Der er to systemer i verden: Det
Amerikanske System vs. Det Britiske System.
Leder; LPAC Internationale Webcast,
24. marts, 2017

Der er to systemer i verden: Det
Amerikanske System vs. Det Britiske System.
Leder; LPAC Internationale Webcast,
24. marts, 2017
image_pdfimage_print

Jeg tror, vi meget klart kan sige, med en omskrivning af den store statsmand fra det 19. århundrede, Henry C. Carey, at to systemer er stedt for verden. Det ene er det Amerikanske System, og det andet er det Britiske System. Vi befinder os i et fuldt optrappet opgør; et opgør, som Lyndon LaRouche har været engageret i, i mere end 40 år, men som nu har nået et afgørende punkt. Som vi diskuterede i mandags, så har præsident Trump eksplicit torpederet den britisk-amerikanske, ’særlige relation’, med sin afvisning af at tilbagevise den påstand, at GCHQ var involveret i aflytning af medlemmer af Trump-administrationen efter valgene i november. Udenrigsminister Tillerson har netop været på besøg i Kina, hvor han eksplicit sagde, at USA og Kina vil udforske en »win-win«-relation; så vi vil få en win-win-relation med Kina, til erstatning for den særlige relation med Det britiske Imperium. Og, hvad der er meget vigtigt, så har præsident Trump, i løbet af denne uge, gjort sig selv til den første, amerikanske præsident siden præsident McKinley[1], der eksplicit har nævnt det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som den økonomiske model, som han søger at anvende i det nuværende USA. Det sagde han, ikke kun ved én lejlighed, med ved to forskellige lejligheder.

Matthew Ogden: God aften. Det er i dag den 24. marts, 2017. Jeg er Matthew Ogden, og dette er vores udsendelse fredag aften på larouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review; og via video har vi Michael Steger, et ledende medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, fra San Francisco, Californien.

 

 

Jeg tror, vi meget klart kan sige, med en omskrivning af den store statsmand fra det 19. århundrede, Henry C. Carey, at to systemer er stedt for verden. Det ene er det Amerikanske System, og det andet er det Britiske System. Vi befinder os i et fuldt optrappet opgør; et opgør, som Lyndon LaRouche har været engageret i, i mere end 40 år, men som nu har nået et afgørende punkt. Som vi diskuterede i mandags, så har præsident Trump eksplicit torpederet den britisk-amerikanske, ’særlige relation’, med sin afvisning af at tilbagevise den påstand, at GCHQ var involveret i aflytning af medlemmer af Trump-administrationen efter valgene i november. Udenrigsminister Tillerson har netop været på besøg i Kina, hvor han eksplicit sagde, at USA og Kina vil udforske en »win-win«-relation; så vi vil få en win-win-relation med Kina, til erstatning for den særlige relation med Det britiske Imperium. Og, hvad der er meget vigtigt, så har præsident Trump, i løbet af denne uge, gjort sig selv til den første, amerikanske præsident siden præsident McKinley[1], der eksplicit har nævnt det Amerikanske Økonomiske System som den økonomiske model, som han søger at anvende i det nuværende USA. Det sagde han, ikke kun ved én lejlighed, med ved to forskellige lejligheder.

Vi begynder dagens udsendelse med to korte klip af disse to taler, hvor præsident Trump diskuterer det Amerikanske System, ved navns nævnelse. Det første klip er fra begyndelsen af hans tale i Louisville, Kentucky; hvor han citerer Abraham Lincoln, Daniel Boone og Henry Clay, grundlæggeren af det Amerikanske, økonomiske System. Her kommer klippet:

Trump: »Vores første Republikanske præsident, Abraham Lincoln, blev født her i Kentucky. Det er ikke så dårligt. Den legendariske pioner Daniel Boone var med til at kolonisere Kentucky. Og den store, 1800-tals amerikanske statsmand, Henry Clay, repræsenterede Kentucky i USA’s Kongres. Henry Clay var tilhænger af det, han kaldte det Amerikanske System; og han foreslog told for at beskytte amerikansk industri og finansiere amerikansk infrastruktur.«

Ogden: Dernæst deltog præsident Trump i en fundraiser for den Nationale Republikanske Kongres-komite, og brugte størstedelen af sin tale til at diskutere det Amerikanske System endnu en gang, såvel som også den historiske anvendelse af det Amerikanske System; inklusive Abraham Lincoln og andre præsidenter. Vi afspiller to korte klip fra denne tale:

