8. september 2022 (EIRNS)- I dag var det 100 år siden Lyndon H. LaRouche Jr. (1922-2019) blev født. Han var økonom, videnskabsmand og statsmand, og en af historiens største filosoffer og ledere gennem tiderne.

Hans fødselsdag blev fejret over hele verden med gademøder (København, Berlin, Paris, Houston, Washington DC, Boston m.fl.), erklæringer og et heldags-video-maraton med bemærkelsesværdige taler af LaRouche og meddelelser om hyldest og påskønnelse fra folk fra alle aldre og nationer.

Den første udgave af et festskrift til ære for LaRouche blev i dag udgivet af Schiller Instituttet. Det 300 sider lange dokument findes nedenunder.

De danske bidrag kan læses på sider 22-36.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Den 8. september 2022 (EIRNS) – I dag fejrer den internationale LaRouche-bevægelse årsdagen for det, som ville have været Lyndon LaRouches 100-års fødselsdag, hvis han havde været i live. Der afholdes talrige demonstrationer og lignende aktiviteter til ære for LaRouche. En hel dag med et væld af videooptagelser, herunder individuelle vidneudsagn af så kort varighed som et minut, og optagelser af begivenheder i LaRouches historie på op til tre timer. Dagens overordnede budskaber består for det første af, at LaRouche vidste, hvordan man kunne overvinde spændingerne mellem NATO og Sovjetunionen, ved at forenes som allierede for at neutralisere atomvåben og genoprette økonomisk vækst og teknologisk fremskridt i hele verden. Dernæst fortsætter vi den kurs, som han og hans kone Helga fulgte på det tidspunkt, hvor han døde. For det tredje kan vi sejre, hvis borgerne i Amerika og Europa handler i deres egne interesser i samarbejde med Kina, Indien og udviklingslandene i Asien og Afrika.

Dagen begyndte kl. 6.00 EDT med en tre timers udsendelse af mindeprogrammet fra 2019 med titlen: “The Triumph of Lyndon LaRouche”. Det blev indledt af hans hustru, nærmeste medarbejder og efterfølger til hans lederskab, Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Det blev tillige afsluttet af Helga, efterfulgt af et musikalsk arrangement, bl.a. med Mozarts Ave Verum Corpus, der var dedikeret til den indflydelse, som Kristus’ død har haft på alle kommende tider. Programmet afspejlede Helgas initiativ, som var fuldt ud dedikeret til hendes mands engagement i at inspirere hele menneskeheden gennem direkte og indirekte kontakt med tusinder og millioner af mennesker, for at indgyde dem en forståelse af, at udelukkende menneskelig kreativitet kan tilvejebringe en bedre fremtid for menneskeheden. På nuværende tidspunkt indebærer dette, at kun en umiddelbar udvidelse af direkte kreativ handling vil gøre menneskehedens fremtid mulig.

Et bemærkelsesværdigt træk ved programmet var, at betydeligt mere end halvdelen af tiden bestod af klassisk musik fra Bach til Brahms, herunder en omfattende fremførelse af spirituals. I sine afsluttende bemærkninger fortalte Helga, der roste sin mand som det mest humane og kærlige menneske, hun nogensinde havde kendt, at hun svarede Lyn på hans sidste ord til hende: “Ich liebe dich”, på samme måde. Denne udveksling mellem de to kan opfattes som et bånd, der ikke kun binder de to, men som en påmindelse om deres gensidige forpligtelse over for hele menneskeheden. En forpligtelse, som de gerne ser, at vi alle sammen tilslutter os.

Mindehøjtideligheden blev efterfulgt af en serie i fem dele, “The Power of Labor”, udarbejdet og udsendt første gang af LaRouches organisation i forbindelse med LaRouches præsidentkampagne i 1984, som skulle benyttes sammen med LaRouches lærebog “So, You Wish to Learn All About Economics? Han indledte sit foredrag med at opregne de store genier fra den gyldne renæssance og deres efterfølgere. Heriblandt var Nicolaus af Cusa, Leonardo da Vinci, Gottfried Leibniz og Carl Gauss. Den første af disse, langt den mindst kendte af de fem i det 21. århundrede, kaldte LaRouche “det mest betydningsfulde sind i de sidste 600 år”. Kernen i LaRouches forståelse af økonomi består i, at al virkelighed er baseret på handling. At identificere et objekt som en kendsgerning, hvilket er almindeligt, er ikke videnskabeligt. Alt, der erkendes i universet, er under forandring og følger specifikke regler for forandring, og bevægelse. Den gamle grundlægger af videnskabens sprog, Panini, formidlede dette ved at fastslå, at alt sprog er baseret på transitive verber, dvs. verber, der beskriver handling. I overensstemmelse med hans forståelse, er de fem økonomiske lektioner, der præsenteres, baseret på de moderne fysiske love, som blev udarbejdet af Nicolaus af Cusa og den række af videnskabsmænd, der fulgte hans initiativer.

LaRouche sporede en forståelse af økonomi tilbage, ved at forstå årsagssammenhængen på den måde der formidles i 1. Mosebog kapitel 1, vers 28. Det er det vers, som beretter om Guds velsignelse og råd til Adam og Eva, og som gælder for hele menneskeheden: “Bliv frugtbare og mangfoldige og opfyld jorden og gør jer den underdanig, og hersk over havets fisk og over luftens fugle og over alt levende, der kryber på jorden.” Det betyder, at der er en proces i menneskelivet, som indebærer, at man tager ansvar for en sammenhængende udviklingsproces, der til stadighed tilvejebringer den fremtidige eksistens.

Herefter fulgte en optagelse af LaRouches første foredrag ud af fire om emnet: “Beyond Psychoanalysis”. Heri påpegede LaRouche, at i perioden efter Første Verdenskrig, og som faktisk går tilbage til den situation, som Percy Shelley diskuterede i værket “Defense of Poetry”, at samfundets forståelse af, hvorledes faktuelt organiserede strukturer skal fungere, er afhængig af poetisk kommunikation. Det er ensbetydende med, at poesien er det medium, gennem hvilket en kontinuerlig udviklingsproces kan formidles til menneskeheden. Dette fungerer, for hvis poesien er digterkunst, udtrykker det det faktiske forhold mellem den kreative forståelse og virkeligheden af både social og fysisk handling.

Efter optagelsen af “Beyond Psychoanalysis” blev der fremført en optagelse af LaRouches video “Storm over Asien”. Heri gennemgik LaRouche sin intervention i finansielle og økonomisk-politiske spørgsmål, som går tilbage til 1977 og fortsætter frem til 1999. Hans advarsler om konsekvenserne af Nixons beslutning i 1971 om at skrotte de internationale finansielle aftaler fra Bretton Woods og fjerne guldreserve-støtten til den amerikanske dollar, forekom præcis som han havde advaret om, at de ville indtræffe. Det samme gælder hans advarsel til den sovjetiske regering om Sovjetunionens undergang, hvis landet undlod at slutte sig til USA i Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (SDI), som han havde udformet under præsident Ronald Reagans ledelse. Efter LaRouches hovedpræsentation uddybede Lothar Komp fra LaRouche-bevægelsen i Tyskland og John Hoefle i USA, hvordan den globale finansielle struktur fremskyndede det russiske finansielle systems, den teknologiske vækst og økonomiens undergang. Efter LaRouches afslutning berettede Debra Freeman fra LaRouche-bevægelsen om, hvordan Kongressen og præsident Clinton og hans stab reagerede på LaRouches forslag, og forklarede hvorfor de borgere hun talte til måtte tage ansvar for fremtiden.

Efter et par korte meddelelser fremvistes en video af LaRouche, der talte på seminaret den 17. juni 1997 om Afrikas dystre skæbne. Han startede med at forklare, at det ikke kun er Afrikas problem, fordi “det, som påvirker Afrika, påvirker også dig”.

