Overvind staten i staten for at sikre det nye paradigme. LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast, 31. marts, 2017; Leder

Aftenens udsendelse falder i to dele. Første del handler om det, der kaldes Trumpgate; eller ideen om, at Vladimir Putin ikke alene satte Trump ved magten, men rent faktisk styrer Trump-administrationen og bestemmer politikken. Vi havde tidligere på dagen et interview med pensionerede CIA-analytiker Ray McGovern, som har arbejdet for CIA i mange årtier og er en af medstifterne af VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionels for Sanity). Lad os starte med det første klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern:

Jason Ross: Godaften. Med mig i studiet i dag er chef for EIR’s Washington-afdeling, Bill Jones.

Udskrift af webcast, engelsk:

DEFEAT THE DEEP STATE TO ENSURE THE NEW PARADIGM!

JASON ROSS: Hello. It is March 31, 2017; and you're
joining us for the weekly Friday LaRouche PAC webcast. My name
is Jason Ross, and I'm joined in the studio today by {EIR}'s
Washington DC Bureau Chief Bill Jones. We're going to have two
main parts to the discussion tonight. The first aspect we're
going to be dealing with is what's called Trumpgate; or the idea
that Vladimir Putin not only put Trump in power, but is actually
running the Trump administration and setting policy. To discuss
that with us, we had an interview earlier today with retired CIA
analyst Ray McGovern; who worked in the CIA for multiple decades
and is one of the co-founders of VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). So, let's go ahead and get the first
clip from the interview with Ray McGovern.

ROSS : First off, setting the stage, ever since Trump
was elected, and especially since his inauguration, there has
been a growing chorus of claims about Vladimir Putin putting
Trump in office by directing the election; and of even directing
Trump's policy. That, in effect, Vladimir Putin is running the
United States government. So, first off, is this true?

RAY MCGOVERN: Well, if it is, then I don't know anything
about Russia or the Soviet Union. I was counting up the years
that I've been immersed in Russian studies; it goes back 59 years
when I decided to major in Russian, got my graduate degree in
Russian. Taught Russian; was the head of the Soviet foreign
policy branch at the CIA; briefed Presidents on Gorbachev. I
like to think I learned something about how Russian leaders look
at the world. When I heard this meme going around that Vladimir
Putin clearly preferred Donald Trump, my notion was, well, here's
Vladimir Putin sitting with his advisors, and he's saying "That
Trump fellow; he's not only unpredictable, but he's proud of it.
He brags about it, and he lashes out strongly at every slight;
whether it's real or imagined. This is just the guy I want to
have his finger on the nuclear codes across the ocean." It
boggles the mind that Vladimir Putin would have had any
preference for Donald Trump. That's aside from the fact that
everyone — and that would include Vladimir Putin, unless he's
clairvoyant — knew that Hillary was going to win.
So, just to pursue this thing very briefly, if the major
premise is that Vladimir Putin and the terrible Russians wanted
Trump to win; then you have a syllogism. Therefore, they tried
to help him; therefore, they did all kinds of But if you don't
accept that major premise, the whole syllogism falls apart; and I
don't accept that major premise. Putin said it himself: "I
don't have a preference." And I didn't have any preference; I
happened to be in Germany during the election, in Berlin. It was
exciting, because the German anchors didn't know what to say, to
make of it; and my German friends were saying "We have a German
expression here; the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton is
eine wahl zwischen Pest und Cholera." That means it's a choice
between plague and cholera. I said, "You know, I kind of agree."
That's why I not only voted for Jill Stein; but was proud to —
on the environment, on all the major issues, she had it right.
The others did not. That's the way I looked at it. I kind of
think that's the way Putin looked at it; and when he said "I
don't have any preference," he probably meant he didn't have any
preference. So, that syllogism falls down.
Now, just pursue that one little bit here. Everyone
expected Hillary to win; everyone. We're talking Summer; we're
talking Fall as Trump disgraced himself in one manner or another.
He could never win, right? And nobody thought that Hillary was
such a flawed candidate that nobody trusted her; that she might
lose. So, you hear what I'm saying? "Well, it looks like
Hillary is going to win. Looks pretty sure she's going to win.
So, why not hack into her mechanism there in the Democratic
National Committee? If I get caught, well she may be angry with
me, but what's to lose?" I don't think so. Putin is a very
cautious fellow. If he thought Hillary was going to win, like
the rest of us did, the last thing he would want to do is hack
into their DNC apparatus and be caught; because he would likely
be caught. And have an additional grievance for Hillary to
advertise against him. So, it falls down on logic alone.
Now, luckily, you mentioned Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity. We are the beneficiary of a membership
whose expertise in intelligence matters just won't quit. This
includes four former high officials in the National Security
Agency — retired; one of whom devised all of these collection
systems that NSA is still using. His name is Bill Binney. He
and I are very close. He writes for us; and he helps me write
things. What he has said from the outset — and this is five
months ago — is that this could not be a hack; it had to be a
leak. And for your listeners or your viewers, a hack goes over
the network.