Trump: »Jeg har kaldt denne model, den model, som I har iagttaget, den model, der har skabt så meget værdi, modellen for at bringe jobs tilbage og for at bringe industri tilbage; jeg har kaldt det for den Amerikanske Model. Det er det system, som vore grundlæggere ønskede. Vore største, amerikanske ledere – inkl. George Washington, Hamilton, Jackson, Lincoln – de var alle enige i, at, for at Amerika kunne blive en stærk nation, må det også være en stor, vareproducerende nation; må tjene penge. Den Republikanske partiplatform for 1896 – for mere end hundrede år siden – erklærede, at beskyttelse (protektion) og gensidighed er tvillingemetoder i amerikansk politik, og går hånd i hånd. Vi har situationer, hvor andre lande har nul respekt for vores land – har I for resten lagt mærke til, at de er begyndt at respektere os meget? Rigtig meget. De pålægger os 100 % skat på nogle ting – 100 %; og vi pålægger ikke dem noget som helst. De vil gøre det umuligt gennem regler for vores produkter at blive solgt i deres land; og alligevel sælger de rutinemæssigt deres produkter i vores land. Det vil ikke fortsætte. Ordet gensidighed; de gør det, vi gør det. Hvem kan klage over det? Stor forskel. Vi taler store, store dollars, for resten. Denne platform fortsatte med, ’Vi fornyer og understreger vores troskab over for politikken for protektion som bolværket for amerikanske, industriel uafhængighed og som fundamentet for amerikansk udvikling og velstand.’«

»Vores første Republikanske præsident, Abraham Lincoln, kørte sin første kampagne for offentligt embede i 1832, da han var blot 23 år gammel. Han begyndte med at forestille sig, hvilke fordele en jernbane ville bringe hans del af Illinois, uden nogensinde at have set et damplokomotiv. Han havde ingen idé om det; og dog vidste han, hvad det kunne være. Tredive år senere underskrev han som præsident den lov, der byggede den Transkontinentale Jernbane; som forenede vores land fra hav til hav. Stor præsident; de fleste mennesker ved ikke engang, at han var Republikaner. Er der nogen, der ved det? Mange mennesker ved det ikke; det må vi opbygge lidt mere. Lad os bruge en af disse PACs (Political Action Committee). Disse PACs, man ved aldrig, hvad pokker der kommer fra disse PACs. Man tror, de er venligtsindede. Selvom den bedste annonce, jeg nogensinde har haft, var én imod mig fra Hillary; den var så god, at jeg sagde, ’Jeg håber, hun bliver ved med at køre den annonce’.

»En anden stor, Republikansk præsident, Dwight Eisenhower, havde en vision for en national infrastrukturplan.  Som officer i hæren efter Første Verdenskrig gik han med i et militært land, der trekkede tværs over landet til Stillehavskysten. De rejste langs Lincoln Highway, det hed dengang Lincoln Highway. Rejsen begyndte ved Det Hvide Hus’ sydlige plæne, ved et monument, som i dag kendes som ’Zero-Milepælen’. Ved I, hvor det er? Turen gjorde et stort indtryk på den dengang unge Eisenhower. Mere end tre årtier senere, som præsident, underskrev han en lov, der skabte vores store, inter-delstats-jernbanesystem; som atter forenede os som nation. Tiden er nu kommet til, at en ny Republikansk administration, i samarbejde med en Republikansk Kongres, vedtager den næste store infrastrukturlov.«

Matthew Ogden: Han fortsætter med at sige, at vi må drømme lige så stort og dristigt som Lincoln og Eisenhower. Det var et kort uddrag af en meget længere tale for den Nationale Republikanske Kongres-komite; men vi er her for at indgå i en diskussion med jer, det amerikanske folk, og med administrationen, om de afgørende principper, der er fundamentet for det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. LaRouchePAC har en meget enestående autoritet på dette felt, for det har været Lyndon LaRouche, der, hen over de seneste 35-40 år, har været den førende person, der har været fortaler for en tilbagevenden til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System.

Før vi går videre, vil Paul [Gallagher] forklare lidt nærmere om baggrunden, så folk ved, hvad det Amerikanske System rent faktisk er.

Paul Gallagher: Jeg vil først komme med en iagttagelse, som først blev gjort af Lyndon LaRouche i sin første rapport – han så begge disse fremlæggelser af Trump – og det er, at Trump ikke siger disse ting for en politik fordel. Han taler om specifikke ting i det Amerikanske System, der grundlæggende set er ukendte for hans Republikanske tilhørere i det ene tilfælde, og til hans store publikum i Kentucky i det andet tilfælde. Han siger ikke, »Ophæv Obamacare« eller andre samtaleemner, der skaffer politisk fordel. Men i stedet instruerer, underviser han lytterne; i det ene tilfælde, en stor gruppe af den amerikanske befolkning, og i det andet tilfælde, Republikanske aktivister og fundraisers. Han underviser dem i noget, som de bogstavelig talt intet ved om; så der er ingen politisk fordel her. Han siger disse ting, fordi han virkelig mener det; fordi han mener, at dette er den politik, som USA bør [have]. Dette anti-britiske Amerikanske System, og sådan blev det beskrevet af den store økonom, som var Lincolns økonomiske chefrådgiver, Henry C. Carey. Sådan blev det beskrevet af Carey, som det Amerikanske System; i hele verden – ikke kun i det unge USA, men i hele verden – i opposition til det Britiske System, som indtil da havde domineret og styret verden finansielt og økonomisk. Dette var en ny måde at organisere en nations økonomi for først og fremmest at frembringe hurtigt, teknologisk fremskridt; især inden for vareproduktion og inden for erobring af fremskudte grænser inden for infrastruktur, som jernbaner og kanaler, der strakte sig dybt ind i landets indre; havne, der kunne rumme en flåde og en handelsflåde, der kunne konkurrere, og sluttelig endda overgå, de tilsvarende britiske flåder. Og, hvad der er meget vigtigt, noget, han kaldte for »En interesseharmoni«; noget, der er så fuldstændig fremmed for de politikker, som Trump nu blander sig i. At interesserne hos, på den ene side, de ansatte arbejdere, med hensyn til fundamentalt fremskridt, er identiske med interessen hos deres arbejdsgivere; at der er en »interesse-harmoni« imellem dem. Og for det andet, at der er en interesse-harmoni i det, vi er begyndt at kalde »win-win« mellem nationer, der i fællesskab investerer i nye infrastrukturplatforme, i nye rejser til Månen, i nye rejser til Månens bagside, og i videnskabelige eventyr, der ikke tidligere er foretaget; at disse virkelig udgør et interessefællesskab. En fundamental interesse i disse to nationers befolkningers fremskridt, og at der ikke er nogen geopolitisk modsætning mellem disse nationer i det tilfælde, hvor de følger denne form for udviklingspolitikker.