Dernæst præsenterede pastor Richard C. Boone fra Louisiana, Lyn som fuldstændig troværdig og aldeles pålidelig ved et møde den 8. september 1996 i Monroe, Louisiana. Lyn talte i høj grad om strategi til at stække politikere ved at anvende deres egne holdninger og handlinger imod dem, for at få de nuværende pessimistiske borgere til at bakke op om hans ideer. Han beskrev succeser mod en række personer og oplyste, at hans primære mål var George H.W. Bush.

Det sidste hovedafsnit var Lyndons og Helgas vidneudsagn for det borgerpanel, der havde til opgave at undersøge sagen mod ham.

Der blev vist korte klip fra offentlige demonstrationer for at gøre opmærksom på Lyndons 100-års fødselsdag. Diane Sare, der er kandidat til det amerikanske senat, og som udfordrer spytslikkeren fra Wall Street, Charles Schumer, ledede en demonstration i Zuccotti Park i New York City. Arrangør Feride Gillesberg rapporterede fra en demonstration i Danmark. Jen Pearl rapporterede fra sin organisering på Park Street Station i Boston.

I løbet af dagen blev der udsendt optagelser af forskellige personer. Hulan Jack, der havde været den første sorte borgmester på Manhattan fra 1953-1961 og senere var medlem af bestyrelsen for LaRouche-bevægelsens National Democratic Policy Committee, fremsatte kortfattede bemærkninger. Jack døde i 1979, og der blev afspillet en optaget udtalelse, hvori han anførte, at der var to problemer i Det demokratiske Parti. “Det første er, at Det demokratiske Parti er i ruiner.” Det andet er, at der kun er én mand, som partiledelsen er bange for: Lyndon LaRouche. Partiet har stadig ikke løst det problem, men vi gør en stor indsats under ledelse af Diane Sare for at gøre en ende på deres bekymringer.

Jacques Cheminade, leder af det franske “LaRouche”-parti, Solidarité et Progrès, afgav en kort erklæring, hvor han sammenlignede LaRouche med De Gaulle og henviste til Lyns bog, France After DeGaulle.

Benoit fra Frankrig meddelte, at han er i færd med at lave en video om Lyndon LaRouche, vor tids geni, for at hjælpe sine medborgere til at blive ”LaRouche’ere”.

Karel Vereycken, næstformand for Solidarité et Progrès, fortalte historien om sin opdagelse af, hvad kunst handler om gennem LaRouche, og viste et eksempel på en af sine frembringelser.

Ephraim Haile fra Eritrea fortalte om sin historie i LaRouche-bevægelsen, der går tilbage til 1974.

Senator Bill Owens fra Massachusetts fremførte en hyldest til LaRouche.

LaRouche-aktivisten og landbrugsspecialisten Marcia Merry Baker beretede om sin erfaring med LaRouche siden slutningen af 1960’erne og sagde: “Lyndon LaRouche fik verden til at hænge sammen.”

Bob Baker, landbrugsspecialist i LaRouche-bevægelsen, præsenterede en kort indspillet tak til LaRouche.

Isaiah Madrigal fra Zimbabwe takkede LaRouche og hans bevægels

LaRouche-bevægelsens aktivister Kevin og Jen Pearl aflagde korte beretninger om deres arbejde med LaRouche i forbindelse med udførelsen af deres organisatoriske ansvar.

Michelle Erin, en vidunderlig sopran og organisator i LaRouche-bevægelsen, forklarede, hvordan LaRouche ændrede hendes opfattelse af, hvordan hun kan forme egen fremtid.

Den 5. september (EIRNS) – NATO-landene og den Europæiske Union, som ville “knuse” Rusland med monstrøse sanktioner og massive forsyninger af deres mest avancerede våben, har nu desperat brug for ledelse med nye, verdensomspændende økonomiske og strategiske politikker. De er selv ved at blive splittet ad af en økonomisk eksplosion, der forårsager en galopperende inflation og produktionsnedbrud for deres egne befolkninger og industrier, og hungersnød for udviklingslandene. Og de står over for et efterår og en vinter med omfattende uroligheder med trussel om verdenskrig.

Kravene om afholdelse af nyvalg i forskellige europæiske lande er et udtryk for dette sammenbrud, men lederskab med en vellykket ny strategisk og økonomisk politik må komme andetstedsfra. Kandidaterne er tvunget af London, Wall Street og de atlantiske medier, til på forhånd at blive enige om at optrappe krigen med Rusland og påtvinge nedskæringer og folkelig lidelse, “så længe det kræves”. Som den tyske udenrigsminister Annalena Baerbock skændigt erklærede den 31. august: “Jeg er ligeglad med, hvad mine tyske vælgere mener”; at støtte Ukraine for (umuligt) at besejre Rusland i NATO-regi, er politikken til den bitre ende.

Nu gennemgår de europæiske økonomier, for at citere en anden tysk minister, “et drastisk sammenbrud af industrien”. Tusindvis af milliarder i redningspakker strømmer nu ud af statskasserne – Sverige 23 mia. euro, Finland 10 mia. euro, Østrig 2 mia. euro, Tyskland 15 mia. euro for en måned siden, og i går blev der annonceret 65 mia. euro – for at forsøge at redde store energi- og industrivirksomheder fra fabrikslukninger, manglende likviditet og insolvens, og for at lokke husholdningerne til at forsøge at betale deres ubetalelige el- og varmeregninger. Naturgaspriserne for europæiske virksomheder og industrier er steget 11-12 gange på et år, elpriserne er steget 6-8 gange, og dertil kommer særlige reguleringer. Naturgasforbruget er faldet med 11 % for alle og 21 % for industrien i år – ” destruktion af efterspørgselen ” og nedlukning af produktionen som følge af inflationen.

Alle regeringskoalitioner skyder skylden på Rusland, men sandheden trænger sig på. Råvareinflationen eksploderede på verdensplan i 2020 og 2021; forbrugerprisinflationen løb af sted i efteråret 2021; begge på grund af pengepolitiske centralbankkrav og spekulation, som udjævnede produktiviteten og undertrykte produktionen. 

For 50 år siden, da denne politik tog over efter Nixons nedlæggelse af FDR’s Bretton Woods-system, så Lyndon LaRouche fremad og udarbejdede en langsigtet prognose. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche skrev i en artikel, der udkommer i denne uge i forbindelse med 100-årsdagen for hans fødsel, den 8. september: “Han advarede … om, at hvis den ændrede kurs, der blev antaget – hen imod et rent monetaristisk finanssystem med profitmaksimering som mål – skulle fastholdes, ville verden nødvendigvis gå mod en ny depression, en ny fascisme og faren for en ny verdenskrig, medmindre der blev etableret en helt ny og retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden.”

Lyndon LaRouche udformede politikken for denne nye orden: Den Internationale Udviklingsbank; den eurasiske og Verdens-Landbroens udviklingskorridorer; en måne-mars mission for flere nationer samt udvikling af termonuklear fusion som “videnskabelige drivkræfter” for økonomien; Glass/Steagall-bankadskillelse og hamiltonisk nationalbankvæsen i alle væsentlige nationer. Hvis hans “Nye Bretton Woods”-politik var blevet vedtaget i det 20. århundrede frem til det globale finanskrak i 2008, ville vi nu ikke stå over for de alvorlige trusler om hyperinflationært økonomisk sammenbrud og atomkrig mellem supermagter, som vi står over for i dag. Men eftersom LaRouche fremlagde denne politik for nationale ledere og borgere rundt om i verden, blev LaRouche bagvasket og latterliggjort af amerikanske og europæiske medier, og han blev gentagne gange retsforfulgt på ordre fra bankfolk i London og Wall Street og indflydelsesrige NATO-personligheder som Henry Kissinger.