ROSS: You're speaking of the DNC?

MCGOVERN: Yeah, I'm talking about the Russians — thanks
for interrupting; the Russians are accused, of course, of hacking
into the Democratic National Committee emails and they're also
accused of surfacing the Podesta emails. Bill says, "Look, I
know this network; I created pretty much the bones of it. And,
I'm free to talk about it. Why? Here are the slides that Ed
Snowden brought out; here are the trace points, the trace
mechanism. And there are hundreds in the network. So,
everything that goes across the network, Ray, and I know this is
hard for you to believe, and you're looking at me real strange,
but {everything}. You know where it starts and you know where it
ends up; everything." So, if this was a hack, NSA would know
about it. NSA does not know about it. As a matter of fact, the
CIA and the FBI said "We have high confidence that the Russians
did this." The NSA, which is the only real agency that has the
capability to trace this, said "We only have moderate
confidence." In the Army, we called that the SWAG factor — it's
a Scientific Wild-Assed Guess. So, NSA doesn't have the
information. If they had the information, I'm pretty sure they
would release it; because this is not rocket science. Everybody
knows how these things work, particularly since Ed Snowden
revealed the whole kit and caboodle.

ROSS [live]: This is part of the interview; the entirety of
which will be available on the website coming soon. It was an
hour-long discussion with Ray McGovern. Just to follow up on
that, or continue, the British origin of the attacks on Trump
were seen in the dossier that was compiled by former MI-6
operative Christopher Steele; who put together the large dossier
of supposedly compromising material on Donald Trump that was
first published in its entirety on Buzzfeed, but which had been
spoken of in anonymous sort of way by press outlets before that.
The incredible assault on Trump here, this doesn't represent a
Democrat versus Republican type of conflict; what this represents
is whether we're going to have the elected government. Donald
Trump is the elected President of the United States; he was
elected. He won the election; he was elected. Whether we're
going to have an elected government run the United States, or
whether the Deep State — the intelligence agencies in the United
States and in Britain, very significantly — are going to have
their way in determining what our policy will be. Specifically
in seeing the Trump openness in resetting the relationship with
Russia, with an openness towards China and with an increasing
adoption of the American System outlook, this is not the type of
policy orientation that this Deep State apparatus; hence, the
attacks.
Ray McGovern and Bill Binney co-authored an article three
days ago, called "The Surveillance State Behind Russia-gate". I
just wanted to read a very short part of this. They write:
"Although many details are still hazy because of secrecy
and further befogged by politics it appears House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was informed last week about
invasive electronic surveillance of senior U.S. government
officials and, in turn, passed that information onto President
Trump.
"This news presents Trump with an unwelcome but unavoidable
choice: Confront those who have kept him in the dark about such
rogue activities or live fearfully in their shadow.
"What President Trump decides will largely determine the
freedom of action he enjoys as president on many key security and
other issues. But even more so," write Ray McGovern and Bill
Binney, "his choice may decide whether there is a future for this
constitutional republic."
Very strong words. In the past month, on March 4th, we saw
Trump's announcement that he was surveilled by the outgoing Obama
administration; he used the word "wiretap" at times, for which he
was attacked for his choice of language. But the statement still
stands about surveillance. On March 20th, FBI Director Comey
testified that he was investigating the Trump administration;
guess he didn't have any time to investigate the Saudis. Just
today, Wikileaks came out with a report in which they released
the latest section of what they are calling "Vault 7"; which is a
collection of material from the CIA — documentation and source
code. What this latest release showed was "Project Marble", as
the CIA called it; which revealed a program that they had to
obfuscate their own creation of cyber weaponry of malware and
other types of attacks, and the ability to easily attribute such
attacks to other state actors. Including the ability to — while
making it look as though an attack came from Russia, also include
a seeming cover-up of Russian tracks; so that a security
researcher might feel that they had stumbled across a clue by
finding Russian language comments in this cyber attack weapon,
when really it had been planted from the beginning. This of
course raises the question of attribution at all, and in
particular about the DNC hacks. The FBI never investigated the
DNC computers; and all the complaints about Russian involvement
and Russian malware came from CrowdStrike, an independent firm.
Which, if it's up against the CIA and a colossal program to be
able to obfuscate the actual origin of internet attacks, makes it
very unlikely; in addition to, as Ray McGovern said, all signs
point to this and the Podesta emails being leaks rather than
hacks anyway.
So, let's hear our second clip that we have for the program
from Ray McGovern.