Det Amerikanske System have altså tre grundpiller i det 19. århundrede, eller ansås at have tre grundpiller; og disse tre grundpiller var, anvendelsen af protektion af nationale industrier, som præsidenten talte om. Protektion og gensidighed inden for handel, for at sikre, at vareproducerende industrier kunne udvikles. For det andet, anvendelsen af national (statslig) kredit i form af en statslig bankpraksis (nationalbank) – som den blev opfundet af Alexander Hamilton – for at drive nationens økonomi frem mod nye fremskudte grænser for varefremstilling, for teknologi, for videnskab, ved at yde det, som lokal og privat kredit ikke kunne yde, gennem statslig bankpraksis. Og for det tredje, anvendelse af denne regeringsmyndighed til rent faktisk at frembringe de mest avancerede forbedringer internt i landet – som vi i dag kalder infrastruktur – og ligeledes frembringe en reel harmoni – en overensstemmelse – mellem interesser, eller en ramme, inden for hvilken der kan være harmoni mellem interesserne hos både de ansattes og deres arbejdsgiveres bestræbelser. Og ligeledes [en harmoni] mellem USA og andre republikker; så Monroe-doktrinen var også en del af det Amerikanske System på det tidspunkt, hvilket betød, at USA ville gøre, hvad der stod i dets magt som en ung nation, for at blokere for de Britiske og Franske Imperiers forsøg på at overtage kontrollen over unge republikker i Sydamerika i særdeleshed; og ved at blokere for dette, ville det muliggøre en gensidig fordel og udvikling mellem de sydamerikanske republikker og Amerikas Forenede Stater.

Disse elementer var fantastisk succesrige. Selvom præsident Trump sagde, ophavsmanden var Henry Clay – meget vigtig med hensyn til lovgivning, og mht. at kæmpe for dette i Kongressen – men ophavsmanden er faktisk Alexander Hamilton. Man kan f.eks. læse denne vidunderlige og store bog af James G. Blaine, der var udenrigsminister. Han var tæt på at blive Republikansk præsidentkandidat i 1880, og han var mangeårigt medlem af Senatet. Hans bog, der handler om det 19. århundredes økonomiske historie i USA, og som han kaldte Twenty Years of Congress, handlede i virkeligheden om 80 år af hele Amerikas økonomiske historie. Når man læser denne bog, ser man, at han i detaljer forklarer, at, når disse principper for det Amerikanske System var lig med den amerikanske regerings og den amerikanske nationaløkonomis principper, så blomstrede økonomien. Og når de ikke var, især i perioden fra midten af 1830’erne og frem til Borgerkrigen, f.eks., hvor Nationalbanken blev frataget sit charter og blev ødelagt af Jackson; når principperne ikke var, så var resultatet finanskaos, panikker, økonomiske sammenbrud, ubegrænset import og mangel på amerikansk eksport. Og sluttelig, som det kunne forudses, opbrydningen af nationen i en borgerkrig; hvor præsident Lincoln måtte genetablere det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, som præsidenten (Trump) nævnte, at han gjorde, i processen med at vinde krigen for Unionen og samle nationen igen.

Anton Chaitkin, der har skrevet historiske artikler for Executive Intelligence Review og LaRouche-bevægelsen, har ligeledes i endnu større detaljer dokumenteret og forklaret, at det Amerikanske System var enormt succesrigt mht. dette lands fremskridt. Og når dets principper blev opgivet, kom vi ind i alvorlige vanskeligheder, både politisk, militært, økonomisk, finansielt – meget alvorlige vanskeligheder. Det er absurd at antage, at disse principper skulle være ophørt at være sande – disse principper for økonomi skulle være ophørt at være sande, på et eller andet tidspunkt i løbet af det 20. århundrede, og dernæst forsvandt. Det er ekstraordinært, at præsident Trump nu siger, at det er principperne – selv om I, de amerikanske borgere, i det store og hele ikke engang ved, hvad de er eller hvad de betyder – dette er de principper, på hvilke vi igen kan gøre dette land stort, som han hele tiden siger.