I denne krise tilbyder Schiller Instituttet lederskab og en ny politik til alt bredere kredse i de ramte transatlantiske lande og til russiske, kinesiske, indiske og udviklingslandes ledere. Som et tegn på dette lederskab er det blevet udvalgt til særlig, fjendtlig opmærksomhed af det “Globale NATO’s” krigsparti og dets stedfortrædere. 

På hans 100-års fødselsdag i denne uge vil en stor international konference den 10.-11. september fejre dette arbejde og tilføre nye impulser til hans idéer, som vil være hovedhjørnestenene for fremtiden – hvis vi sørger for, at menneskeheden får en sådan. (https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20220910-11)

The English version is below the Danish:

Af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter, som var gift med Lyndon LaRouche, indtil han døde 96 år gammel.

Den 8. september for 100 år siden blev Lyndon LaRouche født. Mange mennesker verden over, herunder jeg selv, betragter ham som den største tænker i sin tid. På den anden side er han den mest hadede, frygtede og udskældte person for de transatlantiske eliter, hvilket vil sige en hel del i en tid med Trump, Putin og Xi Jinping. Jeg har haft den lykke at have været gift med ham i 41 år og at have opbygget en international bevægelse sammen med ham i et halvt århundrede, og jeg kan tilføje min personlige mening, at han i Friedrich Schillers forstand var den smukkeste sjæl, jeg nogensinde har mødt, dvs. for ham faldt frihed og nødvendighed, lidenskab og pligt i ét, og han var præcis den type person, som ifølge Schiller er kendetegnet ved denne karakteristik: et geni. Og det virkeligt bemærkelsesværdige er, at hans idéer lever i dag og fungerer i mange lande i verden.

Lyndon LaRouche havde en uovertruffen viden og en ufejlbarlig sans for filosofiske, epistemologiske, kulturelle og videnskabelige sammenhænge, som gjorde ham i stand til at navigere i disse ideers historie og straks finde ind til deres væsentlige træk. På baggrund af denne evne forkastede han i begyndelsen af 1950’erne informationsteorien og systemanalysen hos folk som Norbert Wiener og John von Neumann som uegnede til at beskrive økonomiske processer og udviklede sin egen økonomiske metode, den fysiske økonomi, baseret på bl.a. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Friedrich List, Henry C. Carey og Bernhard Riemann.

Ud fra dette synspunkt og beriget med et rigt kendskab til to og et halvt tusind års europæisk kultur- og videnskabshistorie og universel historie i almindelighed, erkendte han med større klarhed end nogen anden de potentielt katastrofale virkninger af 1960’ernes rock-drugs-sex-modkultur på befolkningens erkendelsesmæssige potentiale og dermed på befolkningens produktivitet på længere sigt.

Hans nok mest betydningsfulde forudsigelse var imidlertid hans vurdering af konsekvenserne af præsident Nixons afskaffelse af Bretton Woods-ordningen ved indførelsen af fleksible valutakurser og ophævelsen af guldstandarden for dollaren den 15. august 1971. Hvis det dermed forbundne kursskifte til et rent monetaristisk, profitmaksimerende finanssystem blev opretholdt, advarede han dengang, ville verden nødvendigvis bevæge sig mod en ny depression, en ny fascisme og truslen om en ny verdenskrig, medmindre der blev indført en helt ny, retfærdig økonomisk verdensorden.

Desværre lyttede de transatlantiske eliter ikke til ham, og derfor befinder verden sig i dag, 50 år senere, præcis på det punkt, som han forudsagde. I løbet af disse årtier, hver gang det finansielle oligarki på Wall Street og i City of London fremskyndede processen med at deregulere markederne på bekostning af realøkonomien, lagde han fingeren på såret og analyserede konsekvenserne af denne politik. Carter-regeringens politik om ”kontrolleret opløsning af økonomien”, Volckers højrentepolitik, outsourcing til lavtlønslande, just-in-time produktionspolitik, fusions- og opkøbspolitik, Reagonomics og Thatcherisme, ophævelsen af Glass-Steagall loven, aktionærværdiskabelsen, derivatspekulation, den fatale effekt af den mirakuløse pengeforøgelse i form af QE og nulrentepolitikken: Alle disse milepæle i det neoliberale finanssystem fordømte han som grundlæggende fejludviklinger, som i sidste ende kun var mellemstationer på vejen mod systemets sammenbrud.

I stedet for at tage hans analyser som en anledning til en kursændring betragtede finansoligarkiet ham fra starten som en dødbringende trussel mod deres system og iværksatte en årtier lang international kampagne for at undertrykke LaRouches idéer og dermed hans indflydelse. En hel hær af indflydelsesagenter i medier og institutioner af enhver art, herunder diplomater i alle verdenshjørner, blev indsat verden over for at lægge pres på folk, så snart de viste interesse for hans forslag i en eller anden form.

De hundredvis, hvis ikke tusindvis, af knivskarpe analyser og vurderinger, som LaRouche har leveret gennem årene, ville have været absolut tilstrækkelige til at forhindre den nuværende strategiske katastrofe. Men han brugte også altid sine advarsler til at præsentere løsninger.
Da flere statsoverhoveder begyndte at tage hans ideer op og gennemføre dem i begyndelsen af 1980’erne, besluttede det finansielle oligarki, at LaRouche skulle elimineres. Den daværende mexicanske præsident López Portillo havde bedt LaRouche om at skrive et program til forsvar af pesoen og økonomien, som Mexico begyndte at gennemføre den 1. september 1982. Den indiske premierminister Indira Gandhi begyndte i samme periode at gennemføre LaRouches forslag til et 40-årigt program for Indiens økonomiske udvikling. Og den 23. marts 1983 bekendtgjorde præsident Reagan LaRouches forslag til SDI-programmet, som var det mest vidtrækkende forslag til en ny global sikkerhedsarkitektur, som nogen hidtil har udtænkt, og som ville have overskredet NATO- og Warszawapagtblokkene og sat et storstilet udviklingsperspektiv i gang for udviklingssektoren. Reagan var på det tidspunkt klar til en sådan ændring i den strategiske konstellation, mens Arbatov-Ogarkov-Gorbatjov-fraktionen i Sovjetunionen afviste dette forslag og dermed slog ind på en vej, der i høj grad bidrog til Sovjetunionens tidlige undergang.

LaRouche deltog otte gange som kandidat i den amerikanske præsidentvalgkamp, syv af dem i det demokratiske parti. At rapportere alene om alle de sabotageoperationer, der er sat i gang mod LaRouche af partiledelsesapparatet med Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton og den nuværende ledelse, ville fylde en hel bog. Da LaRouche-kandidater begyndte at vinde valg i 1986 – i primærvalgene i Illinois til de næst- og tredjehøjeste poster i staten – blev det besluttet at gå imod ham for altid. Den 6. oktober 1986 gennemførte FBI en razzia mod LaRouches bolig og kontorer med 400 tungt bevæbnede sikkerhedsvagter, pansrede køretøjer og helikoptere, en operation, der fik den nylige razzia mod Trumps Mar-a-Lago ejendom med 40 FBI-agenter til at ligne en børnefødselsdag. Formålet med angrebet på LaRouche og mig selv var intet mindre end at eliminere os fysisk, hvilket kun kunne forhindres ved hjælp af Det Hvide Hus’ indgriben.
Derefter fulgte falske anklager, ulovlig brug af skattevæsenet, manipulerede retssager og til sidst fængsling af LaRouche og en række af hans medarbejdere.