MCGOVERN : I think Nunes wants to do the right
thing. Whether he'll succeed or not is anybody's guess. All I
can say is, he's up against formidable opponents; witness what
the ranking member or minority leader of the Senate, Chuck
Schumer, has said outright to Rachel Maddow.

ROSS : Yeah. It puts the ranking and ranking.

MCGOVERN: Yeah, you got it!

ROSS: I think this story or picture that you've painted
really gives us something that we need to do; because if this is
to be fought out only among institutional layers, it's a tough
fight. It's something where if people are aware, as we're able
to make known to the population more generally that this is a
fight; that this isn't about Democrats versus Republicans. This
is really much more about Deep State versus the potential of
elected government to determine our course. The threats of say,
blackmail via the FBI or other intelligence agencies, the
dossiers that no doubt exist on these elected officials; that
stands as a threat if people aren't aware of that being the MO
[modus operandi–ed.]. I think people are more familiar with the
way the FBI targetted Martin Luther King; urged him on more than
one occasion to commit suicide to prevent these kinds of
documents from getting out. I think it really means that there's
something for all of us to do in terms of making sure that this
is known; making sure that the terms of the fight are known, to
make it possible to win this one.

MCGOVERN: Exactly; and those were wiretaps, back in the
late '50s, early '60s, those were real wiretaps. You're quite
right; that was heinous. Now, I asked Colleen Rowley, who's as I
say, the expertise we have available to us at Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity won't quit. Colleen was
the counsel of the Minneapolis division of the FBI; she was the
one who wrote memos to the Director saying this is how we screwed
up on 9/11. She's got guts that won't quit as well. I said,
"Colleen, Robert Kennedy — my God! Robert Kennedy, Attorney
General, allowing, authorizing the FBI to try to persuade Dr.
King to commit suicide? How do you figure that, Colleen?" And
she said, "Ray, wiretapping; J Edgar Hoover. Bobby Kennedy would
know that J Edgar Hoover has lots of information on all those
pretty girls that he and Jack used to invite to the White House
pool and all of that stuff." She's imagining this; but the
reality is, Robert Kennedy would know that J Edgar Hoover would
have lots of material to blackmail not only him, but his big
brother.
That's big; and that's why when all this came out in the mid
'70s, they created these laws and created these Oversight
Committees, which for a while, did their job. Now, they're
hopelessly unable, unwilling; they don't want to know this stuff,
and they don't know it for that matter. The intelligence
officials say "They don't want to know this, so why should we
tell them?" As for citizens, I would emphasize that this whole
business when Edward Snowden came out with his revelations in
June of 2013, what happened? Well, people say, "Well, isn't this
interesting? Everything, they intercept everything! Emails,
telephone calls, wow! Luckily, I have nothing to hide." So, we
asked someone from the Stasi — Stasi is the old East German
secret service; and if people have seen "Das Lieben Der Anderen"
— "The Lives of Others" — an Academy Award film about East
Germany and the Stasi. The Stasi was their KGB. You get a
picture of what they did. Wolfgang Schmidt — his real name by
the way — a Stasi colonel, is interviewed. One of the Americans
sits down and asks, "Wolfgang, what do you think about people in
America when we say 'We have nothing to hide'?" Schmidt says,
"This is incredibly naïve. Everyone has something to hide. You
don't get to decide what they get on you. The only way to
prevent it from being against you, is to prevent it from being
collected in the first place." Beautiful, you know? If they
collect it, they can use it. They don't read it all; they don't
listen to it all. But they but it into these little files —
they're not files, but they're …
So, yeah, {all of us}. What Edward Snowden said about
"turnkey tyranny." If you have these kinds of private information
about {everyone} including the President and Michael Flynn and
all his associates, back in October-November-December; well, you
have the ability, if not to win the election, then to at least to
destroy or make these folks seem beholden to the {Russians}, of
all places, and disarm the attempts that Trump wants to make,
vis-à-vis Russia.
Now, I would have to tell you, that I am against everything
Trump stands for, internally. I think he's not only unqualified
to be President, but all his instincts are terrible. Okay, so put
that on the record. I think I already said I voted for Jill
Stein. That said, even a broken clock is right how many times a
day?