Det er en ekstraordinært vigtig indgriben, og det bringer omgående frem i forreste linje de seneste 50 års økonom i det Amerikanske Systems tradition; den herskende, og næsten eneste, og ganske bestemt den mest berømte økonom i det Amerikanske Systems tradition i de seneste 50 år, Lyndon LaRouche, der har bearbejdet disse principper til en moderne form (LaRouches Fire Love).

Så kan vi gå i gang.

(Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift):   

        MICHAEL STEGER: Okay, I can follow that up, I guess. I think
what Paul just laid out is very critical to grasping the
potential this Trump administration represents. One of the
biggest problems we have right now in the American population is
the outright treason of this Obama faction, this British faction
in American politics. Much of what we just presented from Trump's
speeches I would recommend people going back to them. There's
also the speech he made over a week ago at Willow Run Airport
near Detroit, where not only does he call for a second industrial
revolution — the first being the one that Abraham Lincoln
launched in the middle of the Civil War, which was consolidated
by the 1876 Centennial Exposition — he also referenced this in
his February 28 Address to a Joint Session Congress. But he also
calls for having faith in the American worker, American
companies, and to have faith in foreign nations who built
factories in our land — really, clearly, opening up the door for
the questions of China, Japan, and other nations to rebuild the
U.S. manufacturing base that's so desperately needed.
        And that's what I think is so important about this political
situation, one the media is not presenting at all. So we have to
make a breakthrough. People have to get a sense of what President
Trump is presenting in this perspective, and to recognize other
moments when the American System was applied both by Hamilton, by
Lincoln, by those following in Lincoln's tradition like Grant and
McKinley, also Franklin Roosevelt. It was interesting in that
speech, Matt, that he presented in Washington, D.C. to the
Republican Committee dinner on March 21, he does make a very
clear reference to FDR. He references a child born in poverty
with dreams in its heart, waiting. He says the waiting is over,
the time for action is now, which is a clear reference to the
kind of urgency that Franklin Roosevelt came into the Presidency
in 1933, to address the economic depression.

        OGDEN:  The other explicit reference that he makes right
after that Franklin Roosevelt reference is John F. Kennedy. He
says "Now is the time for New Frontiers," which was the Kennedy
phrase, and looking forward into space, the exploration of space,
and these are the kinds of dreams that a child born today can
realize in the future — a new era of optimism.

        STEGER: The American people are absolutely ignorant of any
of this at this point. Largely the media, regardless, left, right
Fox News, CNN — it's all right now either outright treason or
just intellectually stupid, incapable of understanding what's
actually taking place; that there is a revival of this political
tradition. It's the one that the modern Democratic Party was
based on from Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, and that Obama
destroyed. It's now being revived by Donald Trump against
outright ideological opposition throughout most of the Republican
Party, as we see with this disastrous health care bill put
forward by Paul Ryan, Wall Street, and the health insurance
companies.
        One, they're just not aware of it. The second part, which is
where this actually comes from. What did Lyndon LaRouche actually
revive? Lyn made a unique discovery. It wasn't just simply a
historical redevelopment or re-finding of this American
tradition, referenced by Lincoln, McKinley, and others. Lyn made
a fundamental advancement to the entire sense of what this
American System was. He was able to situate it in a higher
conception of scientific thought. That's not surprising, because,
as Lincoln and others made these advancements in the United
States, the profound scientific revolutions especially in
Germany, by people like Carl Gauss, Bernard Riemann, the Weber
brothers. There were major advancements, then, later, by
Einstein, that opened up a scientific era of advancement and
development that mankind had never seen before. This was partly
unleashed by Franklin Roosevelt with the Manhattan Project, to
unleash the power of the atom, as Eisenhower captured, and the
Atoms for Peace project.
        In the wake of that, Lyndon LaRouche recognized that these
basic conceptions of scientific advancement had not yet been
applied to economic thought, in the way that they needed to be.
In having recognized a unique discovery of economic science, in
that process, he revived this American System. That unfolded.
There was a process of rediscovery of these principles that Paul
just laid out. What Lyn has done in presenting, just a few years
ago now, the Four Laws, the four new laws, if you look at this
document, it's stunning. The Four Laws, as they're stated in a
positive statement, are clearly rooted in Hamilton, Lincoln,
Franklin Roosevelt, and John Kennedy. They're clearly rooted in
the American System. In an article you wrote recently, Paul, the
first step, obviously, is the Glass-Steagall. Tax reform, health
care? These things are total diversions from addressing the real
economic crisis the country faces: to stop this collapse of
lifespan, to shut down this drug epidemic, to get the American
people working. The Glass-Steagall, and a launch of this kind of
infrastructure development and a national bank, are absolutely
key.
        But then, in the broader sense of the Four Laws, is that
higher question of principle. That's really what's key, because
history does not work by parts. Economy does not work by parts.
It's a question of a domain of principle that is unified uniquely
within the powers of the human mind. That is that great
scientific tradition of Cusa and Kepler, Gauss and Riemann. It's
this conception of actually acting upon history effectively.
Because as the questions of the Glass-Steagall are raised — and
Paul, perhaps you can say more because there is an ongoing
discussion of this — the questions of the National Bank have yet
been raised, and that's absolutely key. We've got to get a way of
increasing the credit towards this development project, because
we are unable to turn to the current banking system. Wall Street
is {incapable}, both philosophically and I think financially, of
really making the investments necessary to get this nation moving
again.
        This higher characteristic of the principle of the discovery
is essential to the change in the historical process. As Mr.
LaRouche has said, President Trump does seem to capture this. The
people around him certainly don't. But it's {obviously} clear
that there is practically {no one} in Congress who understands
this. Otherwise why would they have paid heed for so long to
President Obama's absolute treason to the country and its people?
You see it in Paul Ryan's failed leadership in the House today.
        If we're going to have a revival of this American System
foundations, unlike during the 19th Century,  when these
characteristics of a sense of the unique nature of mankind were
still somewhat understood; Lincoln captured them in his love of
Shakespeare, and the recognition of Shakespeare's strategic
importance. But today there's been a loss of the actual principle
nature of mankind acting in the universe. That's what we have to
ultimately address. The process of the Laws, or the policies, are
not simply things that you will adopt and expect to function. You
must recognize you're establishing these institutions of
Glass-Steagall and the National Bank with a commitment towards
infrastructure and scientific advancement; but they ultimately
have to be governed by a re-awakening of this higher creative
principle.
        I would say, very clearly, this American System is one of
the highest expressions of that renaissance tradition coming out
of Europe to found a new world, to develop a new culture and
society, and to now develop it. It's clearly on that basis — and
Matt, I think you might have more to say on this — that with the
revival of this tradition, both the Lincoln tradition of the
Republican Party, the Franklin Roosevelt and Kennedy tradition in
the Democratic Party, the United States is more that capable of
creating a relationship among Russia, China, and the United
States that not only eliminates the British Empire once and for
all, but does really establish a new human species on this
planet. I think that discussion that Trump has now introduced,
with LaRouche's Four Laws, really makes that more possible and
more feasible than I think any of us had imagined just a few
months ago.