Den tidligere justitsminister i Johnson-regeringen, Ramsey Clark, der på eget initiativ greb ind i retssagen, beskrev administrationens handlinger efter LaRouches løsladelse i en international domstol, der var organiseret af borgerrettighedsaktivister og afroamerikanske lovgivere, således:
”Men når det gælder den komplekse og omfattende udnyttelse af politi, anklagere, medier og ikke-statslige organisationer, der fokuserer på at ødelægge en fjende, overgås denne sag næppe af andre. Der er tilfælde, hvor regeringen selv har gjort mere og også gjort mere forkert i tidens løb, men med hensyn til det tætte samspil og den tætte kombination af føderale, statslige og lokale myndigheder, af den udøvende magt og endda nogle af de lovgivende og dømmende magthavere, af store og små lokale medier og af indflydelsesrige lobbyister, især ADL [Anti-Defamation League], står denne sag øverst på listen.

Formålet kan kun ses som værende at ødelægge dem fuldstændigt – ikke blot en politisk bevægelse, eller snarere en politisk figur, der er tale om begge dele, men frem for alt en frugtbar motor for nye ideer, en kollektiv virksomhed, hvor man tænker og studerer og analyserer for at løse problemer, uanset konsekvenserne for status quo eller for ens egne interesser. Der var en bevidst hensigt om at ødelægge dette for enhver pris…”

Jeg deltog selv i denne domstol. Jeg understregede eftertrykkeligt, at den største forbrydelse mod LaRouche ikke var at straffe denne store, vidunderlige ånd med fængselsstraf, men at man gennem den omfattende kampagne for at bagvaske hans navn og dermed hans ideer i høj grad forhindrede det amerikanske og i øvrigt også det internationale samfund i at sætte sig ind i hans ideer og frem for alt i at finde løsninger.

I dag, 27 år efter denne domstol, på Lyndon LaRouches 100-års fødselsdag, kan man studere resultatet af finansoligarkiets forsøg på at ødelægge LaRouche. Det transatlantiske finanssystem står over for sin hyperinflationære afslutning; den ”regelbaserede værdiorden” og NATO er en kolos på lerfødder. Læg dertil det gennemsigtige forsøg på at kontrollere ”fortællingerne” ved at give hele befolkningen mundkurv på og straks bagtale enhver, der udtaler sig om årsagerne til krigen eller inflationen, som en ”Putin-agent”. Hvis Vesten fortsætter på denne måde, går vi under.

På den anden side har LaRouches idéer været en enorm succes. Hans idéer om infrastrukturudvikling i udviklingslandene, som han har fremlagt siden begyndelsen af 1970’erne, hans program om Den nye Silkevej, der bliver til en verdenslandbro, som var hans svar på Sovjetunionens sammenbrud, er nu ved at blive realiseret af Kina og dets BRI/Silkevejsinitiativ. Det nye økonomiske og finansielle system, der i dag realiseres af mange lande og institutioner i det globale syd, er baseret på hans koncept om fysisk økonomi; økonomer i mange lande, især i Asien, studerer LaRouches skrifter og anvender dem til gavn for deres lande.

LaRouche var patriot for det Amerika, der havde udkæmpet den første vellykkede uafhængighedskrig mod det britiske imperium, men han var også verdensborger og satte altid hele menneskehedens interesser i første række. Folk fornemmede dette, og når LaRouche rejste til udviklingslande eller Europa, udtrykte de ofte deres absolutte tillid til ham på en måde, som kun ægte venskab kan det.

Ved at forkaste LaRouches idéer har Vesten ikke gjort sig selv nogen tjeneste ved at afvise dem. At USA behandlede sin største søn på en så uværdig måde, vil forblive en evig plet på USA’s historie. De lande, der anvender hans idéer, har allerede økonomisk succes og vil blive endnu mere succesfulde i fremtiden. Det kan godt være, at Vestens lande har nægtet ham officiel succes i hans lange og uovertruffent produktive liv, men han har haft et rigt, usædvanligt opfyldt og lykkeligt liv, fordi han indadtil var det mest frie og kreative menneske på jorden. Var Sokrates en succes, selv om han blev dræbt? Det er han, mens hans mordere er glemt støv.

Lyndon LaRouche er sine fjenders nemesis og glæden og stoltheden for en fremtidig, bedre menneskehedsepoke. Han vil leve videre som udødelig.

Se videokonferencen:

Schiller Instituttets videokonference i anledning af 100 år efter Lyndon LaRouches fødsel:
d. 10-11. september kl. 16.00 dansk tid eller senere.
Inspiration til menneskeheden for at overleve den største krise i verdenshistorien

—————————————————————–

English version:

100th Anniversary of the Birth of Lyndon LaRouche—The Ideas of Lyndon LaRouche Will Shape the Future of Mankind

Sept. 3, 2022 (EIRNS)—Helga Zepp-LaRouche wrote the following article as the lead of the German weekly newspaper Neue Solidarität, issue 36, for Sept. 8, 2022 (https://www.solidaritaet.com/neuesol/2022/36/hzl.htm):

One hundred years ago, on September 8, Lyndon LaRouche was born, a person whom many people throughout the world, including myself, consider the greatest thinker of our era. For the trans-Atlantic Establishment, on the other hand, he is the most hated, feared and slandered person, and that, in times of Donald Trump, Vladmir Putin and Xi Jinping, speaks volumes. As I was fortunate enough to be married to him for 41 years, and to have worked with him for half a century in building up an international movement, I can add my personal judgment that he was the most beautiful soul, in the sense of Friedrich Schiller, that I have ever met. That means that, for him, freedom and necessity, passion and duty were one, and he was precisely the type of individual who corresponds to the characterization Schiller gave of a genius. And what is truly excellent, is that his ideas are alive today and influential in many countries of the world.

Lyndon LaRouche had unparalleled knowledge and an unfailing sense of the cohesion of philosophical, epistemological, cultural and scientific notions, which allowed him to be at home in the history of such ideas, and to immediately recognize their essential nature. Based on this ability, he rejected in the early 1950s the information theory and systems analysis of people such as Norbert Wiener and John von Neumann as inadequate for describing economic processes, and developed his own scientific method of physical economy, which built upon Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Friedrich List, Henry C. Carey and Bernhard Riemann, among others.

From this point of view and with the benefit of his vast knowledge of two and a half thousand years of the history of European culture and science and of universal history in general, he recognized, much more clearly than anyone else, the potentially catastrophic effects of the drug-sex-rock counterculture of the 1960s on the cognitive potential and, thus, on the long-term productivity of the population. What is likely his most significant forecast, however, was his assessment of President Nixon’s abolition of the Bretton Woods system through the introduction of floating exchange rates and the decoupling of the dollar from the gold reserve standard on August 15, 1971. He warned at that time that if the change in course that assumed, toward a purely monetarist financial system aimed at profit maximization were to be maintained, the world would necessarily head toward a new depression, a new fascism and the danger of a new world war, unless a totally new and just world economic order were established.

Unfortunately, the trans-Atlantic Establishment did not listen to LaRouche. That is why, 50 years later, the world is now precisely at the point he had forecast. Over the course of the ensuing decades, every time Wall Street’s and the City of London’s financial oligarchy promoted the process of market deregulation to the detriment of the real economy, he put his finger on the wound, and analyzed the consequences of this policy. The Carter Administration’s policy of “controlled disintegration of the economy,” Volcker’s high interest rates, outsourcing to cheap labor markets, just-in-time production, the policy of mergers and acquisitions, Reaganomics and Thatcherism, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, the shareholder value society, derivatives speculation, the fatal consequences of the miraculous monetary expansion under QE and the zero-interest policy—he denounced all these milestones of the neoliberal financial system as fundamental errors, that were ultimately just stations on the way to the systemic crash.

Rather than using his analyses to correct the mistakes, the financial oligarchy regarded LaRouche from the beginning as a deadly danger for their system, and launched a decades-long international crusade to suppress his ideas and thereby his influence. A veritable army of agents of influence in the media and all kinds of institutions, including diplomats around the world, was deployed internationally to pressure anyone who showed interest in whatever form in his proposals.

