12. nov., 2016 – Den 9. november gav Francis Boyle, professor i international jura ved Illinois College Universitet i Urbana, et interview via Skype til Pravda Tv, hvor han ringede med alarmklokken mht., at Obama kunne være »eksistentielt farlig« fra nu og frem til indsættelsesdagen i januar 2017. I en privat e-mail efter interviewet advarede professor Boyle om, at Obama kunne starte en krig, ligesom George Bush Sr. gjorde det med Somalia lige efter, han havde tabt valget til Bill Clinton i 1992.

At gå frem med en kampagne for en rigsretssag nu, i Kongressens overgangsperiode (den såkaldte ’lame duck’ periode), forklarede Boyle i interviewet, ville være »et skud for boven« for Obama; en advarsel om, at »vi ikke vil have krig med Rusland« over Ukraine eller Syrien. Han understregede, at det, Obama gjorde i sidste uge, hvor han satte 300.000 tropper i alarmberedskab, er en del af Obamas fremstød for krig.

NATO-ordren »kom fra Det Hvide Hus«, sagde Boyle til Pravda Tv.

Efter at give udtryk for sit håb om, at Donald Trumps udtalelser imod NATO ville føre til at opløse spændingerne med Rusland, hvilket ville fordre et direkte møde med Putin, sluttede Boyle:

»Lad mig sige endnu en ting. Obama er stadig ved magten fra nu og frem til januar, og han kunne beslutte at fortsætte med at optrappe en krise med Rusland. Så, af denne grund, starter vi en kampagne her for at fremstille et lovforslag om en rigsretssag i USA’s Kongres, når denne atter træder sammen den 14. nov., for at forsøge at få Obama ud, før han starter en krig med Rusland. Vi kan ikke bare sidde med hænderne i skødet her i Amerika … Obama har al denne magt, og han har stadig alle disse anti-russiske rådgivere, der er fortalere for krig.

Vi i fredsbevægelsen mobiliserer imod Obama … vi vil ikke have krig med Rusland … Men Obama må stoppes før tiltrædelsesdagen.«  

Foto: Den amerikanske professor i international jura, Francis Boyle.     

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 14. november, 2016 – I nedtællingen til APEC-topmødet for statsledere førstkommende weekend i Lima, Peru, giver ledere af de lande, hvor præsident Xi Jinping vil aflægge officielt statsbesøg (Peru, Ecuador og Chile), udtryk for deres opstemthed ved udsigten til det, der betyder, at den Nye Silkevej nu kommer til Sydamerika. Dette paradigmeskift er også indforstået for Nordamerika i sidste uges skæbnesvangre, amerikanske valg, hvor befolkningen gjorde oprør imod Wall Streets og City of Londons døde system. Den presserende opgave er nu at mobilisere amerikanerne for en virkeliggørelse af dette potentiale.

Da Lyndon Larouche i dag blev briefet om disse udviklinger i dag, understregede han nødvendigheden af den involverede ’poesi og musik’. Vi har et kæmpearbejde at gøre. Men, gennem det poetiske princip, kan vi trække folk ind i en dybere forståelse af sig selv som menneske, og som skabende individ, og af, hvad de kan gøre. Der er ingen tid til forsinkelser. Glass/Steagall-loven må genindføres, og der må træffes påkrævede hasteforanstaltninger og langfristede foranstaltninger for et reorganiseret banksystem, udstedelse af kredit til en gennemgribende, økonomisk opbygning og genoptagelse af videnskab.

Fra udlandet lyder der stærke røster om USA’s nye potentiale, selv med det farligt langsomme tempo i delstaterne. I sidste uge bemærkede den nyligt valgte guvernør for Tokyo, fr. Yuriko Koike (der har været forsvarsminister i premierminister Abes 2007-regering, og har siddet i parlamentet, Diet, i 23 år), at Trump støtter Glass-Steagall, så det måtte Japan nok hellere relatere til, for det er en «stor tidevandsbølge« af forandring.

Den 17. nov. i Lima, Peru – på tærsklen til APEC-topmødet – vil Helga Zepp-LaRouche være taler (via video, med live Q&A) ved den 23. nationalkongres for Sammenslutningen af Økonomer i Peru. Kongressens titel er »Det bi-oceaniske tog: Dets indvirkning på Amazonas og Perus økonomi«. Konferencekortet viser en trans-oceanisk hav-og-landbro, der begynder i Tianjins havn, Kina, og går til Bayovars havn i Peru og dernæst krydser kontinent med tog (via Pucallpa, Peru) til Atlanterhavet og Santos’ havn ved Sao Paolo, Brasilien.

Samme dag indleder præsident Xi sine statsbesøg i Sydamerika i Ecuador, hvor præsident Rafael Correa er triumferende omkring fremtiden. Correa sagde, at Xis besøg er »det vigtigste besøg af noget statsoverhoved i Ecuadors historie«. Eksperter diskuterer den produktivitet, der vil komme fra kinesisk samarbejde om en ansporing af agro-industrialisering og vil afslutte syndromet med kun at eksportere råmaterialer.

I dag talte præsident Xi og Donald Trump sammen pr. telefon om samarbejde. Xi sagde, »Jeg tillægger de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer stor betydning, og jeg er rede til at arbejde med den amerikanske side for at fremme bilaterale bånd, til større fordel for de to folk og resten af verden.« Trump skal som svar have sagt, at der kan komme win-win-resultater, »Kina er et stort og betydningsfuldt land med iøjnefaldende udviklingsprospekter«. Lederen af AIIB, Jin Liqun, bemærkede i dag, at en Trump-rådgiver i sidste uge talte favorabelt om USA’s tilslutning til AIIB. Jin påpegede også, at »bogstavet ’A’ i AIIB står for Asien, Afrika og Amerika. De begynder alle med A, og det betyder, at banken er for dem alle.

Her til aften vendte Kongressen tilbage til Washington, D.C., efter en syv uger lang valgpause. Det er på høje tid med handling for Glass-Steagall – de behøver en stærk og smuk undervisning i poesi og musik!  

Se også:

»The US Joins the Silk Road«, https://larouchepac.com/us-joins-new-silk-road

Dansk introduktion http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=10998

Foto: Den chilenske præsident Michelle Bachelet mødes med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing, 12. nov., 2014. [flickr/gobiernodechile]

Den Nye Silkevej kommer til Sydamerika; Nu kommer turen til Nordamerika! LaRouche: ’Det ligger i poesien’

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 14. november, 2016 – I nedtællingen til APEC-topmødet for statsledere førstkommende weekend i Lima, Peru, giver ledere af de lande, hvor præsident Xi Jinping vil aflægge officielt statsbesøg (Peru, Ecuador og Chile), udtryk for deres opstemthed ved udsigten til det, der betyder, at den Nye Silkevej nu kommer til Sydamerika. Dette paradigmeskift er også indforstået for Nordamerika i sidste uges skæbnesvangre, amerikanske valg, hvor befolkningen gjorde oprør imod Wall Streets og City of Londons døde system. Den presserende opgave er nu at mobilisere amerikanerne for en virkeliggørelse af dette potentiale.

Da Lyndon Larouche i dag blev briefet om disse udviklinger i dag, understregede han nødvendigheden af den involverede ’poesi og musik’. Vi har et kæmpearbejde at gøre. Men, gennem det poetiske princip, kan vi trække folk ind i en dybere forståelse af sig selv som menneske, og som skabende individ, og af, hvad de kan gøre. Der er ingen tid til forsinkelser. Glass/Steagall-loven må genindføres, og der må træffes påkrævede hasteforanstaltninger og langfristede foranstaltninger for et reorganiseret banksystem, udstedelse af kredit til en gennemgribende, økonomisk opbygning og genoptagelse af videnskab.

Fra udlandet lyder der stærke røster om USA’s nye potentiale, selv med det farligt langsomme tempo i delstaterne. I sidste uge bemærkede den nyligt valgte guvernør for Tokyo, fr. Yuriko Koike (der har været forsvarsminister i premierminister Abes 2007-regering, og har siddet i parlamentet, Diet, i 23 år), at Trump støtter Glass-Steagall, så det måtte Japan nok hellere relatere til, for det er en «stor tidevandsbølge« af forandring.

Den 17. nov. i Lima, Peru – på tærsklen til APEC-topmødet – vil Helga Zepp-LaRouche være taler (via video, med live Q&A) ved den 23. nationalkongres for Sammenslutningen af Økonomer i Peru. Kongressens titel er »Det bi-oceaniske tog: Dets indvirkning på Amazonas og Perus økonomi«. Konferencekortet viser en trans-oceanisk hav-og-landbro, der begynder i Tianjins havn, Kina, og går til Bayovars havn i Peru og dernæst krydser kontinent med tog (via Pucallpa, Peru) til Atlanterhavet og Santos’ havn ved Sao Paolo, Brasilien.