        GALLAGHER: This is a bombshell for members of Congress of
both parties, if they're listening; because if you take
Glass-Steagall, for example, the restoration of which Lyndon
LaRouche has made a {sine qua non} of restoring the American
System of economy now. In earlier times, when the American System
was understood, both as an anti-British, anti-City of London
economic system, or means of organizing the government and the
economy, when it was understood in that way, the direct
connection between restoring Glass-Steagall, establishing a
national credit institution, a Hamiltonian National Bank,
investing in the most advanced infrastructures, such as national
high-speed rail systems, reviving the deep-space human
exploration; the connections among these things would be
relatively self-evident to an American System spokesman, not
necessarily even a great thinker of that system like Henry Carey,
but a spokesman like James G. Blaine in the government and in the
Congress. It would be immediately evident to them now that these
are all part of one policy; that when you talk about
Glass-Steagall, you're talking about returning the part of the
banking system on which the nation is driven in economic
progress, you're returning that part of the banking system to the
definition of banking of Alexander Hamilton, who didn't confront
Glass-Steagall, but he did confront all manner of what today we
would call wild investment banks, hedge funds posing as
government banks, posing as banks speculating in government debt,
and so forth. And Hamilton established the dominance of the model
of what today we call a commercial bank, who's purpose it is to
connect the savings of the nation, by lending, to the hands of
those, as he said, who can make the most productive use of it.
That was the function of a bank; that was the need for
proliferation of banks; and clearly that was the need to have a
national bank whose purpose was to provide the credit which these
individual local banks were incapable of providing; and also the
direction for investment of that credit so that a
transcontinental railroad would emerge where it had previously
seemed impossible on any continent to make such a world-spanning
transportation corridor.  Those things would be directly
connected in their mind; so those who were fighting for
Glass-Steagall in the Congress would simultaneously, naturally be
fighting for the creation of a national Hamiltonian bank to do
what Trump is groping towards — these trillions of dollars of
investment in new infrastructure.  And they would naturally be
fighting for the expansion and revival of the space program as a
deep space human exploration program; and these other things
would come together for them.  Whereas now you find many people
who simply regard Glass-Steagall as something to prevent another
2008 collapse; something which is merely a kind of a prophylactic
that keeps banks from committing crimes of speculation and from
bringing down the economy.  Well fine, it is that; but it is the
doorway to making the American economy work according to the
principle of the American System before.  As President Trump does
have absolutely right, it has been functioning on absolutely
opposite principles to the American System; especially for the
last 40 years, especially in the period  known as complete
globalization after the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Especially
in the period in which real harmony of interests manufacturing
employment in the United States has gone away and left behind it
despair, drug addiction, constricting life expectancies, and
general impoverishment of what was the American System that
worked for us through the period of Roosevelt and Kennedy.
        So, that's where LaRouche has uniquely been able to express
this over the last nearly half a century; that you're really
talking about one impulse for human progress and an impulse that
is international.  It brings together nations, because
fundamentally over whole continents, over the Solar System even,
nations have the same expansion and progress objectives; and
therefore, if they work together on them, they have a harmony of
interests.  This is what now is coming from the Chinese Belt and
Road Initiative, which in turn ultimately came from Lyndon and
Helga LaRouche and their work.