The hundreds, if not thousands, of razor sharp analyses and assessments that LaRouche provided over the years would have absolutely sufficed to prevent the current strategic catastrophe. But at the same time, he also used his warnings to present concepts for a solution. When several heads of state began in the early 1980s to take up his ideas and implement them, the financial oligarchy basically decided that LaRouche had to be eliminated. Mexico’s then- President José López Portillo had asked LaRouche to write for him a program in defense of the peso and the economy, which he began to implement on September 1, 1982. India’s Prime Minister Indira Gandhi began at the same time to implement LaRouche’s proposed 40-year program for the economic development of India. And on March 23, 1983, President Ronald Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) program he proposed, which was the most extensive proposal for a new global security architecture that anyone had designed up to that time, which would have overcome the NATO and Warsaw Pact blocs and initiated a large-scale development perspective for the developing sector. President Reagan was ready to change the strategic constellation at the time, while the Arbatov-Ogarkov-Gorbachev fraction in the Soviet Union rejected this proposal, and thereby chose a path that significantly contributed to the early demise of the Soviet Union.

LaRouche ran for President of the United States eight times, seven of them in Democratic Party primaries. Just reporting on the sabotage operations run against him by the party leadership apparatus associated with Al Gore, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the current leadership, would fill an entire book. When LaRouche candidates began to win elections in 1986—taking the second and third highest positions in primaries in Illinois—the decision was made to attack him for good. On October 6, 1986, the FBI staged a raid on LaRouche’s home and offices, deploying 400 heavily armed law enforcement officials, armored vehicles, and helicopters, an operation that makes the Aug. 8 raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate by 40 FBI agents look like a child’s birthday party. The objective of the raid on LaRouche and myself was nothing less than to eliminate us physically, which was only prevented by an intervention from the White House.

What followed were trumped-up charges, the illegal use of the IRS, rigged trials, and finally the incarceration of LaRouche and a number of his associates.

At an international tribunal initiated by civil rights activists and African-American state legislators after LaRouche was released from prison, the former Attorney General of the Johnson Administration, Ramsey Clark, who took the initiative of intervening on his own, described the actions of the Administration as follows:

“But in what was a complex and pervasive utilization of law enforcement, prosecution, media, and non-governmental organizations focussed on destroying an enemy, this case must be number one. There are some, where the government itself may have done more and more wrongfully over a period of time; but the very networking and combination of federal, state, and local agencies, of Executive and even some Legislative and Judicial branches, of major media and minor local media, and of influential lobbyist types, the ADL preeminently, this case takes the prize. The purpose can only be seen as destroying—more than a political movement, more than a political figure—it is those two; but it’s a fertile engine of ideas, a common purpose of thinking and studying and analyzing to solve problems, regardless of the impact on the status quo, or on vested interests. It was a deliberate purpose to destroy that at any cost….”

I participated in this tribunal. I insisted emphatically that the greatest crime against LaRouche was not to have unjustly condemned such a great and wonderful mind to prison, but rather that the massive slander campaign of his name and his ideas prevented to a large extent the American population, and beyond that, the international public, from grappling with his ideas and above all with the solutions he proposed.

Today, 27 years after this tribunal, on the 100th anniversary of the birth of Lyndon LaRouche, we can study the result of the financial oligarchy’s attempted campaign to destroy him. The trans-Atlantic financial system is about to end in hyperinflation, the “rules-based order of values” and NATO are a colossus with feet of clay, and there is a transparent attempt to control the “narratives” by muzzling the entire population and immediately slandering anyone who voices an opinion of their own on the causes of the war or inflation as an “agent of Putin.” If the West continues like this, we will fail.

On the other hand, LaRouche’s ideas have had enormous success. His proposals on the development of infrastructure in developing countries, which he has presented since the early 1970s, his program for the New Silk Road, which has become the World Land-Bridge, and was his response to the collapse of the Soviet Union, are now being realized by China and its Belt and Road/Silk Road Initiative. The new economic and financial system being realized today by many countries and institutions in the Global South is based on his concept of physical economy, while economists in many countries, especially in Asia, are studying LaRouche’s writings and implementing them for the benefit of their countries.

LaRouche was a patriot of the America that fought the first successful war of independence against the British Empire, but he was also a world citizen, who always put the interest of mankind as a whole first. People could sense that, and when LaRouche traveled in developing countries or Europe, they often expressed their utmost trust in him, in such a way that only true friendship would allow.

In rejecting LaRouche’s ideas, the West did itself no favor. That the United States treated its greatest son so ignobly will remain a stain on its history forever. The countries that apply his ideas are already economically successful, and will be even more so in the future. Although official success was denied to him by Western countries during his long and incomparably productive life, he led a rich, extraordinarily fulfilling and happy life, because he was inwardly the most free and most creative person on Earth. Was Socrates successful, even though he was murdered? He certainly is, while his murders lie forgotten in dust.

Lyndon LaRouche is the Nemesis of his enemies and the joy and pride of a future, better era for mankind. He will live immortal.

Consultation in the Danish parliament on August 19, 2022 Danish Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod About the Ukraine Blacklist, Which Includes Three Experts in Denmark

(The video, in Danish, and the full transcript, in Danish, may be seen here. )

Translated Excerpts in English 

Member of Parliament Marie Krarup (independent): My reason for raising the question is that I think it is a serious matter, because this Centre to Counter Disinformation — the centre that has made the list of 72 foreigners outside Ukraine –belongs to the Security Council of Ukraine, and the same day that this list was published, the leader, Andrei Shapovalov, said that the people who are spreading disinformation are “information terrorists,” and they must be held accountable as “war criminals.” Zelensky’s adviser Mikhail Podolok has elaborated these views, in interviews and an article in which he calls on other governments to limit the influence of these people and for them to be subjected to what he called “military cleansing”.

 

I am therefore, of course, interested to hear whether the Foreign Minister has taken the initiative to carry out a “military cleansing” of Associate Professor Jens Jørgen Nielsen, peace researcher, Jan Øberg, and Professor in International Politics at Aalborg University Li Xing?

 

Or has the Foreign Minister made approaches to Ukraine to have these persons removed from the list? Or does the Foreign Minister still believe that we are supporting freedom of expression and democracy by supporting Ukraine? Thank you.

 

Minister for Foreign Affairs Jeppe Kofod (Social Democrat): Yes, thank you for that. And thank you to Mrs. Marie Krarup for convening the consultation today.

 

Putin’s war of aggression in Ukraine means that we in Denmark and in Europe can no longer take our freedom and our security for granted. Disinformation, lies and propaganda are an integral part of Russian warfare and attempts to undermine the unity of the West. And as a world community, we must therefore continually consider how to respond, with respect for freedom of expression, and our fundamental democratic rights.

 

The Centre for Combating Disinformation, under Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, has published a list of speakers who “promote narratives consistent with Russian propaganda.” However, the list, which includes four [sic: three] people linked to Denmark, is no longer available on the website.

In addition to the consultation today, the list has attracted considerable coverage in the Danish press, where it was received with astonishment and concern. There are concerns about the criteria for inclusion on the list, and about the use of such a list to silence voices in the debate with whom one disagrees.

 

I have therefore also asked the Danish embassy in Kiev to contact the Ukrainian authorities to seek clarification of the activities of the Centre for Combating Disinformation.

 

In this context, we from the Danish side will support the fight against disinformation, which is an essential element in Russia’s warfare against Ukraine.

 

At the same time, we will underline the Danish position, as is well known, that the fight against disinformation should contribute to strengthening, not undermining, democracy, research and freedom of expression.

 

When I have a response from the Ukrainian authorities, I will be happy to return to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. And until then, I would like to take the opportunity to make the government’s policy absolutely clear:

We must stand firm that research and freedom of expression are important democratic values for the Danish government, there should be no doubt about that.