ROSS: Twice a day.

MCGOVERN: Yeah. He's right about Russia. If he were to say
to Vladimir Putin, "Look, I don't think we need to put more
troops in the Baltic states or Poland; so why don't I pull out
those troops, and you pull out the troops on the other side? It's
a deal?" I'm morally certain Putin would say, "It's a deal!" Now,
what would that mean? That would mean what Pope Francis, to his
credit, called "the blood-drenched arms traders" would lose out,
big time. Peace: bad for business. Tension: very good for
business. So, there's a lot at stake among very, very powerful
people; and if Trump can make this stick — this is not a puny,
incidental issue, it's a transcendental one.
I was more afraid that Hillary would bring us to a nuclear
confrontation than Trump. I didn't like Trump on the environment,
because I have nine grand-children. Don't Senators and
Congressmen have grand-children? Don't they give — So, for me
it was a choice between pest and cholera. But, here we have a
possibility for a new what the Germans call {ostpolitik} — a new
policy, looking to the east. Take my word for it; I've looked at
what the Russians have done. I've looked at heyday of the
relationship of the United States and Russia, which goes back to
October of 2013 when Putin pulled Obama's chestnuts out of the
fire by persuading the Syrians to destroy or (have destroyed) all
their chemical weapons {on U.S. ships}. Okay? Nobody knows about
that but the United States.
But the neo-cons, the people who want to create a {bad}
atmosphere in relations between the United States and Russia —
they know about it. It only took them six months to mount a coup
on Russia's doorstep in Kiev, Ukraine. And that's where all this
trouble started: Russians accused of invading Ukraine — not
true; of invading Crimea — not true. All that stuff was
artificially pumped up. It's just as easily tssuuuu, deflated.
And Trump, if he's willing to do that, well, that would be a
biggie.
So, being right two times a day is better than never being
right.

ROSS [laughing]: Well put.

MCGOVERN: I think.

ROSS: Great! Thanks very much, Ray. Thanks.

MCGOVERN: You're most welcome. Thanks for asking. It's very
rare that I get a chance to review what I observe. LaRouche PAC
Friday Webcast, March 31, 2017

ROSS: To fill in one thing on that, regarding Sen. Schumer:
in January, Schumer was on the Rachel Maddow Show, and he said he
thought Trump was "really dumb" for taking on the intelligence
agencies, because "they've got six ways from Sunday to get back
at you." Schumer was saying, "Don't get on the bad side of the
intelligence agencies, or they're going to make you pay for it."
A very direct and cowardly and craven admission that there is a
power in government besides the elected government. Just a
disgusting thing to say.
Let's shift now to our other topic, which is where we {can}
go in the United States, once we throw off the yoke of this
opposition to collaboration in the world. The promise that we
see, for example, in the upcoming meeting taking place April 6-7
next week at Mar-a-Lago with President Xi Jinping of China and
President Trump. Bill, what's the import of this meeting
happening? Where could we go if this shakes out well?

