using actions by bought-and-paid-for corrupt officials to overthrow a legitimately elected government that is attempting to align South America with this new paradigm of development centered around Eurasia; this thing would go away.  The votes in the Senate are
absolutely shameless; the people who are behind this coup are themselves all legitimately under criminal investigation for massive financial fraud.  If you want to look at the Brazil element of the Panama Papers scandal, then you're going to find
the top officials — the Speaker of the House, the President of the Senate, the current President, the current Foreign Minister; all of the people who have been aligned against Dilma, are part of the most corrupt apparatus.  But they're protected because
they're part of the British Empire and the Obama administration protected apparatus; and their objective is to try to destroy the BRICS.
        So, this is a global play; this is not a Brazil story.  It's not something that is narrowly associated with events in South America, or corruption, or anything like that.  This is a much bigger, worse, and far more dangerous thing; and it's part of the
general picture.  Is the world going to go in the direction of defending a system that's already dead?  Major economists this week described Deutsche Bank as a "dead bank walking"; and it's an apt description.  So, it's the question of whether a dead British Empire, largely controlling the US Presidency for the last 15-16 years, is going to basically bring the rest of the world down with it — because it can never survive.  Or, whether or not it's going to be cast aside and defeated and replaced by a new system that's already well underway.        

The critical question in this Presidential election is, will the American people tolerate candidates that want to align the United States with an already dead system?  Or, are we going to go in the direction of aligning the United States with this new
future-oriented alternative?  Historically, America has always been on the side of this future orientation; at least from its founding principles — the Hamiltonian ideas are really, what's underlying this Eurasian development.  So, we've got to win the fight to transform the United States back into what it historically represented as the city on the hill.

OGDEN:  I do think it's significant that the members of Congress who signed this letter, directly overlaps with the core group of the leadership around Glass-Steagall.

        STEINBERG:  That's right.

        OGDEN:  One more thing you just brought up:  What is the Hamiltonian idea?  What's at the core as the coherent unifying principle of this Four New Laws of Mr. LaRouche is the idea, that he expresses at the end of that document.  That there are no measuring rods for economics, which can be found within the domain of money; money is not a representative of value when it comes to economics.  It's the willingness to reject monetarism, which is what is making the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, the New Development Bank — these are completely different species.  This is not just a different version of the IMF/World Bank system. You have a dedication to increasing the productivity of massive amounts of the population of the planet; billions of people will be affected by the New Silk Road, by these development projects which have been on the books for 40-50-60 years.  They are now actually being built, because of the investments, that are coming from the BRICS bank and China and so forth.  But it's an understanding of economics which I think has been the unique contribution that Mr. LaRouche has given to world history over the last 40-50 years; which is his unique understanding of what the true measuring rod of economics really is.  You have the constantly increasing of the accumulation of the ability of mankind to deploy new physical principles that have been discovered by man to increase our power over the Universe.
        In two very specific ways, I think the example of Albert Einstein is very important in this sense. Number one, just in the form of an analogy: The understanding of Albert Einstein, that you cannot have a measuring rod from inside of a system; but that there needs to be a measuring rod, which is external, which is a
principle.  Just as absolute time and absolute space did not exist for Albert Einstein, this is the kind of understanding that you need to bring to physical economics. And number two: Albert Einstein, perhaps more than anybody else, is paradigmatic of the
type of human creative thinking, which allows mankind to advance itself; which, as Helen Keller so beautifully described, brings us up from the ground like beasts crawling on our bellies and reacting to the circumstances around us, to becoming co-creators of this Universe.
        So, Michael, I thought you elaborated that in a very beautiful way at the end of your item in this week's Hamiltonian; and I wouldn't mind, if you had a little bit more
to say on that subject.

        STEGER:  I think you've said it well right now.  What I think is worth maybe coming back to, given the role of the creative personality, Kesha raised this on the show on Monday. Einstein also recognized that it is the unique role of the individual to shape and create essentially the new laws by which society then agrees to.  That, the discovery of those higher principles or natural law, then allows society itself to advance. Really, what you see today, many people are on vacation; too many
people, I think, are watching the Olympics.  I think the real doping scandal is inside the White House.  But what Putin has done with this diplomatic effort, is, that we are looking at the possible resolution of the Syrian crisis in Aleppo.  There is a kind of
process taking place that can resolve these things in the coming months.
        But then you have, in the course of just September, you have the Presidents of South Korea, Japan and China meeting Putin in Vladivostok.  Then they will all be going together down to the G-20 summit in China — where Putin will be the guest of honor — with the 20 largest nations; with Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, nations from Africa, all over Asia and Europe participating.  Then you have many of those heads of state coming to New York City right around the time of our concerts; but for
the UN General Assembly.  Of course, then many of those heads of state from the BRICS will be meeting in India in early October.
        Then, at this point in time, as Jeff said earlier this week, this whole financial system – Deutsche Bank, and the rest of the larger banks – can be rapidly unfolding, unravelling.  The bankruptcy can be disembowelment of the banking system,

essentially coming up in the near period.  Then, the Presidential elections come.  As much of a buffoon as Donald Trump is, he's shown himself the ability to slay a lot of other incapable politicians in debates; and I think, Hillary Clinton should be fairly
concerned, that her record with Obama is an absolute and very severe weakness.  An Achilles heel, because of the current climate in the political situation we face in the country.  So we are really at a remarkable [point].  Then, a collapse of the
trans-Atlantic system; an unfolding, consolidated effort in Eurasia led by Putin, and this quality of creative genius, that you're referencing from Einstein.  This is really, what Lyn has brought to bear on the planet; and it's really, what must be brought to bear in the Presidential system now in the United States.  Lyn must be part of shaping Presidential policy now.  We essentially are; but that's got to be the commitment of the American people, and not getting caught up in anything else, because it's a very rare opportunity today.