Next, I would argue that Ukraine is threatened in its very existence. Putin has set out to destroy an entire country, a democracy, in fact, deny Ukraine’s legitimacy at all.

 

I think most people can understand that the fundamental principles may well come under pressure in such a situation….

[Foreign Minister Jeppe Kofod continued his initial remarks by outlining Denmark’s position on the need to support Ukraine in the war with Russia.] 

Marie Krarup: Thank you for the answer. So that basically means that what the foreign minister has done, is to ask the Danish embassy in Kiev to get in touch with the Ukrainian authorities to seek clarification on the activities of the Center for Fighting Russian Disinformation in Ukraine…. 

That means that contact has been made with the Danish Embassy in Kiev to do something which they always ought to do. I have worked in an embassy myself, and I know how things work there. If there is something going on, in relation to Denmark, then it is obvious that it is the embassy’s obligation to immediately get a clarification of what is going on. 

 

That is what the Foreign Minister has done, about a month after three law-abiding Danish researchers were put on a list in which they were called “information terrorists” and they are indirectly threatened with being brought before a war crimes tribunal. 

 

These are researchers who use the quite ordinary Danish freedom of expression to say quite ordinary and banal things, such as one of them has said, “Western sanctions against Russia are not working.” Then you are added to a list where you are indirectly threatened as a war criminal. And so, the Foreign Minister, in the month that has passed since the three Danish nationals were put on this nasty list, the Danish Foreign Minister has asked the Danish Embassy in Kiev to do its duty? 

 

I think that is a very poor response to the quite unbelievably gross situation that three Danish researchers are being prevented from carrying out perfectly legal research activities because they now have to live with threats hanging over their heads. 

 

Has the Foreign Minister contacted the police and asked them to ensure that the three researchers’ safety is guaranteed?

Jeppe Kofod: I’m afraid I have to, unfortunately, correct Mrs. Marie Krarup. The Danish Embassy HAS contacted the Ukrainian authorities, so it is not the case that I have asked the Embassy to contact them. They have contacted them. And we are awaiting the reply from the Ukrainian authorities. And in that context, the contact that the Danish Embassy has made, the Danish Embassy has also expressed concern about the list, which, by the way, has been taken down, as I understand it. And then, just in relation to the CCD, according to what I have been told, it is the acting leader of this center who is quoted as putting forward the idea that the information space could be protected from disinformation by means of a new law which would allow the prosecution of disseminators of disinformation as war criminals – that is what I think Marie Krarup has referred to. It is said to have been put forward at a round table discussion, with the support of the U.S. Department of State, organised by the National Security Service Academy, the Civilian Research and Development Foundation of the U.S., the International Academy of Information, and the coordination platform the National Security Cluster. We were not present at this roundtable. But there is nothing immediately indicating that the statement is about individuals on the list we are discussing today.

As mentioned, and I would like to stress this, I have asked the Danish Embassy to investigate the statement further, and get an explanation from the Ukrainian authorities about how they will ensure, and I hope that Mrs. Marie Krarup agrees with me, concern for freedom of expression, freedom of research and democracy with such a law.

 

 Once the Ukrainian authorities have given their statement, I will ensure that this committee, the Committee on Foreign Affairs, is informed. And I think it is important that we hear the Ukrainian authorities’ explanation. Also in a situation where there is a lot of misinformation out there….

………..

Excerpt 2:

Marie Krarup: How can the Foreign Minister accept that three law-abiding Danish scientists were put on a list to scare people and make them stop. How can the Foreign Minister accept that? 

 

And, by the way, I must dispute the fact that these answers from the head of the CCD and President Zelensky’s adviser, Mr. Podolok, were not referencing this list. There is a very clear statement that there IS reference to this list, calling on governments to carry out what has been called ‘military lustration,’ which I think should be translated as ‘cleansing’, or to impose sanctions on them. So, will the Foreign Minister follow the call of President Zelensky’s adviser to put these three perfectly law-abiding scientists: a professor at Aalborg University, a lecturer elsewhere, and a peace researcher, will the Foreign Minister follow the call of President Zelensky’s adviser to make sure that these three people can no longer speak freely?…

Excerpt 3:

Jeppe Kofod: … So I think it’s really a slightly skewed debate. There should be a lot more focus on what Russia is up to at the moment. With cyber attacks, disinformation, misinformation, as an attempt to destroy our way of life. I hope that Mrs Marie Krarup will also be concerned about that.

 

Marie Krarup: Thank you. I would be very happy to organise a new meeting to talk about combating Russian disinformation, because of course we must counter any kind of lies, of course we must counter any kind of restrictions on freedom of expression – that is absolutely clear, I will do that at any time! 

 

Now, what we are dealing with here is three Danes, perfectly law-abiding debaters, who have been put on a list as an indirect threat to their security. It is an attempt to silence them. Because they make perfectly legal and almost boring statements, such as that the Western sanctions against Russia are not working. Should it be a criminal act to say that? It is true that the list is not available right now. Thank goodness. 

 

That might suggest that Ukraine’s government has figured out that making such a nasty list is shooting itself in the foot. Because it is obviously not an expression of freedom of speech and democracy to put people in the stocks and start behaving like the neighbouring country. Because what is the point of us restricting freedom of expression in Denmark and restricting freedom of expression in Ukraine, and thereby coming to resemble Russia, where freedom of expression is restricted to such an extent. Are we going to turn our countries into tyrannies? 

 

No, we must not! We must fight it! But the list exists! There are clever people who had it printed out as soon as it was available. And here it is. And I’d gladly pass it on. There are many ordinary sensible scientists listed here who are in no way breaking the law with their research. Highly recognized and respected professors, for example, John Mearsheimer, who has been very active in this debate and, of course, has said nothing at all illegal. Has not incited hatred, or violence, or anything, whatsoever. Perfectly legal speech. And that’s what this is all about. We can have many other consultations, about everything else, but right now it’s a consultation about what to do to ensure the freedom of expression of Danish debaters in Denmark? 

 

And what has the Foreign Minister done to investigate what is going on? Does the Foreign Minister think that it is supporting democracy and freedom of expression, to support a government that is asking us to sanction Danish researchers in Denmark? And to be interested in what my opinions or feelings are in other contexts – is just not within the subject of this consultation. I think that something terrible is happening in Ukraine, absolutely terrible, and I want this war to stop. I think it’s a crime that Russia has invaded, that’s just not what it’s about right now. Right now, it is about the fact that the Ukrainian government, which the Danish government supports, is calling for the Danish government to sanction Danish researchers and restrict their freedom of expression. 

 

And I have not received any answer from the Foreign Minister, except something about perhaps the embassy being asked to do its job, or is the embassy just doing it by itself? There is simply no public statement to the effect that we cannot vouch for this. It may be that the next arms shipment will be delayed because we do not think it is OK for a professor of international politics at Aalborg University – he is being criminalised for saying that Western sanctions are not working against Russia. I have not heard the Foreign Minister express any criticism; I would very much like to hear the Foreign Minister do so here. Is it OK for Ukraine to encourage us to sanction perfectly law-abiding researchers in Denmark? 

Excerpt 4:

Jeppe Kofod: Now Russia has started a war of conquest, illegal war of conquest in the country, and there we have to respond again, and defend the Ukrainians. And therefore, there can not be, in any way, as Mrs. Marie Krarup spoke about, talk about our arms donations. The arms donations that we are giving to Ukrainians, for their defense fight, we will continue to do that, and we are working very hard for others to contribute as well, so that we can ensure Ukrainians that they can live without Russian invasion.

They must win, the Ukrainians, and the fact that they must be able to win requires us to continue with our arms supplies, which we certainly intend to do, irrespective of what Mrs. Marie Krarup mentions here.