        OGDEN:  I would like to say something on that directly.
This is President Trump at the Kentucky speech; he said "For too
long, our government has abandoned the American System."  I think
that's clearly stated.  We've been engaged in an educational
campaign, a fight in the United States to educate the American
people and to educate the American leadership on what the
American System is.  I pulled this out, we can go to the Four
Laws, which is obviously what we're talking about: Lyndon
LaRouche's Hamiltonian economic program for the present moment.
But I pulled this out; this is a pamphlet from 2012.  We named it
"Platform for a New Presidency; the Full Recovery Program for the
United States"; and I can tell you, because I was involved in
writing this, that we intentionally made this a nonpartisan
document, because this wasn't for the Republican Party or for the
Democratic Party.  This was for the United States; to establish a
completely new economic policy for the running of the United
States.  In this pamphlet, we had an entire case study of the
history of the application of the American System; which went
through Alexander Hamilton's creation of the national bank and
his "Report on Manufactures", which is a very important part of
this.  It went through John Quincy Adams; and then let me read
you one quote here, and tell me if this sounds familiar.  "It was
in the election of 1832, right in the middle of the fight over
the national bank, that Abraham Lincoln got his start in
politics.  Lincoln was 22 years old; and his platform was Henry
Clay's American System, a revival of the Hamiltonian program."
We quoted this perhaps apocryphal quote, but I think it's very
apropos from Abraham Lincoln's campaign speech in 1832: "I
presume you all know who I am.  I am humble Abraham Lincoln.  My
politics are short and sweet, like the old woman's dance.  I am
in favor of a national bank, the internal improvement system, and
a high protective tariff."
        Anyway, we went on to elaborate how this was applied over
the coming 50 years; McKinley, Franklin Roosevelt, even John F
Kennedy's program.  But this is something that has been the
substance of the LaRouche movement's campaign to educate the
American leadership, and to create a new cadre of American
leadership in the United States.  What you said, Paul, about how
just because it's called the American System does not mean it's
somehow exclusively American; this was called the American system
because it was explicitly in counter to the British system, as it
was originally conceived.  We fought the American Revolution
against the British Empire.  The British Empire applied a system
of colonialism and enforced poverty and slavery on the world.  We
fought a revolution against that; Alexander Hamilton created a
new system — this was the American System.  The mission was to
give this system to the world; so over the course of the 19th
Century, countries around the world began to emulate the American
System in order to use those economic principles to gain their
independence from imperialism.  Some of the well-known cases: the
case of Friedrich List, a German economist; the case of Irish
economist Arthur Griffith, who used Friedrich List's ideas in
their fight for independence.  Very important in this case is Sun
Yat Sen; the founding father of modern China emulated Abraham
Lincoln's model of government and of economics.  So now when
we're talking about creating a new win-win cooperation with
China; building the New Silk Road; turning this into a World
Land-Bridge economic platform.  This is the return to the fight
of the last 200 years to spread this American system; the
Hamiltonian system around the world, to free mankind from the
British Empire once and for all.  That's how it has to be
understood.  So, we're not talking about some kind of
nationalistic American-exclusive system; we're talking about
something which nations around the world can apply and share and
use as the basis for a new paradigm of win-win relations among
countries.