        OGDEN:  Wonderful.  So, as I said at the beginning of the program, this week has really marked a significant escalation in terms of the LaRouche PAC intervention into New York City in particular and the United States in general, with the publication of The Hamiltonian Volume I, no. 1. There are still several thousand copies of the original printing, which are available and need to be distributed.  I know during the regular Saturday afternoon Manhattan dialogue, which takes place every week in downtown Manhattan, there will be copies available to you, if you are able to help distribute them, and you're able to attend that meeting.  If you've been to the meeting before, and maybe you haven't been going regularly; you should go tomorrow.  If you've never been before, please contact Diane; the contact information
for the New Jersey office is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  We really do have a limited opening or time, but a very rich potential, a very rich opportunity to completely transform the dialogue in the United States.  In very much the same way
that Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers were used to create the United States in the first place around the ratification of the US Constitution and to raise the level of intelligence of the American citizenry, the new broadsheet — The Hamiltonian —
can really be used in very much the same fashion.  I would implore everybody, who's watching this, to become involved in helping to distribute this; and make this something, which is widely available to the thinking portion of the American people.
        I'd like to thank both Diane and Michael for joining me here tonight; and thank you to Jeff.  And I'd like to thank all of you for tuning in.  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.
 

11. august 2016 (Leder) – Dette er på ingen måde spontane udviklinger. De er resultatet af intervention, foretaget af menneskets kreative intellekt – Vladimir Putins.

Præsidenterne fra Rusland, Iran og Aserbajdsjan mødtes den 8. august, i et møde, der især drejede sig om den Nye Silkevejs internationale nord-sydgående transportkorridor. Herefter vil disse tre landes transport-, energi- og udenrigsministre mødes i Teheran for at forberede endnu et trilateralt topmøde, denne gang i Iran.

Efter mødet den 8. august fulgte også Putins topmøde med den armenske præsident Serzh Sargsyan i Kreml i går. De diskuterede Armeniens integration i den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, og hvordan en løsning på striden om Nagorno-Karabakh mellem Armenien og Aserbajdsjan kunne opnås, i lyset af Putins nylige topmøde med Aserbajdsjans præsident Aliyev i Baku og hans øvrige diplomati.

Putins historiske topmøde den 9. august i Skt. Petersborg med den tyrkiske præsident Erdogan – hvor de indgik aftaler om kernekraft, øget handel og gasledningen Turkish Stream – efterfulgtes af et møde i dag mellem de to landes udenrigs- og forsvarsministre, samt landenes efterretningschefer. Forventningerne var, at de ville forsøge at koordinere deres handlinger i Syrien, inklusive i den igangværende kamp om Aleppo, nær den tyrkiske grænse.

Det er ingen tilfældighed, at Obama netop nu, med hjælp fra sin medhjælper, Hillary Clinton, pludselig har gjort truslen om krig i Europa større. I går afslørede Ruslands Statslige Sikkerhedstjeneste (FSB), at den havde opsnappet to ukrainske rekognoscerings- og sabotagegrupper i Krim i dagene 7. og 8. august, hvor de arresterede syv personer, med to russeres liv som indsats (en FSB-officer og en soldat). En af arrestanterne har på russisk fjernsyn tilstået, at de blev sendt af den ukrainske militære efterretningstjeneste for at sabotere infrastruktur.

Putin sagde i går aftes, at den planlagte sabotage havde til formål at destabilisere Krim, der forbereder sig til valg. Han afviste forslaget om at mødes i regi af Normandiet-firkløveret (Rusland, Frankrig, Tyskland, Ukraine) over Ukraine, på sidelinjerne af G20-topmødet i Kina til september, og sagde, at det ikke længere giver nogen mening, når Kiev afviser kompromis til fordel for terror. Og Putin ved, hvad den krimske premierminister sagde højt: at Kiev ikke ville have gjort dette, uden at have fået grønt lys fra Washington – dvs. fra Obama. Og Obama støttes højlydt i sit fremstød for krig af Hillary Clinton.

»Putin har pludselig fået kontrollen med store udviklinger i verden, og disse karle er gået amok«, sagde Lyndon LaRouche i dag. »Det betyder ikke, at han er perfekt, men han har kontrollen, og de andre flipper ud, og de ved ikke, hvad de skal gøre ved, at de flipper ud. Putin vil gøre, hvad han er nødt til at gøre – forvent, at der viser sig alle mulige former for ondskab. Nu har endnu et angreb vist sig – ikke fra Ukraine, men andetsteds fra, gennem Ukraine.«

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putin med Irans præsident Hassan Rouhani, 8. august 2016. [kremlin.ru]