Samme dag indleder præsident Xi sine statsbesøg i Sydamerika i Ecuador, hvor præsident Rafael Correa er triumferende omkring fremtiden. Correa sagde, at Xis besøg er »det vigtigste besøg af noget statsoverhoved i Ecuadors historie«. Eksperter diskuterer den produktivitet, der vil komme fra kinesisk samarbejde om en ansporing af agro-industrialisering og vil afslutte syndromet med kun at eksportere råmaterialer.

I dag talte præsident Xi og Donald Trump sammen pr. telefon om samarbejde. Xi sagde, »Jeg tillægger de kinesisk-amerikanske relationer stor betydning, og jeg er rede til at arbejde med den amerikanske side for at fremme bilaterale bånd, til større fordel for de to folk og resten af verden.« Trump skal som svar have sagt, at der kan komme win-win-resultater, »Kina er et stort og betydningsfuldt land med iøjnefaldende udviklingsprospekter«. Lederen af AIIB, Jin Liqun, bemærkede i dag, at en Trump-rådgiver i sidste uge talte favorabelt om USA’s tilslutning til AIIB. Jin påpegede også, at »bogstavet ’A’ i AIIB står for Asien, Afrika og Amerika. De begynder alle med A, og det betyder, at banken er for dem alle.

Her til aften vendte Kongressen tilbage til Washington, D.C., efter en syv uger lang valgpause. Det er på høje tid med handling for Glass-Steagall – de behøver en stærk og smuk undervisning i poesi og musik!  

Se også:

»The US Joins the Silk Road«

Dansk introduktion 

Foto: Den chilenske præsident Michelle Bachelet mødes med Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing, 12. nov., 2014. [flickr/gobiernodechile]

Den »Marshallplan« på en milliard euro, som udviklingsminister Gerd Müller har foreslået, er et skridt i den rigtige retning, men slår langtfra til. Tyskland kan nu yde et enestående bidrag til det nødvendige epokeskift ved officielt at erklære, at det samarbejder med Kinas Nye Silkevej, frem for alt i genopbygningen af Mellemøsten og Afrikas industrialisering.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 13. november, 2016 – At åbne for forhandling og potentielt samarbejde mellem den russiske præsident Putin, den nu valgte, tiltrædende amerikanske præsident Trump og Kinas præsident Xi er nu sine qua non for at bringe verden væk fra randen af verdenskrig og således gøre en økonomisk genrejsning mulig, især i USA og Europa.

Ingen – hverken Trump eller nogen anden nation eller betydningsfulde part – bør forhandle med Barack Obama. Obama er færdig; hans TPP og TTIP »handelsaftaler« er færdige; hans »Assad skal væk«-promovering af jihadister for at overtage Syrien er færdig; hans bestræbelse med »omdrejningspunkt Asien« for at besejre Kina er færdig. Og det samme er hans lange forsvar af Wall Street imod det amerikanske folks vrede.

På paradoksal vis er, på trods af meget hysteri blandt fremtrædende liberale, håbet om, at Wall Street kan brydes op og dets magt over amerikansk politisk liv brydes, nu stærkere, end det har været i mange år. At genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven er dette håbs første instrument og mål, men potentialet er at genoprette hele den tabte, amerikanske produktivitet, tabte produktive beskæftigelse og levestandard, ødelagte økonomiske infrastruktur; det tabte håb om en fremtid.

Dette er den mobilisering, som er i gang i LaRouchePAC for november-december, for Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love« for at redde USA’s økonomi og dets folk.

Men, konfrontations- og krigsprovokationerne under hele Barack Obamas præsidentskab, imod Rusland og Kina, må afvises på en meget synlig måde, for at dette håb kan fremmes. Ruslands Putin har allerede fremlagt specifikke forslag og tilbud om samarbejde. Mange europæiske kræfter, der har været i opposition mod sanktionerne og krigsoprustningen over for Rusland, efterlyser direkte »topmøde«-drøftelser mellem Putin og Donald Trump.

Og Kina udgør det eneste håb for Trump-administrationens evne til at virkeliggøre sine storstilede planer om at bygge ny, økonomisk infrastruktur. Uden samarbejde med Kina vil USA hverken have kreditten eller de fysisk-økonomiske midler til at bygge dette højhastigheds-jernbanenet, disse nye elektricitetsnetværk, havne, lufthavne osv.

Offentlige begivenheder demonstrerer nu, at ikke kun de amerikanske vælgere, men også betydningsfulde grupperinger og ledere i selve det Demokratiske Parti har dumpet Barack Obama og hans administrations politik for »Wall Street og krig«, og, sammen med Obama, også har dumpet Hillary Clinton, der i givet fald ville være blevet hans, og hans politiks, efterfølger. Senator Bernie Sanders’ erklæring i dag, »Hvis hr. Trump har modet til at gå op imod Wall Street, vil vi arbejde sammen med ham, spørgsmål for spørgsmål«, er et udfald fra progressive Demokraters plan om at overtage partiet efter liget af Obamas politik.

Vi ved ikke, hvad Trumps team vil gøre. Vi ved, hvad amerikanske borgere må gøre for at sætte Kongressen til at arbejde. Wall Street må betale for sin årtier lange økonomiske ødelæggelse. Wall Street må brydes op, og dets finanskasinoer lukkes ned – Glass-Steagall. Der må skabes ny kredit til produktiv beskæftigelse og produktivitet.

USA må tilslutte sig de eurasiske magters Nye Silkevej, hvis vi skal genrejse os økonomisk. Bestræbelserne på at fremprovokere krig med disse magter – Obamas »eftermæle« – må bringes til ophør.

Foto: Lyndon Larouche understregede søndag, at Putin vil respondere favorabelt til en fornuftig tilnærmelse fra USA. (foto: kremlin.ru)

12. nov., 2016 – Fortvivlelse og raseri blandt mange gennemsnitlige amerikanere over, at deres etablerede eliter har bragt Trump ind i det Hvide Hus, i en populistisk bølge, der ikke er helt forskellig fra det, der skete i mange lande under den Store Depression for 80 år siden, skriver Tysklands Der Spiegel i en analyse af det amerikanske valg. Forfatteren, Thomas Fricke, siger, at den samme tendens også er på dagsordenen i Europa, hvor Merkels og Schäubles »stabilitetsmasochisme« [sic] hersker, men faktum er, at krisens årsager ikke er blevet fjernet, kun dens symptomer. Tyskland og Europa kan lære af FDR’s fremgangsmåde med New Deal: Han støttede taberne for datidens finanssammenbrud, og han mobiliserede økonomien i tre, på hinanden følgende, New Deals:

Den første Deal fra 1933 og fremefter, gav beskæftigelse til 3 millioner amerikanere inden for genplantning af skov, byggeri af dæmninger og udbedring af veje og jernbaner. Landmænd fik penge til at ansætte lærere, og til jobs inden for byggesektoren, og elværker blev bygget.

I 1935 fulgte det andet program med ny lovgivning, især inden for sociale programmer.

Den tredje New Deal fra 1937 og fremefter fastlagde minimumslønnen og lancerede flere jobskabelsesprogrammer.

Fricke bemærker, at det er sandt, at de største, politiske omvæltninger i år har fundet sted med Brexit-afstemningen i U.K. og med præsidentvalget i USA – dvs., i lande, hvor det frie markedsdogme har forårsaget den største ødelæggelse gennem virkningerne af globalisering. Men de kontinentaleuropæiske lande, hvor dette dogme er knapt så etableret, er imidlertid ikke sikret mod samme form for politiske chok. Roosevelt, skriver Fricke, havde ikke engang så stor succes, men han satte en stopper for »vanviddet med en afsindig globalisering og med et liberaliseret finanssystem«, hvilket lykkedes med at stoppe hans tids højrefløjspopulister. Det samme må ske i Europa, med en spektakulær investeringskampagne, for ligeledes at stoppe populister. Hvis dette ikke sker, vil de næste politiske chok med sikkerhed finde sted i Frankrig og Italien, og måske også i Tyskland. Tiden er ved at rinde ud, advarer Fricke.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/europa-braucht-einen-new-deal-nach-dem-donald-trump-schock-a-1120757.html

12. nov., 2016 – I kommentarer offentliggjort i Sputnik den 10. nov., udtrykte den tidligere tyske, CDU-statssekretær i Forsvarsministeriet, Willy Wimmer, lettelse over, at Hillary Clintons valgnederlag standsede (i det mindste midlertidigt) fremstødet mod Tredje Verdenskrig. Wimmer sagde, »Jeg blev så lettet som aldrig før, for jeg havde en følelse her til morgen, at denne afgørelse reddede os fra en stor krig.« Han fortsatte, »Jeg er overbevist om, at den nye, amerikanske præsident, ulig hans modstander, er rede til et fornuftigt, praktisk muligt og pålideligt samarbejde med andre lande i verden – og det giver mig håb.«