        GALLAGHER:  When Hamilton was developing the American System
and was known by Washington to be fighting for a government with
capabilities, a government with strength; not with eternally
broad responsibilities, but with strength to carry out the
responsibilities that it had.  At that time, he was attacked on
the idea that if you were for a strong government, you were for
the employers, you were for the wealthy.  Now, we have the
inverse in contemporary party warfare, where it's assumed that if
you're for a strong government, you're for the poor; and you
think the only thing government really does other than national
defense is to give things to the poor in order to equalize them
with the wealthy.  In other words, oppose the employers.  These
ideas indicate just how striking it is, for President Trump at
this point, to reintroduce this idea with everything involved in
it, including the harmony of interests. And when he speaks to
unions, who tend to support him, and did during the campaign, as
Mike indicated in Detroit to industrial workers; that harmony of
interest is definitely part of what he is conveying to them.  The
same thing is true in terms of trade; but without getting into
that in detail, that seems to be the aspect of the American
System on which President Trump has the most developed ideas, has
the greatest emphasis.  Trade, reciprocity, get American exports.
This is considered complete heresy and not even worth discussing
by London-educated economists and all of their imitators today;
but in fact, it is true that reciprocity — if you start with the
potential idea of tariffs and you negotiate reciprocal
elimination of the tariffs in the context of  countries jointly
investing in their mutual development — that you wind up not
with a system necessarily of high tariffs at all.  But rather,
with a system in which there is mutual investment in the most
important projects of economic progress and  infrastructure
development in both of those countries; as well as manufacturing
development in both of those countries.  It is not absurd; the
alternatives that are thrown out about how you can run as large a
trade deficit as you want, it doesn't matter because the bigger
your trade deficit, the more direct investment you will get into
your country; as if that was some sort of automatic built-in
stabilizer.  These arguments, in fact, have no basis; and the
purpose of a government with strength at this point, as Hamilton
outlined it, is to be able to make those kinds of critical
investments and win-win agreements among countries. And also
investments domestically, which bring the progress back; bring
the manufacturing capabilities back at a higher level.  Bring the
scientific and technological capabilities back into industry and
make it work.
        Even though we're not seeing President Trump equally develop
all aspects of the American System in the way he's presenting and
fighting for it, Lyndon LaRouche has; and has put it in the form
of these Four Laws that have to be taken not only by the United
States, so that there is a real opportunity there to shape this
policy.  That's what we've got to fight for.  We're doing it with
major international conferences — there's another one taking
place in Europe today; in a couple of weeks in New York City, a
very important one with a lot of international speakers on the
subject of making international the New Silk Road global
infrastructure investments that were initiated through China, and
making this into a platform of progress in which the United
States is going to join.  That's how we're pursuing this, but we
have an opening to shape, as you said in the pamphlet, the policy
of the Presidency; and that's the most important thing.  It's not
the policy of the Republican Party or the Democratic Party; but
the policy of the Presidency as Hamilton already identified that
as key to the American System when others wanted America to not
even have a President.  They wanted it to just have a legislature
like poor old Ireland and other republics.

        OGDEN:  I think you can see that people are beginning to get
inspired — even members of Congress.  There was the signing of
the NASA authorization budget at the White House on Monday, I
believe; and it's the first NASA authorization in seven years,
which is unbelievable.  Obviously, there's much more that needs
to be done; but people are inspired.  One of the members of
Congress said, just as Americans remember that President
Eisenhower was the father of the interstate highway system, with
your bill signing today and your vision and leadership, future
generations will remember that President Donald Trump was the
father of the interplanetary highway system.  So, I think that's
an appropriate comment for the 100th anniversary of space
visionary and pioneer Krafft Ehricke's birthday, which we're
celebrating today and we've been celebrating this whole week.
        But this is not a view toward the past.  Right now, it's a
time of action; it's a time of — as President Trump said in that
speech — this is the time when great deeds must be accomplished.
It's a vision; it's a question of where does mankind go next?
What are the frontiers of discovery?  What are the frontiers of
exploration?  Absolutely, not only the development of a modern
economic platform for the planet, a transportation and energy
platform like we're talking about with the expansion of the New
Silk Road into the World Land-Bridge; that must be done.  But the
expansion of mankind into becoming an interplanetary species and
the abiding principles which Alexander Hamilton developed with
the founding of this country, were not simply principles merely
for the 18th Century; they were not principles merely for the
19th Century.
        The nature of principles is that they exist and they are
eternal.  And principles of economics — as Lyndon LaRouche has
developed them in his modern application of this American System,
as you were saying, Michael — require that mankind continue to
progress and to push the envelopes of knowledge and to push the
envelopes of progress.  Where does that take us today?  It takes
us into space.  There's a very good reason why Mr. LaRouche's
Four Laws economic document begins and ends with the idea of
mankind as an interplanetary species beginning to explore and
colonize the Solar System and beyond.  This is the identity of
mankind; and economics begins and ends with what makes mankind
unique as a species.  So, Michael, maybe you want to say a little
bit more about that, but I do think as we look at what Lyndon
LaRouche's role has been on the record over the last 40 years as
the leading modern spokesman of the American System of economics.
I have a few books here — these are props:  {The Political
Economy of the American Revolution}, published by the LaRouche
movement; {The Civil War and the American System; America's
Battle with Britain 1860 to 1876}, Allen Salisbury, published by
the LaRouche movement; {Friedrich List: Outlines of the American
System of Political Economy}.  These are just a few selections of
the books that have been published over the last 30 years as part
of the LaRouche movement's educational campaign on the principle
of the American System.

        GALLAGHER:  Make that 50!  At the time that these were being
published in the 1970s, they were, in fact, since the turn of the
20th Century, the first significant publications on the American
System that had appeared anywhere.