BILL JONES: It's a very significant meeting. It is a
watershed meeting in a variety of ways. First of all, the two
major countries in the world — China and the United States —
getting together in this way at the highest level, is, of course,
something that affects the entire world. But it's important,
especially now, because you have a new administration, with a new
policy, with a new direction, trying to revive the U.S. economy,
trying to bring back a lot of the economic growth that has been
lost over the last few decades. The question for the Chinese, is
what is that policy, what effect does it have on us, and how do
we fit in? It's going to be a meeting that doesn't lead to any
specific what they call "deliverables." You're not going to have
communiques saying we're going to do this, we're going to do
that, coming out of the meeting.
The Trump administration is still getting itself organized.
Many of the issues, including the issues that are matters of
controversy between China and the United States, have not been
worked out, because the people are not in place in the
departments at this point. Those include the South China Sea, the
Korean nuclear question, the trade issue — which is very
important, of course, for the Trump administration. These things
still have to be worked out. They will be discussed. In fact,
they will, probably, have at the top of the agenda, of going
through them one by one, to determine this is where we stand,
where do you stand? — to try to get an understanding of where
the two sides lie on issues that to some extent separate them.
The importance of the meeting, if it is successful — and I
think it will be successful; it's happening at a very early stage
in the administration. It's not so often that a summit of this
nature will be held — what is it? — two-three months from the
inauguration of the President. Both sides agreed that they wanted
to have this. Both of them felt that there was a necessity of
getting together at the highest level in order to really get to
know where the two stand, and really getting to know each other
in a very different sense. They've had communication from the
get-go. There were two phone calls. There were a number of
letters that went back and forth; so they're not strangers to
each other. But it's that time of {meeting}, where they can talk
one-on-one, or with people that they decide to have with them at
any particular point. Probably will be a one-on-one meeting with
interpreters at some point. They will get to learn the mind of
the other person.
This is extremely important because during the course of the
election, as is often the case, many things are said which don't
necessary don't reflect anything on policy. We've had the
uncertainties about the Taiwan issue. At one point it was unclear
for the Chinese if the One-China policy was still going to be
followed by the Trump administration. And certain things that
were tweeted or said in the spur of the moment were taken
seriously by Beijing; and so there was a lot of uncertainty and a
certain amount of trepidation. Most of that has been cleared up.
The One-China policy stands fast. This, President Trump has made
clear.
More importantly, on the lower level of high-level meetings
between Secretary of State Tillerson and his counterpart, Foreign
Minister Wang Yi, he did something that no other official has
ever done. He reiterated what has been the explicit Chinese
position with regard to the China-America relationship. He said,
"No conflict, no confrontation, mutual respect, and win-win
cooperation." He's taken a lot of heat for doing that, because
that has not been what the United States has said; it's what the
Chinese have said and indicated this is what they want. By saying
it, Tillerson indicated that the United States was on board these
basic policies.
On the basis of that, they are able to have their meeting. I
think it will be a good meeting, because President Trump is a
very good host. He has shown that in a lot of the summits that
he's had. President Xi is also — although these are two very
different personalities — they're both really "people persons."
They know how to talk to people in all categories of life.
President Xi is really unique in one sense among many Chinese
leaders, some of whom are much stiffer, because he {does} go to
the people; he {does} know them; he {has} worked amongst them.
President Trump, although he was an industrialist, a very wealthy
man, he could go onto the work sites, he could talk to the people
down there, he could get a feeling for what they were all about.
I think these characteristics will allow them to establish a
rapport, perhaps even a warm relationship, in understanding each
other. That is extremely important because as we move into the
administration, as policy takes place, a lot of these difficult
issues, like the issue of trade, will be coming up. President
Trump, of course, was very explicit on that in his campaign. He
wants to have fair trade; he's not a "free-trader," letting the
market decide. He has made references to the American System of
Henry Clay. He probably will move to tariffs on certain products,
in order to create a basis for industrial production in those
areas where the United States has lost jobs to low-wage
producers. It's a new element that the Chinese also have to take
into consideration.
And, of course, it seems to me that if there is this
understanding, and President Trump wants to move forward on maybe
being less open in terms of trade on certain products, there is a
possibility of giving the Chinese added capabilities, because
they may lose some of the market on certain trade, but they can,
for instance, have a larger market in terms of investment in
infrastructure. President Trump also has committed to $1 trillion
in infrastructure in the United States, to rebuild the roads,
rebuild the highways, rebuild the cities, and the infrastructure.
$1 trillion. He is not going to get that from industry; industry
is not generally interested in waiting 10 years to get a payback
on investment that they make. Unfortunately, the United States
no longer has the types of institutions that could finance this.
That may change; if Trump goes with the American System, maybe he
will move in the direction that Lyndon LaRouche has indicated in
his four points, by setting up an infrastructure bank or a
development bank like the Hamiltonian bank; like the First Bank
of the United States, to finance this. But, in that case, you
have China also with a lot of capital that they could invest and
{would like to invest} in the United States; which could assist
President Trump in his attempt to rebuild infrastructure.
This came up in a meeting today at CSIS; I raised that type
of a trade-off, and the people generally were positive to this
notion. If some kind of infrastructure bank or a group or fund
in which the Chinese could go and invest, were set up; this would
be a possibility for them investing in the United States. There
are many difficulties with that, but it may also be something
that the Chinese are interested in. In fact, the question of
taking much of their capital, which has hitherto been invested in
Treasury bills, and putting that into a fund for infrastructural
investment has been mooted both privately and in public in the
media in China. So, there may be a possibility that the Chinese
leader coming here, will also have something to offer; may make a
proposal of this nature, which would then set the stage for
moving further.
So, I think this is an important meeting, because it will
really provide the basis for economic development; and the
Chinese are in the forefront of this economic development. Not
simply by having become a major — in fact, the second major —
economic power in the world; but through their Belt and Road
Initiative, they have then offered this type of development to
the other countries of the world — especially in the developing
sector. All countries are invited to this; including the United
States. So, if you have some kind of an agreement in regard to
these issues on infrastructure, trade, the United States can then
become a part of the Silk Road here in the United States itself.