Han var stærkt kritisk over for de tyske regeringsledere. »Jeg mener, at præsidenten for Forbundsrepublikken, dens kansler og frem for alt dens udenrigsminister ikke har taget det tyske folks interesser i betragtning. Ved [at komme med] ensidig støtte til én kandidat og partiske, krænkende kommentarer om den anden, har de skadet det tyske folk meget. Dette er en uacceptabel indblanding i et andet lands interne anliggender, og, efter valgkampens afslutning, kan det give bagslag over for deres eget folk«, påpegede han. Han angreb præsident Joachim Gauck for det, han kaldte »utålelig« retorik. »Jeg mener, det ville være en god ting, hvis han snart trådte tilbage.«

»Siden tiden med Anden Verdenskrig ved vi, hvem de såkaldte ’quislinger’ er – det er dem, der altid følger en leder, selv, når han ikke er fra deres eget land. Det er åbenlyst, at disse folk er udbredt i Tyskland – i den politiske sfære, i medierne og andetsteds.«

Wimmer sagde også, at NATO er blevet en trussel mod verden, siden det gik fra at være en forsvarsalliance til at blive »angrebsmaskinen«. »Hvis den nye amerikanske præsident indser dette, ville jeg føle mig bedre tilpas, end jeg gør i dag, når jeg tænker på NATO.«

Sahra Wagenknecht, leder af partiet Die Linke, kom med en lignende kommentar og sagde: »De politikere, der nu står med triste ansigter, og som er i chok over, hvad der er sket [i USA], forstår ikke rigtig noget. Den amerikanske offentlighed stemte først og fremmest på forandring snarere, end de specifikt stemte på Donald Trump.« Ikke så optimistisk som Wimmer advarede hun om, at det står hen i det uvisse, om han vil eller kan ændre politikken. 

11. nov., 2016 – Efter at være blevet informeret om resultaterne af præsidentvalget i USA, kom Jacques Cheminade, fransk præsidentkandidat for 2017, med en kort erklæring over video, den 9. nov. Det følgende er et udskrift af hans bemærkninger.

»Resultatet af det amerikanske valg er en underdønning. Det markerer afvisningen af Washingtons og Wall Streets politik og deres inkompetence og deres konstante sociale uretfærdighed.

Derfor valgte vælgerne Trump, af mangel på en bedre kandidat. De tror ikke på, at han har lederskabsevnerne og karakteren til at lede USA, men de fik intet andet valg til at udtrykke deres afvisning. Hillary Clinton ødelagde sig selv ved at fremstå som kandidat for Wall Street og de korrupte kredse i Washington, og som krigsfortaler, støttet af de neokonservative.

I denne situation vil vore amerikanske venner sige til den valgte præsident: ’Både det Republikanske og det Demokratiske parti besluttede at gennemføre Glass-Steagall (dvs., den bankopdeling, som François Hollande ikke gennemførte i Frankrig). Du (Trump) sagde, du ville gøre det. Vi udfordrer dig nu til at holde dit løfte.’ Det er, hvad de har at sige til den valgte præsident. Og dernæst vil de trække på den dybtliggende utilfredshed i det amerikanske folk og kræve en ny politik, en politik, der er i overensstemmelse med De forenede Staters grundlæggende fædre og med en dialog mellem nationer og folkeslag.

I Frankrig mener jeg, at jeg kan blive katalysatoren for denne utilfredshed, hvis I støtter mig. Vi må ikke søge en Donald Trump eller en Marine Le Pen i Frankrig for at udtrykke denne utilfredshed. Vi må have en National Samling, men den må inkorporere ånden fra det Nationale Modstandsråd, ånden af Gaullisme (hos de Frie Franske), af social kristendom, ånden fra Jaurès’ socialisme, som nutidens socialister ikke længere repræsenterer.

Jeg vil kæmpe for, at dette skal ske i Frankrig på et tidspunkt, hvor den internationale situation tilbyder os en ekstraordinær mulighed for endelig at være os selv, for at genopdage vore minder og repræsentere fremtidens parti, ikke et parti, der siger: tingene var bedre i går, men som siger: det skal blive bedre i morgen.«    

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. november, 2016: Lyndon LaRouche udtalte følgende under diskussioner med sine medarbejdere den 10. november:

»Hele det økonomiske system er ikke klar til at fungere. Vi må få dette system til at fungere, ikke blot et par ting her og der. Vi må skabe en særlig form for organisation, der fremmer evnen til at få flere dele af verden i hænderne på den anden del af verden. Ellers vil det ikke fungere. Man må samle tingene. Hvis man ikke har en forbindelse, har man ikke en kontrakt … Det, vi vil få at se mht. dette spørgsmål, er en mere kompliceret ting. Det, vi vil få at se, er en forståelse af en ny opfattelse af, hvad internationale relationer er. Det er, hvad der vil ske, og det er sådan, det vil fungere. I modsat fald vil det ikke fungere af indlysende grunde, for dem, der kender detaljerne mht. de tyske osv. økonomier.

Et af problemerne er, at det på nuværende tidspunkt ikke er noget kvalificeret indhold mht. at udvikle relationerne mellem disse nationer. Vi må have et faktisk indhold, der må være funktionelt. Det er en af de ting, vi må arbejde på, men det er ikke på plads i øjeblikket.

Problemet er, at vi ikke har et defineret, internationalt system, der kan sikre fred. Det findes ikke endnu, og vi må skabe det … Det vil kræve en masse arbejde af folk, for at skabe det, for det er ikke kun af navn, at det skal gøres; problemet er at forstå, hvordan det kan fungere. Dette kan gøres. Det kan gøres med samarbejde mellem nogle dele af verden som helhed. Det generelle billede bliver ikke let, men der er nogle forbindelser, der kan skabes til en begyndelse. Men der skal gøres meget for at det skal lykkes.

Jeg ville ikke sætte min lid til Trump. Han vil gøre, hvad han vil gøre, men sæt ikke jeres lid til ham. Man må sætte sin lid til skabelsen af et nyt system, ikke Trumps system, men et nyt system, et globalt system, der lever op til kravene til udviklingen af et ægte, internationalt system. Og man må mobilisere folk på denne basis. Man kan ikke bare sige, ’Vi vil forsøge at få dette til at fungere.’ Det vil ikke fungere. Det vil ikke fungere. Men vi kan gå i gang. Jeg ville sige Tyskland – Tyskland har et potentiale; hvis det ønsker det, kunne det sandsynligvis yde et godt bidrag … Det, Putin gør, er fremragende, og det er vel integreret; Kina er ved at blive meget velintegreret på mange områder. Der er udvikling i dele af Asien. Alle disse ting er på plads, men vi må have mekanismen, der får det hele til at komme sammen på en synkretisk måde.

Rumforskning er den måde, folk må operere på, fordi rumforskning inkorporerer de afgørende elementer, der mangler i andre kilder.

Man må nå ind i den nuværende befolknings tanker, internationalt og nationalt; man må nå ind til tankerne hos den person, der slet ikke har nogen opfattelse af, hvad disse tanker kræver. Man kan gøre ting, der fremmer udvikling, men det er hovedsageligt lokal og regional udvikling. Vi må have mekanismer for international handel, og aftaler om dette, og dette er presserende, lige nu!

Stumper og stykker vil ikke gøre det. Forsøg ikke med stumper og stykker. Man må faktisk komme ind under huden på tankerne hos folk i de forskellige nationer. Jeg har stor erfaring med dette. Det kommer ikke frem pga. mennesker, der ikke rigtig forstår, hvad det her handler om, men når man ser på historiens forløb, ville man sige, at jeg har en meget skarp indsigt i menneskeheden. Men ikke alle mennesker i denne menneskehed deltager i det. Det er problemet.«

København, 11. nov. 2016: (Det følgende er en rapport om DR2 Deadlines udsendelse den 10. nov., som det danske Schiller Institut har sendt til LaRouche-bevægelsens nyhedsredaktion i USA. Udsendelsen kan ses her: https://www.dr.dk/tv/se/deadline/deadline-8/deadline-2016-11-10)

DR2 Deadline havde en diskussion i går aftes med to førende akademikere om »Hvad betyder Donald Trump for dansk udenrigspolitiske strategi fremadrettet?«, med Vibeke Skov Tjalve, seniorforsker ved Dansk Institut for Internationale Studier (DIIS), og Mikkel Vedby Rasmussen, professor og institutleder ved Institut for Statsvidenskab ved Københavns Universitet. Det følgende er en sammendrag af deres synspunkter, der var meget ens:

Den forudgående basis for den dansk-amerikanske alliance har været en politik baseret på fælles værdier, og det vil ikke være basis for Trumps udenrigspolitik, så vi må være forberedt på en totalt ny situation – et brud med hele den liberale orden, der blev etableret efter Anden Verdenskrig. Trump vil, ligesom Putin, ikke basere udenrigspolitikken på fælles humanitære værdier, som opbygning af demokrati. Dette har været grundlaget for et forenet »Vesten«, og en retfærdiggørelse af militære interventioner.

Globalisering døde den 8. november, så vel som også verdensordenen siden Berlinmurens fald, og der er nu anbragt en bombe under den verdensorden, som USA opbyggede efter Anden Verdenskrig. Det meget nære bånd, Danmark har til USA, vil ikke være vigtigt for en Trump-administration. Og briterne har forladt EU, så vores politik med at være på linje med USA og briterne er ikke længere gyldig.