Christian Juhl (Unity Party): I have put my name on the list. I would like to hear from the minister. We are friends of Ukraine, we support them in this terrible situation. And I think in my time, since February 24, I have spent thousands of hours defending Ukraine, but also spent, about ten minutes, or fifteen minutes looking at the allegations that have been made that Ukraine, in the harsh situation, is actually also at risk of violating some of the basic rules that we think belong in a democratic society. It is also our duty as politicians and ministers to try to see the nuances of the situation. Even if it is serious. So that the foundation stone of the democracy which is to be developed further after the war and after the Russians have withdrawn their troops, must develop. We will have at least as great a task to help with that, in my opinion. Reconstruction, development of the country, etc.

I would like to ask two questions there. When we are friends with Ukraine, it is also important that we are honest friends. Real friends are honest friends, right?

That means that if we find something incomprehensible, we tell each other. Just as I think the ministers who have visited from Ukraine have done to us. They have been very clear when we were foot-dragging, and cut through: This is not what we are talking about, we don’t need friendly words, we need weapons, they say, for example in the meetings. These are honest friends who say such things to their partners. Does the minister think that there can be arguments for restricting freedom of speech in an extreme situation, like the one Ukraine is in at the moment, and it would be legal, in the minister’s opinion, for Ukraine to say, we cannot afford to have freedom of speech here?

 

Or, for example, it has been debated in the media lately that they are preparing an anti-union law in Ukraine, there are a number of European trade unions and individuals who have protested violently against that because, what does that have to do with the war? Because that is a fundamental principle that we also support. So a question: can there be a situation where you have to give up freedom of expression in such an extreme situation as Ukraine is in, during the occupation. In the minister’s opinion?

That’s the one. The other one is: can the minister confirm that we are indeed, monitoring the laws of war on both sides? And that we actually believe that everybody should abide by the laws of war, including occupied countries. Because that forms the basis for things not escalating into a completely crazy situation. Or is this also a place where we have to say that it is only one side that has to respect the laws of war.

I only ask because I think it is important that we have some universal approaches to some of these things.

The last question is a Danish question. I would like to know whether the Minister believes that the three researchers have used blatant propaganda and disinformation, or that the Minister suspects that the three have done so? It is a little because we might as well play it over on the Danish court straight away. If they haven’t done it, then we should defend them, in my opinion. If they have done it, then we need to have it on the table. And then we must know, where does this conflict with Danish law.

[op cut begin]

Marie Krarup: Thank you. It’s not strange to abolish freedom of speech in a country that’s at war. And I have the impression that that’s pretty much what they’ve done in Ukraine. What is strange is that we say that we are defending democracy when we support a country that is asking us to abolish freedom of expression in our own country.

THAT is where I think the problem is. To be handed a list with three Danes on it and be asked by the head of the Center [for Combating Disinformation] and Zelensky’s adviser to sanction them. And when the minister claims that there is nothing to suggest that this is what happened, then I must refer to the statements that the head of the Center, Shapovalov, made, on July 14, about people who spread disinformation, they are information terrorists, and they must face a war crimes tribunal. And something similar was written by the same person in Ukraine’s Pravda on 2 August.

And Zelensky’s adviser, Podolok, said on August 5 about the people on the list that they are calling for them to be sanctioned by other governments, their influence to be limited, and then they are to be subjected to this ‘military purge’, which I don’t quite know what that means.

So that’s what is a call for us, in our country, to put restrictions on perfectly legal Danish researchers’ freedom of expression. THAT’s what I’m asking the minister to address. I am surprised that the Minister has not somehow said to Ukraine, because, as was said earlier, if you are friends, then you are, of course, honest friends. And if we are to help Ukraine become a democracy, as I certainly think we should, then freedom of speech is part of that.

And it may well be that they cannot have it now, in the current war situation, I actually understand that, in their own country, but the fact that they are calling for us, in Denmark, to abolish freedom of expression, in certain areas, is not good. We should therefore say to Ukraine that you have to stop that. You have to take our people off the list. We will not sanction our researchers. We do not think that it is Russian disinformation or an illegal statement to say that “Western sanctions against Russia are not working,” as a professor of international politics from Aalborg University has said.

Does the minister think that’s an illegal statement? Or that it is spreading Russian propaganda to say that Western sanctions against Russia do not work?

[op cut end]

Excerpt 5:

Jeppe Kofod: 1. Ukraine has not asked us to abolish freedom of expression in Denmark, as has been claimed, I want to make that clear.

2. There is no request from the Ukrainian government to us, about the researchers about whom Mrs. Marie Krarup addresses us.
3. We have not received any list.

I really think we should be careful that such debates do not get out of proportion, when we consider what it is a task we face, in terms of disinformation, misinformation. You can pick your battles as you like.

 

Excerpt 6:

Marie Krarup: So the Foreign Minister might deny that the list exists? It was published, it was taken down, thank God, shortly after, for example, Jyllands-Posten wrote an editorial about it. So Jyllands-Posten also lives in an alternative reality where they believe that list exists?

It does exist. And there were statements from the head of the center, and from Zelensky’s advisor, Podoljak. I know that the Foreign Ministry has received documentation about that, with the translation of those documents. Where the head of the center, and Zelensky’s adviser, calls on the governments, where the foreign – these are 72 people living outside Ukraine – where they are called on to take action against them. This is not an official request. That is absolutely correct, I fully agree. But it is a public request. And the Foreign Minister is apparently totally indifferent about that.

Documentation has been sent to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I know, because I myself received it on the same occasion.

So the question is: will the Foreign Minister follow these calls to restrict the freedom of expression of Danish researchers? I think that would be wrong. I also think it would be appropriate to say to Ukraine that we will not do that and call on them to distance themselves from the list. It is very good that it is no longer available on the website; it is still visible on their Facebook page. With photos of the people they don’t like. Who they want sanctioned. So, in that way, it still exists.

I hope it’s not the case that if Russia approaches Denmark, unofficially or officially, and asks to restrict the freedom of expression of some Danish researchers, that they say “never mind”. Or just look out of the window.

Then I wish that they would officially distance themselves from it. Because it is just wrong.

And now that we are talking about a country which we support, and which we support because we say that it is a democracy, I just think it seems odd that no statement is being made. Jyllands-Posten could at least write an editorial about it and denounce it. And I think that the government should do the same. And then guide the Ukrainians in a friendly, honest way and say: this is a bad idea. You should not do that. We will not follow your calls to sanction Danish researchers in Denmark, no matter how terrible the situation you are in. Because they are in a completely terrible situation. It is so appalling. No matter how terrible the situation you are in, we will not destroy our own democracy, our own freedom of expression.

An honest friend of Ukraine should have said that to Ukraine. And you should also do it for the sake of the researchers, who obviously don’t find it nice to have this kind of indirect threat.

So, after this consultation, I assume that the Foreign Minister now, after getting some more information, and hopefully getting a deeper understanding of what this is about, will take action on this, and address the Ukrainian government and say something about that freedom of expression in Denmark must not be destroyed, because there is a terrible situation in Ukraine, and if Ukraine wants to be a democracy, in the long term, then it has to respect freedom of expression.

Will the Foreign Minister do that?

Excerpt 7:

Jeppe Kofod: [About that Marie Krarup alleged that I] denied that there is a list, I have not. I have simply said that we have not received it. We have not received a list, from the Ukrainian Government, sent to the Danish Government of any individuals. I mentioned that it was a list that apparently has been taken down from the website, and I also believe that there are organizations, including the Schiller Institute, that have sent this material, probably to Marie Krarup, and also to me.