ROSS: Bill, could you tell us more about what lessons we
could learn from China on financing? China has been putting a
tremendous amount of money into infrastructure. They have a
wonderful high-speed rail network, the most extensive in the
world; which is going to be doubled within a decade or so in
terms of its extent. You had mentioned something about the
opportunity to invest Treasury bonds in something more
productive. What can we learn? How are they doing this? What
can we do here?

JONES: Well, obviously, what the Chinese are doing is what
the United States used to do. You go back to the FDR period, and
you will see that this is what was done. The institutions that
were established to build the TVA, to finance development; to
create the industries at the point in time when we were in the
Great Depression, were all here as institutions which promoted
the development of private industry. But creating the basis on
which that private industry can move in. This is the Hamiltonian
system; this is the way the United States was created. We were
not based on free trade; we fought against free trade. Hamilton
introduced tariffs in order to prevent the British from dumping
their products on the US economy; making it impossible for us to
produce our own products and ever becoming an industrial nation.
That was reinstituted at various times in our history when the
free trade mania took place, leading to devastation; it was
revived at various points. Abraham Lincoln did it; President
McKinley did it. Roosevelt in his own way did that; and it's
been a very successful model. The Chinese have used that, given
their own specific circumstances, with largely state-controlled
industries, they nevertheless have used this Hamiltonian or you
called it a Listian model; since the influence of Germany on the
Chinese economy was very great in the last century. They used
this policy in order to develop their industries. They have a
free market; they have individual entrepreneurs; they're very
successful in computers and other fields. But there is a
government which is responsible for the good of the people; for
the people's welfare — or as the Chinese call it, the people's
livelihood. Therefore, they must make sure that things work so
that these industries operate to the benefit of the people. We
had that system, too; we have it in our Constitution. The
Federal government is responsible for the General Welfare; that
is a broad notion. That means that people cannot be put on the
scrap heap, they can't be out of work a long period of time;
there must be measures that are taken to assure them that they
can survive and their families can survive. We've gone away from
that system; we've become much more anarchistic in this free
market system, and a lot of people have suffered.
When President Trump was elected, to the surprise of the
large majority of the citizenry and of the world, it was simply
by appealing to the changes that were necessary to move away from
that type of system toward one which could secure a livelihood
for the American people. The Chinese can serve as a model for
that; it's a little bit different, but the principle is the same.
The principle of this Hamiltonian system. We have to begin to
reconstitute institutions that can provide credit guarantees to
our industries, to our construction companies; so we can build
those roads, highways, nuclear power plants, things like that
which we need. We also have got to reinstitute the tried and
true separation of speculators from the legitimate commercial
bankers; that's called Glass-Steagall, and that was the law
between 1933 and 1998. It meant that the speculators, the
gamblers, those who want to make quick bucks in a short time,
even though there's tremendous risk, they cannot go into the
banks and take Grandma's money and use that for the speculation
to the detriment of Grandma if they lose. And the losses, of
course, in the financial system have been extremely great. So,
that has to be reinstituted again. We have to prevent the Wall
Street culprits, the pirates, from stealing our wealth and the
wealth of people who have invested in their banks. If that is
done, then we cut off the fluff that is the fictitious growth of
the paper economy, and have the capability of using the funds
that are available to extend a credit system in the United States
to build and to create greater wealth tomorrow as a result of
this investment today.

ROSS: So, once we get Glass-Steagall passed, once we trim
off this cancerous speculation and make it possible for credit to
be going into productive purposes, what do you see as the
potential physical types of cooperation with China? You had
mentioned earlier that if Trump puts up tariffs, China may see
this as acceptable from the context of Chinese businesses being
able to open up in the United States as well. When you think
about the kinds of physical investments that need to be made on
things like railroads in particular, something where China has a
great deal of home-grown expertise at this point, including the
development of maglev rail; or nuclear plants, which China is
building the most of in the world, most of them are being built
in China right now. What do you see as the need or the potential
for physical economic cooperation with China, for us to have a
physical economic recovery here?