NATO’s afskrækkelsespolitik er også død. Trump har sagt, at han ikke vil forsvare europæiske lande, der ikke betaler for sig selv, og han vil ikke forsvare de baltiske lande. Væk med NATO’s musketer-ed (Én for alle, og alle for én). Trump tror på alliancer, ikke fælles transatlantiske værdier, men vi ved ikke, hvordan det vil udspille sig.

Trump ser ikke Rusland som en fjende. Derfor har Danmark ikke andet valg end at ændre sin politik over for Rusland og ikke længere udtrykke stærk fordømmelse af russiske handlinger. Alt imens der for blot få uger siden fandt en debat sted i det danske Folketing om, hvorvidt man overhovedet kunne tale om at støtte Putin, og om legitimiteten af russiske interesser i regionen, så er dette synspunkt nu ved at vinde indpas i det Hvide Hus.

Hvordan vil den dansk-russiske relation komme til at se ud? Putin har haft en strategi med at destabilisere den europæiske verdensorden, der nu kollapser med Trump og Brexit. I bestræbelser på at holde USA aktiv i NATO, vil vi da overdrive den russiske trussel og bringe os selv ind i en farlig, uansvarlig position, under en mulig optrapning af spændinger? Tjalve advarede stærkt imod dette.

Da de blev bedt om at sætte en etiket på Trumps form for udenrigspolitik, kaldte de ham en Jacksonian, med ’USA er det vigtigste’, men Tjalve sagde, at han går endnu videre, for det ville betyde at føle et kulturelt bånd til Europa og den anglo-amerikanske, særlige relation, hvad han ikke føler. Han er mere en darwinist og værdineutral.

Denne diskussion fulgte efter et interview med den danske udenrigsminister Kristian Jensen, der under valgkampen havde været meget kritisk over for Trump.   

Wiesbaden, 11. nov., 2016 – Tysklands general Kujat (pensioneret) udtalte sig, i et interview på MDR radio i dag, forsigtigt mht., hvad valgte præsident Donald Trump rent faktisk kunne gøre, men var meget udtrykkelig omkring det faktum, at noget som helst af positiv karakter ville kræve, at de to atomsupermagter finder presserende områder af fælles interesse. General Kujat, der var formand for NATO’s militærkomite (2002-05), sagde, at, hvis Trumps valgkampagne-udtalelser om Putin og Rusland rent faktisk får betydning, »så bør vi byde det velkommen«.

Forespurgt, om han var enig i de bekymringer, andre har luftet omkring en tilnærmelse mellem Trump og Putin, sagde han: »Nej, det kan jeg ikke følge. Vi må simpelt hen indse, at vi taler om lederne af de eneste, tilbageværende supermagter, og at vores sikkerhed og fremtid er afhængig af, at disse to magter ikke kommer i en militær konfrontation med hinanden, og derfor bør vi, i vores vurdering af disse to supermagtsledere, have en verbal nedrustning.« Han henviste her klart til dæmoniseringen af Putin, men også til de dumdristige vurderinger fra den europæiske elite og de europæiske medier, som er fikseret på Trumps personlighed, og som overser stemningen hos den amerikanske befolkning. Han kritiserede den kendsgerning, at, da den tyske regering og Frankrig var med til at bringe volden i Ukraine ned til et minimum, trådte USA til side og leverede i stedet militærstøtte og anden finansiel støtte, som »ikke gav meget løfte om succes«. At bringe Trump til forhandlingsbordet med Putin øger chancerne for en forsoning mellem interesserne, bekræftede han.

I Syrien, sagde han, bør Trump gå tilbage til Lavrov-Kerry-aftalen. Hvis USA begynder at udskille terroristerne, så kan USA og Rusland samarbejde.

Forespurgt, om chancerne for fred var bedre nu med Trump, end hvis Clinton havde vundet, var general Kujat klar: Under Clinton ville vi have fået en fortsættelse af de forudgående politikker, inkl. interventioner i andre stater, ligesom med Libyen. Selv om han nævnte Obamas angivelige forsigtighed mht. militære løsninger, forventer han af Trump, at denne »ikke har den fejlopfattelse, at Amerika må være verdens politibetjent og atter må intervenere i alle verdens brændpunkter.«

General Kujat sluttede med en nyttig anbefaling om at benytte den 6-9 mdr. lange overgangsperiode til at skifte over fra »valgkampagne-modus og til en Verbündeten Modus«, som lyttere med lethed kunne opfatte som samarbejde mellem fornuftige allierede (Verbündeten), såsom de bedre styrker fra Tyskland.

Foto: Tidligere formand for NATO’s militærkomite; tidligere generalstabschef for Bundeswehr, general Harald Kujat.

10. nov., 2016 – I London har skræmmekampagnen om valget af Donald Trump, og hvad det måtte betyde for NATO, nået irrationelle højder. Fire pensionerede, højtplacerede flådeofficerer advarer om, at, hvis Trump tager USA ud af NATO og/eller NATO-medlemmer ikke øger deres forsvarsbudget, vil Rusland invadere Østeuropa. Sir Michael Graydon, tidligere chef for Royal Air Force, sagde: »Hvis USA forlader NATO, ville det være absolut katastrofalt og præcis, hvad Vladimir Putin kunne tænke sig.« I dette tilfælde ville NATO ikke have tilstrækkelig troværdighed til at forsvare de baltiske stater. Den tidligere hærchef, general Lord Dannatt, advarede: »Vi har hørt Donald Trump true med alt muligt, og vi bør tage denne trussel alvorligt … Hvis USA vender NATO ryggen, ophører NATO med at eksistere, nærmest pr. definition, og så ville vi blive nødt til at opfinde noget andet. I sammenhæng med Brexit er det latterligt.« General Richard Shirref, tidligere NATO-vicekommandør, lod sig ikke vælte af pinden. »Vi må håbe, at den retorik, vi hørte under kampagnen, hurtigt vil blive erstattet af en meget nøgtern og seriøs udtalelse om, at, hvis der er tale om, at et NATO-medlem angribes, så vil Trump uden tøven eller tvetydighed komme til landets forsvar«, sagde han. »Alt andet ville være virkeligt dårlige nyheder for NATO.«    

10. nov., 2016 – Præsidentvalget den 8. nov. var en afvisning af præsident Obamas krigspolitik, men Obamas krigspolitik er stadig aktiv. Flere end 600 skibscontainere med militær ammunition ankom i denne uge til havnen Nordenham, Tyskland, som en del af »den fortsatte indsats for at skabe tryghed hos NATO-allierede i Europa og styrke afskrækkelsen af potentiel, russisk aggression«, rapporterer Military.com. »Det her handler om afskrækkelse«, sagde den amerikanske hærs øverstbefalende i Europa, generalløjtnant Ben Hodges. »Vi har måske 1.000 tanks her, men, hvis vi ikke har ammunition til dem, ville de ikke have nogen afskrækkende effekt. Det er endnu et eksempel på USA’s forpligtelser over for sikkerhed og stabilitet i Europa.« Ladningen ankommer forud for deployeringen i januar måned af den 3. Panserbrigades Kampteam og af den 4. Infanteridivision med base i Fort Carson, Colorado, som en del af Obamas krigsoprustning imod Rusland.

Foto: En container med ammunition losses fra det amerikanske flådeskib Lance Cpl. Roy M. Wheat den 29. okt., 2016, i Nordenham, Tyskland. (Photo: U.S. Army) 

9. nov., 2016 – NATO’s generalsekretær Jens Stoltenberg lykønskede Donald Trump med præsidentvalgsejren, men, under en pressekonference i dag tilføjede han, som svar på et spørgsmål, strengt, at, uanset, hvad Trump måtte mene, så kan han ikke trække sig tilbage fra USA’s forpligtelse over for NATO.

»NATO’s sikkerhedsgaranti er en traktatmæssig forpligtelse«, sagde Stoltenberg. »Alle allierede har aflagt højtideligt løfte om at forsvare hinanden. Dette er absolut ubetinget.«

Stoltenberg talte ved et møde for europæiske diplomater på USA’s ambassade i Bruxelles.

Wall Street Journal skriver, i sin dækning af Stoltenbergs bemærkninger, bekymret, at, hvis Trump, der har været en kritiker af NATO, virkelig ændrer kursen i politikken over for Rusland, som udtalelser, Trump har fremsat under kampagnen, indikerer, at han kunne gøre,

»kan NATO blive tvunget til at gentænke sin plan om at deployere 4.000 tropper, inkl. amerikanske soldater, til de baltiske stater og Polen til næste år. Hr. Trump kunne også genoverveje Obama-administrationens planer om at sende en brigade med tungt infanteri til Østeuropa i begyndelsen af næste år«.

Det har man da lov at håbe.        