        STEGER:  That comes to my final point, which is that Lyn's
put a lot of emphasis on the very clear revival of Alexander
Hamilton; that he really was the founder of this as a conception.
I think it's also very clear that if this is going to be
successful today, given the very complex world we're living in
Before I get to that point, let me just say we haven't touched on
it and I think it's important.  This is why there is a coup
attempted against Donald Trump; this is why there is an outright
attempt to overthrow him and prevent him from even taking the
Presidency.  And at this point, to try to impeach him or force
him out by assassination or other means; because there is this
threat of this revival.  But if we're going to make this New
Paradigm work, you can't ignore the discoverer.  The damage done
by continuing to ascribe Isaac Newton with the discovery of
gravitation has done great harm.  Even with Einstein's attempt to
end that insanity, there's still a great harm done to the
scientific thought of mankind to think that Isaac Newton's
statistical version of gravitation was the nature of its
discovery.  There has to be a revival of Lyndon LaRouche.  The
members of Congress, the policy centers in this country and the
world must look to Lyn's ideas over these 50 years to understand
the means by which we implement this higher conception of
economics known as the American System.  It really was Lyn's
discovery which made the basis for its revival in the first
place.  So, I think a full exoneration is more than due; but I
think a full implementation of Lyn's writings and ideas is
absolutely critical, and are really the outright objective of any
patriot of this country.  It is to acknowledge Lyn's role and his
discovery in setting the foundation of not only the building of
our country, but what we see internationally with this New
Paradigm.

        GALLAGHER:  You mentioned at the beginning, 34 years ago
this week, that President Ronald Reagan adopted an outline of
policy — namely the Strategic Defense Initiative — which had
been developed and circulated internationally by Lyndon LaRouche.
At that time, virtually no one knew what he was talking about; I
remember I got to make my one and only appearance on a national
television morning news show on the basis that I had some idea —
which came from LaRouche — of what Reagan was talking about.
But it was admitted in many places later on that that initiative
by Reagan led to the collapse of the Soviet Union; it led to the
development of fundamentally new technologies which are still
revolutionizing areas now.  Now you have a situation 35 years
later; another American President is taking up what over the past
half-century only LaRouche has developed.  President Trump has
all sorts of errors and faults and warts and so forth; yes he
does.  But don't imagine for a minute that the British
spear-headed attempt to get rid of him as President is not for
this exact reason, and has nothing to do with policies of health
care, or even for that matter, connections with discussions with
the Russian ambassador.  It has to do with the fact that this was
such a tremendous break, even with all of Trump's shortcomings in
many regards, this thrust of his which was already implicitly
visible when he was running for office and immediately as he was
being inaugurated; this was such a tremendous break with the
deleterious policies of finance and economics of the last half
century, the so-called "globalization" era, that there was an
immediate vitriolic response from the standpoint of British
finance and spreading from there to the European elites and so
forth, into what has now made the Democratic Party leadership of
the United States, into virtually a McCarthy-ite mob for reasons
that they don't even understand.  They're looking for Russians
everywhere; is there a  Russian listening to me in this room
today?  It has become like McCarthy; it is the height of irony
that it's the Democratic Party leadership which is doing this,
and they don't even understand — most of them; Obama being  one
exception — why it is that they are trying to railroad Trump in
this McCarthy-ite fashion.  It's because of the potential of
exactly this type of American System of economics changing the
whole world.

        OGDEN:  Sure; if you want to talk about Watergate, the
Watergate here is the Obama administration listening in and
spying on an incoming Presidential administration as part of its
enemies list to try to bring down a President.  We can get into a
lot more details on that, but everything that has come out during
the course of the hearings in Congress this week and what
Chairman Nunes had to say and so forth; this is a political fight
beyond what we've seen in our lifetimes.
        I want to say in conclusion, we have the responsibility to
continue to educate and to continue to lead.  Obviously, Lyndon
LaRouche's economic authority here is unparalleled; and it's the
required authority on the table right now, internationally as
well as nationally.  We have opportunities, but nothing is
determined; nothing is final, nothing is concrete.  So, we're
putting the link on the screen right now; this is the newest
pamphlet, which is now being published by LaRouche PAC, which is
titled "America's Role in the New Silk Road."  The next step for
the Trump administration will be to officially enter into this
Belt and Road Initiative, which China has invited the United
States to be a part of.  There is a summit coming up in China in
the beginning of May, which President Trump should personally
attend; and should make very clear that he is accepting the
Chinese invitation to become a part of this New Paradigm.  We had
the beginning of this with Secretary Tillerson's trip and his
affirmation of the win-win principle in his meetings with Xi
Jinping.  We are looking forward to the bilateral summit between
Xi Jinping and President Trump which is scheduled hopefully for
some time in April.  This is first and foremost; and then we have
a petition which we're continuing to circulate on that question.
This is available for you to sign at lpac.co/sign4laws.  This is
a petition on win-win cooperation and the implementation of
Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws here in the United States.
We ask you to sign that and to circulate it; and become an active
part of changing history.
        So, thank you very much Michael for joining us over video
today; and thank you to Paul for joining me here in the studio.
We have all the material that you need on the LaRouche PAC
website to educate yourself on what the American System is and
the application of the American System today on the international
scale.  So, we encourage you to explore all that material; visit
the LaRouche PAC website; and sign up and become a member of the
LaRouche Political Action Committee.  So, thanks for tuning in;
and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.   


[1] Se EIR-Tema-artikel: »Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord« , af Jeffrey Steinberg og Anton Chaitkin.

 

 

0 Kommentarer

Skriv en kommentar

Din e-mailadresse vil ikke blive publiceret. Krævede felter er markeret med *

*