JONES: There are a variety of way they could do this.
There could be direct investment — look, they made a proposal to
build high-speed rail in California going from LA to Las Vegas.
They also invested in Las Vegas a lot, too; there's a lot of
infrastructure there. However, that didn't go through, because
there were concerns whether it's security or whatever concerns;
maybe because it was a state-owned enterprise. But those things
are going to happen. I think the important thing is, if the
rules are lifted, so that China has a greater possibility of
direct investment; they could do that. There's also another
option; and some people are concerned that if China owns our
railroads, where do we stand and what does this mean for the
United States? We can get around that through this idea of
creating this fund or a national bank. The national bank of
Alexander Hamilton, the money was lent from international
lenders; it was really the Dutch who were doing this. We owed
them the debt, and by creating a debt repayment plan, they were
willing to put more money into the United States. The bank could
accept money from US people; it could also potentially accept
money from foreign investors as well. This would be a way for
China — and this has actually been proposed by the head of the
China Central Investment Corporation; who said we have all this
money in Treasury bills, and we're getting maybe 1% or 2%
interest on the Treasury bills. We would be just as happy to
invest this in an infrastructure fund, where we might get 2% or
3% — a low interest rate it has to be, because it's long-term;
but better than they're doing now. That money would then be
readily available for the United States also, if they have the
capabilities; if we have the workers and the materiel and
everything to do it ourselves. But they could also contribute as
well; they could contribute with their expertise as they have
done in Africa, in Asia and Latin America. They know the ropes
in terms of high-speed rail; they know the problems involved in
it. They know all the technicalities of it because they've built
so many of those; but we haven't built any high-speed rail, so
we're kind of starting from scratch. They could come to offer
their technical assistance, or even offer capital to try and get
these things started. There are many ways that this can be
resolved, and there are ways that have been indicated clearly by
Chinese representatives that they would be happy to do things
like this. So, the only thing is, we have to have a situation
where the only thing that is done on trade — and nothing
draconian should be done, because that would cause a major
problem. But whatever is done on trade, there is a quid pro quo;
something that China gets to their advantage so that you have a
win-win situation as people are saying.
With regard, of course, to the summit, what has been
emphasized by the Chinese, of course, is that element of mutual
respect; and this is absolutely key, this is why there is a
certain amount of trepidation. China is a major country; it is
effectively a great power at this point. They are a very proud
people, and they have a right to be; as Americans are a proud
people. But in the United States, this is not so well understood
because of the attitude toward China and the Chinese which
existed during the entirety of the 1800s going into the 1900s
with the Chinese Exclusion Act and all these measures that were
taken to keep the Chinese — who built our Transcontinental
Railroad — out of the country. People saw them as people who
didn't have a culture, who lived at a very low level; and they
just did not understand the greatness that was China. We
understood that in the beginning in the American Revolution;
Benjamin Franklin was the first major Sinophile, the lover of
China. He wanted to introduce many of these projects that
Confucius — the great Chinese philosopher — had been talking
about in terms of creating a leadership. He wanted to implement
that here in the United States; but that was lost. And that is a
big loss, because things may go well at the top level, but there
also has to be this understanding between the peoples. There's
going to be more exchanges; there are going to be exchanges on
the economic side. If these programs go through, you will have
Chinese technicians and engineers coming and helping in the
United States; you'll have more Chinese tourists — and there are
many of them coming in today. And hopefully, you'll have more
American tourists going to China to learn the culture and the
society; to get to know it better. Because as they get to know
it better, they will understand the importance of the nation and
the importance of the relationship that we have with China.
So, much can come out of this summit meeting, and I'm
relatively confident that it will be successful; at least to the
extent that the two leaders of the two major nations in the world
will have a greater understanding of the other's views, of the
other's wishes, of the other's motivation. If you have that, then
you have the basis on which these other problems — trade, South
China Sea, the Korean nuclear program — can be more readily
resolved.