Det andet punkt, som står meget klart, er, at LaRouche Political Action Committee (LPAC) har sat dagsordenen; … Glass-Steagall; den omgående nødvendighed af at nedlukke Wall Street; og det faktum, at det amerikanske folk ikke var villigt til at acceptere Obama-Clinton-dagsordenen om at bringe USA ind i Tredje Verdenskrig med en konfrontation med Rusland. Men vi må fortsætte med at sætte dagsordenen. Der er intet alternativ, ingen erstatning for en fortsat mobilisering og en fortsat klarhed i lederskab, som kommer fra LaRouche Politiske Aktions-komite og vore allierede.

specialudsendelsen efter valget, som vi udlagde på denne webside onsdag; med direkte udtalelser fra både Lyndon og Helga LaRouche. Vi har haft mulighed for at tale med hr. LaRouche flere gange siden, inkl. for blot en time siden; og hr. LaRouche fastslår fortsat den pointe, at dette er en højst uafgjort situation; meget udefineret. Vi har endnu ikke fået de fulde fakta om, hvad implikationerne af den tiltrædende administration vil blive, men to punkter står klart. Og jeg tror, at folk meget klart har set, at dette har været en total afvisning af hele Obama-Clinton-Wall Street-apparatet, der havde overtaget det Demokratiske Parti; men også, på samme tid, det Republikanske Partis Bush-Cheney-apparat. Begge partier er nu ophørt med at eksistere i deres tidligere form, og vi befinder os i en situation internt i USA, der ikke har fortilfælde.

»Trumps sejr betyder kun en udsættelse af krigsfaren – med mindre der vedtages en langt mere fundamental forandring«.Den indledes med følgende erklæring:

»The United States joins the New Silk Road« (Se også dansk introduktion ved samme navn). Heri fremlægges det meget klart, hvordan USA kan tilslutte sig dette nye paradigme.

Fire Nye Økonomiske Love, med implikationerne af Alexander Hamiltons økonomiske rapporter, der oprindeligt definerede og skabte USA, og med anerkendelse af, hvad klokken er slået; og med skiftet til en totalt ny, international, økonomisk og strategisk orden, er det vores ansvar at mobilisere USA og bringe det ind i denne nye orden.

WE MUST SET THE AGENDA!
THE UNITED STATES MUST JOIN THE NEW SILK ROAD.

International Webcast, Nov. 11, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening, it's November 11, 2016.  Happy
Veterans' Day!  My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to
welcome you to our regular weekly Friday evening broadcast here
from larouchepac.com.  I'm joined in the studio today by Ben
Deniston, my colleague, as well as Kesha Rogers, member of the
LaRouche PAC Policy Committee and former candidate for Federal
office — United States Congress and US Senate — joining us from
Houston, Texas; and Michael Steger, joining us from San
Francisco, California, also a leading member of the LaRouche PAC
Policy Committee.
        I hope everybody had a chance to see the post-election
broadcast special that we posted on this website on Wednesday;
which included some direct video statements from both Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche.  We've had a chance to speak with Mr. LaRouche
several times since then, including just about an hour ago; and
Mr. LaRouche continues to make the point that this is a highly
inconclusive situation; very undefined.  We have yet to get the
full facts on what the implications of the incoming
administration will be, but two points are very clear.  And I
think as people have observed very clearly, this has been a total
repudiation of the entire Obama-Clinton-Wall Street apparatus
that had taken over the Democratic Party; but also, at the same
time, the Bush-Cheney Republican Party apparatus.  Both parties
have now ceased to exist in their previous form, and we are in an
unprecedented situation inside the United States.  The other
point which is very clear is that the LaRouche Political Action
Committee has set the agenda; and this point should have been
clear for years leading into this, including from Kesha Rogers'
successful, highly impactful campaigns for Federal office.  But
we've put on the agenda: Glass-Steagall; the immediate necessity
to shut down Wall Street; and the fact that the American people
were not willing to accept the Obama-Clinton agenda to bring the
United States into World War III with a confrontation with
Russia.  But we must continue to do so, and we must continue to
set this agenda.  There can be no alternative, no replacement for
a continued mobilization and a continued clarity of leadership
coming from the LaRouche Political Action Committee and our
allies.
        Now, I would like to read a short portion of the lead item
which was posted on the LaRouche PAC website today, because I
think it very clearly defines what Mr. LaRouche's current
analysis of this situation is.  And then we can open up the
discussion from there.  But the title is, "Trump Victory Is Only
a Reprieve from War Danger Unless a Much More Fundamental Change
Can Be Enacted".  It begins by stating the following:
        "The election of Donald Trump and the defeat of both Hillary
Clinton and Barack Obama has provided a short reprieve in a drive
for World War III against Russia, so long as Obama is prevented
from taking some kind of insane action in his remaining lame duck
weeks in office. The fact that an immediate danger of nuclear war
is off the table for the time being is important; but it does not
address the other grave crises that the world is facing.
        "The trans-Atlantic financial system is still on the edge of
total disintegration, and unless that problem is immediately
addressed, the conditions will soon re-emerge for global war. To
solve that imminent crisis, the US Congress must immediately pass
the pending legislation in both Houses, to reinstate the original
Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, breaking up the too-big-to-fail banks
into totally separated commercial and investment banks. This must
be the first order of business when Congress returns to
Washington early next week."
        This continues by saying:  "Well beyond that urgently
required action, other measures must be taken to forge a new kind
of relations among the leading nations of the planet."  This is
something we will elaborate much more during the course of this
broadcast, but this statement goes on to cite some statements
that were made by Sergei Glazyev, a leading advisor of President
Putin; Chas Freeman, a top and very distinguished diplomat in the
United States diplomatic community; and otherwise, that make the
very clear and correct point that now is the time to realize that
the world is moving into an entirely new paradigm.  And beyond
just a détente between the United States and Russia, which is a
potentially very positive development, the United States must
also reciprocate the offers from China to enter into this New
Silk Road, New Paradigm program; entering into the AIIB, joining
the New Silk Road in a very concrete and definitive way.
        Now, what can be very clearly defined, is that Mr. LaRouche
is the leading statesman on the scene right now in the United
States.  The Four New Laws that we have been repeatedly
emphasizing over the course of the recent several months leading
into this election, continue to be the number one agenda item.
Of course, that begins with Glass-Steagall, but the entirety of
the program is a Hamiltonian renaissance for the United States.
        Now, during a discussion we had earlier today, Helga
Zepp-LaRouche emphasized this supplementary pamphlet which was
issued by the LaRouche Political Action Committee almost a year
ago — "The United States Must Join the New Silk Road; a
Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance".  And this very
concretely lays out how the United States can join this New
Paradigm.
        Now, I'd like to just begin with a few excerpts from these
statements that were made by Sergei Glazyev and Chas Freeman,
which I think clearly get to this point; but I think a lot more
can be said.  This is an interview with Sergei Glazyev from {Itar
Tass} in the aftermath of the Presidential elections:  "According
to Glazyev," this article says, "the result of the US elections
show that 'The American people don't want war. For the first time
in the world's history, there is a chance to a new global
economic order without waging a world war.'|"
        And then Chas Freeman, in a speech called "One Belt, One
Road" which was delivered in Hawaii a few days before the
election, end with the point that "The United States must now
realize that the new paradigm defined by the AIIB and the New
Silk Road, and all of the other initiatives that have been taken
by China, is the new game in town."  And Chas Freeman's point is
that Americans are not in the game.  Now's the time for us to
enter into this and to realize that it's in our interest to join
the One Belt, One Road initiative.  Chas Freeman says, "China's
growing influence is very good reason to seek a seat alongside
it, both in the new and old councils of the emerging multi-polar
world, rather than continuing to futilely try to exclude it. The
United States needs to be constructive and helpful, not negative
and critical — still less obstructive — as all this unfolds.
Americans have a big stake in how Eurasia integrates, and in what
its relationships with other continents and regions become.  Time
to get in the game," he concludes; "time to participate in
crafting the post-Pax Americana order.  Time to leverage China's
initiative to American advantage."
        And I could go on, but I want to just make the point that
now is the time to recognize the full responsibility of the
intellectual leadership that LaRouche PAC has defined and
continues to deliver.  And taking the Four New Economic Laws,
taking the implications of Alexander Hamilton's economic reports,
which defined and created the United States in the first place,
and recognizing what time it is; with the shift to an entirely
new international economic and strategic order, it's our
responsibility to mobilize and bring the United States into that
new order.
        So, I'll just leave it at that; and I think we can explore
some of the implications of this in discussion with Kesha and
Michael.

KESHA ROGERS:  OK, I will start in response by saying that what
has to be recognized is that the fight has never been a matter of
party politics, one party over the other; because as President
George Washington said, "Party politics is the bane of our
nation's existence."  What we saw during my campaigns for US
Congress, was very instrumental in that; because the people I was
able to pull together were people from all different types of
backgrounds.  It was a question not of just what party you
belonged to, or what your race was, or any of that; but this
question of what do we want to see for our nation and for the
future of our nation?  Reviving the vision and the ideas of
President John F Kennedy, President Franklin Roosevelt; people of
all different types of backgrounds — as has been stated — came
together around Glass-Steagall to defy Wall Street, and they
continue to do so.  The Republican Party, the Democratic Party,
and so forth.  So, I think it's important to note that what we
have identified is a question of the direction that mankind has
to take; that the people of this nation have come together on a
few accounts that have been completely against what the
establishment had thought would happen.  During my campaigns, the
victories around the two nominations despite the fact that the
party establishment did everything in their power to create a
divide against the truth that myself, Mr. LaRouche, and our slate
were saying; that Obama represented a threat to this nation.  The
cancelling of the NASA Constellation program, the continued
policies for backing Wall Street against the interests of the
population.  The second time that we saw the population come
together in a real way — as has been said on a number of
occasions here — is the JASTA vote.  The JASTA vote was not a —
Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act — was not a Republican
or a Democratic issue; so I think we are now eliminating the
party system.  This has been a big part of what I have been
advocating, what Mr. LaRouche has been advocating is that we have
to have a new conception of mankind brought forward.  I think
it's been very clearly stated in the discussions that we've had
with him, that are really continuing and hopefully we can get
that developed in this discussion today.  The idea that this is
not just a US issue; now we're talking about how do we improve
and develop new conceptions of international relations.  New
conceptions of relations among human beings.
        Just a couple of things I want to start off with to develop
that.  First of all, just in the discussion we had with Mr.
LaRouche yesterday, in response to the election and where we must
go from here, he said we will get a unity among human beings as
human beings.  The US and Russia can work together as human
beings; and we are looking at mankind in a universal way.  We are
going to learn how to apply our minds.  People have to see the
meaning of their existence in a way that most people have not.
If we're really going to conceptualize that idea, I think what
we're going to discuss here today is:  1. The concrete policies
that are needed to bring together the type of collaboration as
we're seeing develop from the development of the BRICS nations —
Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — and their
cooperation.  The development of the AIIB, and the offer of
cooperation through the Silk Road, by President Xi Jinping to the
United States.  People probably remember that Obama rejected it.
Now, the mission is, we have to reverse the rejection.  We have
to work with Russia; we have to take up China's offer.  But we
have to take it up in a bigger way than just around treaty
agreements or working together on international cooperation of
projects.  Those things will be essential, but the essential is
going to be the development of a new, unified, international
mission of a new direction for mankind in space collaboration.  I
want to develop that a little bit more, but I will stop right
there, because I think we need to pull a few more things together
to come back to that point.

        MICHAEL STEGER:  The underlying ability for the LaRouche
organization and LaRouche PAC to operate as a leading force on
the planet has been something that eludes most people.  It's not
something that's in the predicates of the policies we've been
fighting for directly; there's something philosophically more
profound.  It does stand out, the fact that this election, where
vote came from, what people voted for — whether it be in the
Democratic primary, where we saw Glass-Steagall both by Martin
O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, and again even by Trump at the end
of the general election campaign; where Glass-Steagall came up
again. {We} were the leading factor and force of a political
fight, won in the opposition of Bush and Cheney and the clear
tyranny that they represented, but even more distinctly, because
of the nature of Obama in this last years–which is important
just to take a few seconds, not long, but just to recognize: the
Republican Party for the last eight years worked with Obama.
There was no real opposition to it. That's why the Republican
Party is really in as much of a shambles as the Democratic Party
is.
        The Party system, as Kesha said, is gone, because there was
no legitimate opposition to Obama, except for what we did. And it
started on the Obamacare question. We led the fight entirely. We
defined it as a Nazi program, while the Republican Party was
likely going to adopt it and support it, the same way Mitt Romney
had pushed in Massachusetts. It was generally a kind of Heritage
Foundation, right-wing, healthcare reform. We recognized it to
be, underlying, a fascist program of population reduction, and
we've been relentless with Obama, unrelenting, on the question
that this Presidency was a failure and a very danger to mankind.
        But then you had Lyn's intervention following the invasion
of Libya, and the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, and Lyn's precise
insight that this represented a very accelerated drive for
nuclear war. There was immediate resonance, immediate response
from the leadership in Russia. Like Dmitry Medvedev, [then
President, now Prime Minister]. And we saw an increasing level of
recognition, somewhat slowly, but from key figures, who began to
identify the fact that Lyn was absolutely right. And that again
became a center of the discussion of the U.S. Presidential
election over the last few months.
        So, you have the immediate collapse of the financial system
— which is there, we're on the precipice, this has been in the
financial media now practically for a year, going back to last
December, when the financial markets collapsed then. There's a
very, very imminent breakdown of the trans-Atlantic financial
system. It's an underlying bankruptcy, a deep bankruptcy. Then
you also have the immediate drive for war. Both of those issues
have now been on the table. That's what the American people voted
for. It was a mandate for the LaRouche policy. And for the very
reason that the political establishment in this country
compromised on Lyn, going back to the 1980s, shut down his
efforts for space exploration, for collaboration among nations,
and instead put an FBI attack on him and our organization, they
got this kind of revolt. Had they adopted Lyn's policies then,
you wouldn't see neither the breakdown of our economy and our
society, the threat of nuclear war, or the collapse of a
revolutionary type situation in the United States.
        The only way to really address this problem is to address it
quickly. We are talking about a timeframe where if the new
Administration coming in does not fulfill what the LaRouche PAC
has defined as the "New Presidency," then it will fail, and fail
quickly. There is a quality of crisis in the country, and so
there is a level of urgency that Mr. LaRouche expressed today in
our discussions. We need to get a handle on this. The policy
orientation needs to be very clear. And it needs to be a
comprehensive program. You can't just implement Glass-Steagall,
though that's exactly where you have to start. You've got to go
with the full Hamilton perspective. You've got to look at a full
development of the country. And you can't go with this Wall
Street garbage. It's not going to function.
        A point that Kesha really made an emphasis of, and that Lyn
emphasized on Wednesday following this election, stands out,
because there is clearly — as Matt, you read from the Chas
Freeman quote — at the highest institutional level of
recognition, that this New Silk Road orientation is in depth; it
is not weak; it is not superficial. As someone from the Chinese
Consulate in San Francisco recently said, "This is not on paper.
This is on the ground. This is a real project. This is not the
TPP." The question though, is how is this approached? The
approach of the political establishment may be best indicated by
Henry Kissinger and these types: is to approach it from the
Hobbesian view — an animalistic view of man, where you're
looking for advantages. How do we take advantage of this? How do
we work with this? China is looking to their advantage. How do we
look to our advantage?
        It doesn't mean that one disregards one's own benefit. But
the emphasis that Lyn made, and I think what Kesha was
developing, is that you have to look at the universal nature of
mankind. You have to look at what policies, what approach towards
the relationship among nations is of benefit to mankind as a
whole, or as Helga said on Wednesday in a discussion, what used
to be referenced as the "common aims of mankind." That has to be
then the basis, the philosophical basis for a scientific
foundation, for a new relationship among nations. And that really
then defines how this can be very much a new paradigm or a new
era for mankind. Not only is an immediate action required, but
the potential of action is perhaps greater than it's ever been.

OGDEN: Just to continue to emphasize the point that you, Kesha,
brought up, the first indications, I think very clearly, of what
hit with full force with this election, was what you were able to
generate around your campaigns for federal office.

        BEN DENISTON: Over and over again.

        OGDEN: Three times in a row. Twice the Democratic nominee
for Congress, and then you forced the Senate campaign into a
run-off, in Texas, on precisely this LaRouche PAC program. Every
time that people say, "Oh, we are so surprised, we are so
shocked, none of the polls saw this coming," whether it was in
this general election campaign for President, whether it was in
the Brexit vote — every time somebody tells you that, you say,
"No, that's actually not true."

        DENISTON: Most people probably know, but it's worth
emphasizing: Kesha led with "Impeach Obama." You had a Democrat
leading the Democratic ticket on impeaching Obama, and that was
what shocked. It was national news. It's kind of amazing that the
Democrats are so far behind, so much in this crazy bubble, that
they can't see where the ferment is in the population. Just to
add that in there.

        OGDEN: Absolutely!

        DENISTON: It shocked the country, it shocked the world.
There was international recognition when Kesha won [the
Democratic Party primaries for U.S. House in 2010 and again in
2012; and came in second in a field of five candidates for U.S.
Senate in 2013, but lost in the run-off]. These guys are now
years and years behind the ball on this thing.