ROSS: Thank you very much. On the aspect of moving forward
and China's role in developing new things, I know that China has
made a push on changing the conception of "Made in China" meaning
some cheap junk, to "created in China"; to the fact that there's
a development of an ability to create new products. You brought
up the entrepreneurship in many fields; we see it in the
high-speed rail, for example. You definitely see it in the
Chinese space program and Chinese efforts towards fusion
research.
I wanted to let our viewers know and ask you to say a bit
about a conference that was held last Saturday in Munich,
Germany. A conference on March 25th for the 100th anniversary of
the birth of the German space visionary, space pioneer Krafft
Ehricke. I know that Bill, you were fortunate to be able to
attend this conference; and the videos of it will be posted on
the Schiller Institute site in a somewhat short period of time, I
hope. Could you tell us a bit about it from your firsthand
experience?

JONES: This is an attempt to revive an understanding of a
person who really was undoubtedly one of the greatest of the
space pioneers who worked in the US space program. He was a part
of the German team that came over from Peenemünde. Everybody
knows Werner von Braun, but nowadays they don't know Krafft
Ehricke; which is a shame, because he was one of the most genial
of all of those pioneers. He was thinking hundreds of years
ahead; he was thinking already in the 1950s of building colonies
on the Moon. He actually had correspondence between him and
Werner von Braun on how to get to Mars; both of them had written
books on how to get to Mars. They had exchanges now and then
where Krafft would make suggestions on how you would do it; and
von Braun would respond. But he was also a very unusual
individual, because he believed that the nature of man is that of
a creative being; that man cannot stand still. He must always
pursue the search for the new frontiers; this is in the
fundamental core of human nature, that they must seek the new and
develop the new. Because of this, of course, he came into
contact with Lyndon and Helga LaRouche; and they just hit it off
from the get-go. They were like souls. The last part of his
life, he was working with the Schiller Institute and with the
LaRouches to fight the zero-growth movement. When we came into
contact with Krafft, during the period of transition from the
great heyday of the space program to the low level of the
zero-growth, back-to-nature movement, Krafft was conducting a
lone fight in order to fight the philosophy that was being
foisted upon the American people with the zero-growth movement.
Of course, when he came into contact with the LaRouches, he
realized that there was a greater forum on which he could
operate; so they became very good friends. He went on tours
together with them in order to talk about the space program; to
try and revive an interest in space in those days.
The reason we're reviving it is not simply that it's his
100th birthday; he would have been 100 years old this week, if he
had lived. He died at a very early stage; he was in his sixties
— 1984 — he was still a relatively young man, but he had a
serious ailment and he passed away at that time. We felt it was
necessary not only to honor him and to raise an understanding in
the broader public about his importance. But also given the fact
that President Trump has expressed the intention of moving back
into space in the message that he send that he sent last weekend
— in fact, the same day as the conference. We were able to put
that on the film at the end of that; it had come in in the
morning, and the conference went until the afternoon, so we
showed that; and people of course were very surprised. They
thought this was a conspiracy between us and President Trump; it
wasn't that, it was just coincidence. But because this is now
the re-orientation of the United States, it has created a new
capability of moving in that direction that we lost many years
ago. And that therefore the work of Krafft Ehricke, which again
still remains to be realized, now becomes of practical importance
for moving back into space. So, there was a kind of dual purpose
for the conference.

ROSS: Great. I think if we compare the two images that
we've been discussing tonight — the attempt to prevent by any
means a shift away from the anti-Russia, anti-cooperation policy
that had dominated the thinking of the previous administration;
we compare that with the potential that we have in cooperating
with and working with the New Paradigm created by the LaRouches
over the decades, and being spearheaded right now on a policy
front by China, we really have a great potential in store for us.
These assaults on Trump — Trumpgate — the idea that Vladimir
Putin is destroying the United States; this stuff really will not
blow over. Given that Trump has attempted to turn the tables on
this by calling out the wiretapping, by calling out the
surveillance, by taking on these institutions — domestic
intelligence agencies and, of course, the British; this means
it's possible to actually defeat this control or grip over the
government of the United States and make it possible to set our
own policy, and a very good policy. And develop a future that we
can be proud of. So, we have a great deal of material about this
on our website; we've been almost every day continuing with
updates to keep you informed about what can be done on this fight
against the Deep State here and in Britain. We will continue to
have more on that; and we need your help, we need everybody's
help to make sure that we have the potential to be freed up to
join the future that could be ours if we take up that chance.
So thank you, Bill, for joining us today.

JONES: Thank you for having me.

ROSS: Thank you for joining us, and we will see you next
time.