        OGDEN: The other element of your campaigns, Kesha, was a
clear vision for the country. This is an element of inspiration
that a population which was, yes, legitimately angry and enraged
against the policies of the last not 8 years, but the last 15, 16
years of both the Obama and Bush administrations, and had been
ground into the dust and left behind, and were literally
suffering from an increase in mortality, and so forth, as we've
spoken about.
        It was not only a rage factor, in terms of that, but it was
also, and it continues to be — and this must be recognized — a
deep desire for purpose, for meaning, for inspiration, and for a
vision of what the future actually can be. And, Michael, as you
were saying, it's a philosophical question: What is the meaning
of mankind? What is this really all about? Why am I struggling,
day in and day out? What's the meaning behind "what it means to
be human?"
        And so, the Number One point of emphasis in your campaigns,
Kesha, and the Number One point of emphasis continues to be, what
is the role that mankind is going to play over the next 100 years
in this solar system and in the universe? It was clear when John
F. Kennedy committed the United States to having a man on the
Moon before the end of the 1960s, that this was the defining
moment in the entire generation at that point. The United States
rose to the challenge because it was a truthful challenge.
        We applied the Hamiltonian principles to make that happen.
You stood up and you said "We're going back to space. China is
doing it." In the years since your campaigns, Kesha, China has
achieved unbelievable feats. There will be a robotic lander on
the far side of the Moon. If we put this on the agenda, and we
say, "We are no longer going to succumb to the backwards agenda.
We're going to join hands, not only on the New Silk Road here on
Earth, but we're going to join hands with China to go back to the
Moon. We're going to go to Mars. We are going in a way which
affirms the true, creative nature of the human species. We're
going into space." That's the other element of this.

        ROGERS: Yeah, that was already defined by Krafft Ehricke. It
was defined by Lyndon LaRouche. It was exemplified, as has
already been stated, in a conception of mankind and the
relationships among human beings, that most people, through the
degenerate culture that we have been immersed in, has yet to
actually, truly experience. It's not just a question of "Well, I
like this policy of going to the Moon," or "Yes, we should do
that," or "Kennedy's idea of going to the Moon was for economic
profits or to put feet on the Moon and then it was going to be
over." We were talking about policy for a 50-year-plus plan, or
should we say, a generational.
        Right now, the problem is that we have lost the conception
of acting for the next generations. Most people say, especially
with space policy, "Well, we'll see what this next President's
going to do, but then after that we have to follow whatever the
next President wants to do, and it's just going to be an
up-and-down cycle. Maybe we'll have a good one who wants a good
policy, and maybe we'll have a bad one." But that's not how the
process works. As I said, this is a question of international
relations, but also, as Krafft Ehricke said, the question of
development of space, and what that represents for understanding
our relationships right here on Earth is a Universal, an
Extraterritorial Imperative.
        I think these conceptions are not just things that are to be
thrown around, but they really have to be conceptualized,
understood, and mastered, just as Lyn's emphasis and very
important call, that the only thing that can save the United
States right now, and for that matter save the entire world
against this economic collapse, is the return to those
Hamiltonian principles — the recognition that we have to restore
an understanding of what Hamilton was developing in his four
reports: "Report on Public Credit;" "Report on a National Bank;"
"Report on the Subject of Manufactures;" and "On the
Constitutionality of the Bank of the United States."
        We've done a number of very thorough presentations on those
points, because that's not just something of the past, or just
"policy issues," but it is the necessary direction that has to be
re-established right now: how are we going to build up our
capabilities on this planet to provide for the needs of every
single human being? We're talking about development around food,
most importantly around fusion resources–LaRouche's Fourth Law.
We have to have a science-driver fusion program. This is the key
aspect of China's policy for their Moon mission, and their space
program — the mining of Helium-3, the development of the far
side of the Moon.
        This is the policy that the United States has gone far away
from. We just have to just put the United States back on course
again, and that the course of action has been clearly stated by
the direction that China's taking with their space program. It's
interesting to note: that was the direction we were going in, or
slated to go in, with the development of the Moon, under not just
President John F. Kennedy, but this was the policy that was being
put forth prior to President Obama cancelling it.

OGDEN: I want to pick up on what you said, Michael. What the
LaRouche Movement — both in the United States, but also
internationally — has clearly been at the forefront of for
decades, is the agenda. The intelligentsia of the planet has
concentrated itself, at key moments of history, around what the
conceptions for the future must be that have been laid forward by
the LaRouche Movement. I just want to bring up one point which
was contained in this report. This is the transcript of an
international conference that took place in June of this year.
Coincidentally, it was literally the day after the Brexit vote
occurred; which had the entire trans-Atlantic expert
establishment on their heels.  Nobody supposedly saw this coming.
But the keynote speaker at this event was Helga Zepp-LaRouche;
one of the other keynote speakers was Ambassador Chas Freeman.
At that point, the point of the One Belt, One Road policy, the
New Silk Road policy was put clearly on the agenda.  The other
major agenda item of this conference was the necessity to work
with Russia to resolve and rebuild the situation inside Syria.
This conference was called in order to discuss the contents of
this massive special report, which was published by {Executive
Intelligence Review}.  This is "The New Silk Road Becomes the
World Land-Bridge"; and with the publication of this, the entire
nitty-gritty aspect of what this New Paradigm really means on the
ground — not on paper, as you said, Michael — was put into
writing.
        At that point, Helga Zepp-LaRouche called for the
publication of a supplementary pamphlet which would concretely
elaborate exactly how the United States would join that New Silk
Road.  And with all of the discussion now in the last few days of
infrastructure and big projects and how to create millions of new
jobs inside the United States, this is clearly the number one
item of relevance.  Now, we're going to play a short excerpt from
a video which was put out by LaRouche PAC about two months ago.
The full video is called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge", but this short excerpt from the concluding portion
of that video elaborates exactly how the United States could work
with China and work with these Eurasian countries to build itself
into this New Silk Road.  So, I'd like to play that excerpt for
you right now.

        "As part of the trans-Atlantic, the United States is also
associated with a high standard of living.  However, the Wall
Street-dominated, post-World War II paradigm has taken its toll
on the US economy and its people.  Scrapping its agro-industrial
sector for financial and services industries, with the promise
that it would make for a more competitive economy, high-earning
skilled work was out-sourced to cheaper markets abroad which
provide a living wage for their workers.  This flawed version of
globalization lowered the productivity of the Americas as a
whole, increased the rate of poverty throughout the hemisphere,
and invited billions of dollars of illicit money flows from the
global drug trade, which to this day represent a significant
portion of the cash on hand in the Western banking sector.
        "However, even after the 2007-2008 crisis, when the
bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial system could no longer
be covered up and needed an emergency bail-out —
        "|'This is not just about Lehman Brothers; these problems
are not limited to Wall Street or even Main Street.  This is a
crisis for the global economy.'
        "– no serious structural reforms have been made to the
Western financial establishment; putting the West and the rest of
the world at risk of an even greater crisis.
        "No wonder that in recent years, China, Russia, and other
emerging economies have begun to create new international
financial institutions, based on a concept of 'win-win' relations
among nations and created to facilitate economic development and
trade for all participants instead of preserving the hegemony of
some.  Instead of the exclusivity of US trade agreements like the
Trans-Pacific Partnership, China has extended an invitation to
the US and the rest of the Americas to join them in establishing
a new era of global economic development.
        "'I state this very clearly to President Obama that China
will be firmly committed to the part of peaceful development; and
China will be firm in deepening reform and opening up the country
….¦'
        "But can the US envision a world where it is no longer the
sole superpower; and instead shares that responsibility with
other nations?
        "'|..¦.and will work hard to push forward the noble cause of
peace and development for all mankind.' [Chinese President Xi
Jinping]
        "The potential for US participation in the New Silk Road
program is immense.  One key project in EIR's New Silk Road
report is finally connecting the Eurasian continent with North
America at the Bering Strait.  A Bering Strait provides the
needed symmetry to make the One Belt, One Road strategy a global
one; and would transform the two continents the same way the
ancient Silk Road opened up Europe to Asia.
        "Imagine boarding a magnetically-levitated train in downtown
Paris or Berlin, travelling 250 miles per hour across the steppes
of Siberia, through a tunnel below the Bering Strait, emerging on
the other side in Alaska on your way to Manhattan.  Layered with
a freight and passenger rail line running north-south from Alaska
to the lower 48 states from Eurasia, is the construction of the
long-awaited North American Water and Power Alliance [NAWAPA]; an
Apollo-era continental water management system that takes
freshwater run-off from Alaska and Canada, and diverts it
southward for use in the arid southwest United States.
        "And while the average American will tell you these projects
are impossible, the average Chinese today is building them.  In
the last decade, China — comparable in size to the United States
— constructed over 11,000 miles of high-speed rail; and seeks to
triple that number by 2020.  Similarly, China's Three Gorges Dam
and South Water North projects are some of the greatest water
infrastructure projects ever undertaken.  In the new 'win-win'
paradigm, big infrastructure investment is the new normal
everywhere."

        That video is available on the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel
and the LaRouche PAC website.  But I'd like to ask Ben to just
follow that up.

BEN DENISTON:  Off of the discussions that Matt referenced with
Lyndon and Helga LaRouche in the last couple of days, we wanted
to redirect people's attention to this supplementary pamphlet.
Obviously the full report is a little bit hefty for your average
American, we did want to produce this shorter, condensed kind of
organizing report to really grip people and give people a sense
of what it means for the United States to join this New Silk Road
program, this New Paradigm.  We want to make sure people know —
we can bring up on the screen share here — that this full report
is also available on our website.  If you go under "our
policies", "US Joins the New Silk Road" it's available right
there; and the entirety of the report is available here.  As
Matthew said, this was published almost one year ago, so maybe
some of the introduction might be a little bit dated to the
context of the time when we put this out; but the substance, the
content, is still very relevant, very crucial, and integrates
together with the more recent focus Mr. LaRouche has put on his
Four Laws program.
        But just to give people a very quick overview of the report,
we can see here in the table of contents, it's broken into a
series of chapters following the introduction.  The first chapter
really provides somewhat of a sketch, but a real presentation of
what can be done in the United States in the context of joining
this New Paradigm.  So, passing Glass-Steagall; engaging in an
international credit/finance system to facilitate growth,
development.  What does that mean?  Well, as was referenced in
the video, one of the mega-projects that's been on the table for
a century now quite frankly, if not longer, is this Bering Strait
connection; literally connecting, via high-speed rail, North
America into this entire World Land-Bridge perspective.  So,
that's been long recognized as a keystone project.  That can come
together with — as was also discussed in the video — high-speed
rail across the United States.  As Mr. LaRouche, in his work on
the Eurasian Land-Bridge and World Land-Bridge, had developed,
these are more than just rail corridors; this mankind developing
the interior regions of continents.  Moving from a coastal
dominated civilization to one that actually master the interior
landmass of regions.  A lot can be said, but this really goes to
the heart of his science of economics, his insight, his metric of
potential relative population density; how mankind can transform
the so-called "carrying capacity" of a piece of land of society
with this kind of development.  So, bringing in high-speed rail
and all the associated infrastructure to make vastly larger
regions of the territory of the United States inhabitable and
developable.  We have huge amounts of unused land waiting to be
developed.
        In the development of this report, Helga LaRouche also
placed a large emphasis on the development of new cities; new
renaissance cities as she called for as part of the whole
development program.  Bringing rail, water, power to these new
regions of the country to develop new, highly-organized cities;
not just urban sprawl, not just endless unorganized development.
But actual cultural city centers organized around a central
region, focussed on an educational, artistic focus of society;
and you center your activity around that.  That's also discussed
in some detail in this report.
        This is obviously going to create major spin-off effects in
terms of job requirements; rebuilding US industry.  All kinds of
connected jobs required to support that kind of activity.  So,
this talk about creating millions of jobs, this can be done very
easily in the context of this New Paradigm system.  One thing we
fought with in producing this report was actually gripping people
with what this means.  It's easy to go through the figures —
this many miles of rail, this many cities, etc. — but the
American people have suffered so long under a lack of this kind
of development, that it's important to really grip people and
give them a sense that these are not just projects; this is your
future.  This is a return to the idea that every generation is
going to be fundamentally better off than the generation before
them.  That you live your life with the recognition that your
children are going to have a fundamentally better life than you
were able to live; and it was because you and your generation
contributed to creating that.
        It's been recognized — LaRouche PAC may have been the first
to point this out — but it's now generally recognized, the
current youth generation does not have that.  You have the first
situation potentially in American history where the younger
generation is worse off than their parents' generation.  If you
want to talk about the death rates, the drug epidemic, all these
things, that's the substance of what's driving that process.  Not
just poverty per se, but poverty in the context of no future;
complete degeneracy of society.
        So, returning to this idea that there is
to your job, to your employment, to your activity, to your
family's activity, to your neighborhood, your city, your town.
There's a purpose in investing and creating a new, higher state
of living for the nation as a whole; and that's what this really
means.  That's driving inspiration in China, in nations working
with China; in this whole One Belt, One Road program.  That's
what we can revive and return to in the United States; that's
what these infrastructure projects really mean.  It's about
mankind participating in the truly immortal nature of mankind's
creative development.
        And what we also address in this report, just to point this
out to people directly, is an added integral element of that is a
real science driver program.  So, we have on the one hand — it's
not separated, but together with the idea of joining the New Silk
Road, rebuilding the United States on a higher level with new
infrastructure, a new standard of living; also engaging in the
science driver programs and technology driver programs that push
to new frontiers.  Fusion power.  With fusion power, you can
completely transform mankind's capabilities; you can blast
mankind up to a higher level of potential existence.  Both in
making power available, but also completely revolutionizing all
kinds of production, industry, technologies; it's a totally new
stage for mankind.
        This goes directly together with space; the development of
the Moon, the development of helium-3 resources on the Moon as a
key fusion fuel.  So, bringing mankind really into a level of a
Solar System species, a Solar System existence; and learning —
we had some discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today —
learning what the Solar System is really all about.  There are
some of the most basic things we still don't understand about how
the Solar System works; even how the Moon works.  Our knowledge
is still extremely limited in terms of what mankind is existing
in here in this Solar System; let alone what the Solar System is
doing in the galaxy, and how to understand these kinds of things.
Recognizing that that is kind of the first of the substance of
these kinds of revolutions of mankind's ability to exist.  If we
discover these higher levels of the principles organizing the
fundamental nature of the universe, we can uniquely utilize that
understanding to transform how we act.
        So, it's this intimate connection that Mr. LaRouche, I
believe, is the first to really define scientifically between
fundamental scientific discovery and the crucial rile of real
scientific method in that context, and what people call economic
progress and economic growth.  That's the integrated central
picture that we have to present and break through on; and we have
presented it in a somewhat short but moving and condensed and
illustrated way in this report.  So, Helga had specifically
requested that we draw people's attention again to this important
piece of organizing ammunition that we have; to move people in
this time of ferment, in this time of potential, to not sit back
and wait for something to happen, but to take action.  Realize
this is the future we can create.  We've just had an opening
created that gives us the potential to act; it's not here yet,
but now we have a potential that we have not had for four terms
of the Presidency.  So, I think this is critical that we get all
this on the table and move immediately with the recognition that
this is the true mission of mankind.

STEGER:  I would just like to say, on the Four Laws, which
captured this policy direction, the subtitle is that this is not
an option, but an immediate necessity.  And I think it's worth
making it clear that these are not policy options from the
standpoint of government.  These Four Laws and this orientation
that Ben just laid out, is actually a necessary and integral
functioning of any competent form of government.  Hamilton
uniquely understood that at his time; there was resistance from
the slave-based oligarchy at that time which opposed the
recognition that the economic power to unleash mankind's
advancement, to orient mankind towards this level through
manufacturing, through industry, and especially through the
scientific process.  But that was an integral part of what
government required to fulfill its obligation to the well-being
of its population and its posterity.  So, these Four Laws are a
necessity not simply because of the economic crisis; they must be
adopted by government as laws.  Our government today, to secure
for the first time as Glazyev said, for the first time, world war
is no longer a danger; and for the first time the United States
will set the leading example of a form of self-government based
on the highest scientific conception of mankind based on these
Four Laws; and have the economic power and potential to unleash
that unique characteristic of mankind.  These Four Laws are of
that quality of significance.

        OGDEN:  This is the immediate action agenda.  And as Lyndon
and Helga LaRouche said earlier, there's a lot that's undefined;
there's very inconclusive facts available right now.  But the one
thing that is clear, is that we need a full-scale mobilization
from the people who are involved in the activities of LaRouche
PAC, to immediately force the Glass-Steagall agenda.  Congress is
coming back into session at the very beginning of next week —
Monday and Tuesday.  They need to be confronted with an absolute
torrent, a flood of calls and activity from around the country to
say "There is nothing else; this is agenda point one."  And to
pull out all the stops on this entire program.  We've emphasized
we have the ability to pull together the entire country on the
Four Laws action page; this is action.larouchepac.com/fourlaws.
If you haven't signed up there yet, that's available.  There's
also a place where you can submit your reports.  All of the
material that you need is on that website, including the
Alexander Hamilton four reports and Mr. LaRouche's original
document, "LaRouche's Four Laws".  Then as Ben just showed you,
we also have this supplementary page, a digital pamphlet that we
produced; "The United States Joins the New Silk Road".  This is
also available on the LaRouche PAC website.
        So, we are in undefined and uncharted territory right now; I
think people are recognizing that at the point that the United
States, for example in the 1930s, faced similar situations, it
was only because of the immediate leadership that Franklin
Roosevelt provided with the entire program — this was the
initial Glass-Steagall, this was a reorganization of the entire
bankrupt financial system, this was immediately getting people
back to work — that is the agenda.  At that point, it was
undefined what was going to happen; it was because Franklin
Roosevelt provided the kind of leadership that he did, that
prevented what could have been a very dangerous situation from
degenerating into that.  It's our responsibility to place that
onto the agenda now.  Nobody else is going to do that.  We have a
short reprieve, a short window of reprieve from the danger of
World War III.  You have qualified leadership from around the
world tentatively reaching out and saying we are ready for an
entirely new paradigm of relations with the United States.
Russia, China, other countries around the world.  But the United
States that they want, is LaRouche's United States.
        So, thank you very much for joining us.  I'd like to
especially thank Michael and Kesha.  Kesha, thank you; and I'm
sure we will be looking to you for some more in the near future.
And I'd like to thank Ben for joining me here in the studio.
Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  If you haven't subscribed
to our YouTube channel yet, do so immediately.  And subscribe to
our weekly and daily emails as well.  Thank you and good night.