Excerpt 8:

Jeppe Kofod: And then once we’ve heard about this list, the work of this Center for Combating Disinformation, we’ll come back, to the Foreign Affairs Committee. Then we can take the debate further there, if it is still relevant. (00:58:35:00)

Marie Krarup: I would like to, if it’s possible. But I’m glad the minister doesn’t deny it. Actually, that’s not what it was about. What I find embarrassing is that the minister has not taken action to defend the freedom of expression of Danish researchers. Thank you for giving me the floor.

Christian Juhl – [Thanks the minister and Marie Krarup.] We would like, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, to receive a written briefing, when it is available, with the facts about it, and then we can consider an extension of the consultation. Thanks to all.

The video, in Danish, and the full transcript in Danish may be seen here. 

————————
Jyllands-Posten editorial, August 11, 2022 at 6:30pm. Jyllands-Posten is one of the three major Danish daily newspapers. Here are some excerpts.

FOR SUBSCRIBERS

Title: Ukraine and free speech

Kicker: It is worrying when Ukraine blacklists researchers and others who have a different view of the conflict from the unequivocally pro-Ukrainian one.

Beginning: “If not before, then certainly since February 24 this year, the Ukrainian people and their President, Volodymyr Zelensky, could not have any doubt that a united West and the EU are fully behind them….

[In speeches, Zelensky] “skillfully appealed to unity and emphasized what we know, that Ukraine’s struggle for freedom is ours too. It has helped to underline and convince, even more, that Ukraine naturally belongs in Europe, and eventually in the European Union – one day on the other side of the war.

“But to get there, there are conditions to be met. Among them is the fundamental acceptance of free speech. Even before the war, there were stories that freedom of expression, particularly for the media, did not always enjoy favorable conditions in Ukraine, and it is obvious that this is even worse in a war like the present one. But that is why it is still necessary for the country, and especially its President, to show that it accepts free speech and the right to disagree.

“The Centre for Countering Disinformation sounds like something out of George Orwell’s ‘1984’, but it is a center under Ukraine’s National Security Council. The center presumably has a central function during the war, but it has also recently been used to blacklist 72 international politicians, thinkers and researchers, including four Danes [really three Danes and one Swede- mr]: Russia expert Jens Jørgen Nielsen, peace and conflict researcher Jan Øberg, chairman of the Schiller Institute in Sweden Ulf Sandmark and Aalborg University professor Li Xing.

“What the four Danes have in common is that they took part in a seminar at the end of May on alternatives to the current security policy structure in the world in order to reduce tensions and the division of countries into, for example, members and non-members of NATO. Li Xing, among others, opposes Russia’s attack on Ukraine, but he has also questioned the long-term impact of the sanctions policy based on his research. Both – the theme of the seminar and the questioning of Western sanctions policy – are of course perfectly legitimate in a free and open society.

“It is therefore worrying when Ukraine blacklists researchers and others who have a different view of the conflict. For it can hardly be seen as anything other than an attempt to silence them and label any angle other than the pro-Ukrainian one as pro-Russian, and thus on the wrong side of history.

“Ukraine’s fight for freedom in the face of its opposite, Putin’s barbaric unfreedom, is heroic and deserves all our support. But in rejecting free speech, free research and free debate, it is precisely Ukraine and its President who are in danger of moving to the wrong side, far from the ideals that they will hopefully pursue on the other side of the war, to emphasize that they are part of us, as we now see their struggle as ours.” End of the editorial.

It should be noted that Jyllands-Posten led an international campaign for free speech after they printed derogatory cartoons of the prophet Mohammed in 2005. Now, they have something much better to defend.

pictures: Marie Krarup: screen grab
Jeppe Kofod: Michelle Rasmussen

Den 1. september 2022 (EIRNS) – Der er så meget i verden, som er farligt og sorgfuldt lige nu, på grund af voldelige konflikter og økonomisk sammenbrud. Men søjlerne i det Globale NATO’s geopolitiske militære ekspansion – “demokrati”, grønne direktiver, korporatisme – synes at være begyndt at knække og vakle iøjnefaldende. To tilfælde i denne uge, som involverer EU, er de seneste af mange eksempler på hvordan det Globale Syd er ved at skubbe det Globale NATO ud på et sidespor. Det drejer sig om EU, Storbritannien og USA i Afrika og Latinamerika. De underliggende strukturer for de globale NATO-alliancer baseret på løgne, “fortællinger” og tvang er ved at gå i opløsning.

På EU’s udenrigsministermøde i Prag i denne uge (30.-31. august) blev der på den todelte dagsorden ikke kun taget stilling til, hvad der skal gøres ved “russisk aggression i Ukraine”, men også hvad der skal gøres ved det faktum, at “russisk misinformation har overtaget i Afrika”, som Sloveniens udenrigsministerium udtrykte det. EU’s ministre brokkede sig over, at alt for mange afrikanske nationer undlader at tilslutte sig de vestlige sanktioner og fordømmelser mod Rusland. Disse afrikanske nationer støtter også Kina. Ministrene drøftede, hvordan man kan “bekæmpe russisk misinformation”. 

Nogle af EU’s udenrigsministre, som stadig var tænksomme, rejste dog den pointe, at EU ikke har udrettet noget, siden der blev afgivet løfter på topmødet mellem EU og Afrika for seks måneder siden, i februar. Nå, de kunne måske påtale dette. I modsætning hertil gennemfører Rusland opførelsen af Egyptens første atomkraftværk. Kina fortsætter med andre projekter for motorveje, jernbaner, el- og vandinfrastruktur. Kina har etableret fire agroteknologiske centre med henblik på at støtte moderne landbrug.

På den anden side af Atlanten er forholdene de samme. Rusland og Kina opfører projekter i Sydamerika og Caribien, mens EU/USA/Storbritannien-blokken insisterer på hårde stramninger, grønne tiltag og udplyndring gennem global fødevareforsyning. I modsætning hertil har Bolivia og Rusland samarbejdet om at opføre det første atomkompleks i landet, hvor to reaktorer åbner i denne måned til medicinsk forskning og bestråling af fødevarer. Kina har adskillige projekter. 

EU’s tab af besindighed i denne sag fremgår af lækagen i denne uge af et EU-dokument fra European External Action Service, (EEAS), som {El Pais} i Spanien er kommet i besiddelse af. I dokumentet fremgår det: “Kina er den primære eller sekundære handelspartner for de latinamerikanske og caribiske lande, fortrænger EU og overgår USA i mange lande.” EU beklager dette såvel som Bælte- og Vej-Initiativet, men gør stadig enten ingenting, eller værre end ingenting.

Verden råber på at stoppe kaos og drab og påbegynde produktion. I går samledes landmænd med traktorer i talrige byer i Tyskland med støtte fra lokalsamfundet på mange af byernes gamle torve, for at forsvare retten til at producere fødevarer. De budskaber, som blev videregivet til dem fra landmænd og kvægavlere i Amerika, havde den selvsamme moralske tilgang til fysisk økonomi: verden har brug for produktion. Det er målestandarden for menneskerettigheder. Vi kan forene os for at skabe det som den tyske landbrugsformand Alf Schmidt kalder “en fredelig revolution”.

I næste uge afholdes der begivenheder i frontlinjen i kampen for denne forandring. Den 8. september er 100-årsdagen for Lyndon LaRouches fødselsdag, hvis metodelære og politik er den aktive arv til at sætte kursen ud af den nuværende krise. Der er planlagt en international online-dag og visse personlige mindehøjtideligheder.  

{EIR} News Service stiller også sin specialartikel vidt til rådighed, der blev offentliggjort i dag om emnet “‘Global NATO’ Orders a Hit on Advocates of Peace”, som er inkluderet i det ugentlige {EIR} (2. september). Rapporten afslører NATO’s, USA’s, Storbritanniens og EU’s netværk, som understøtter de sortliste- og hitlisteagenturer, hvis hjemsted er Kiev, Center for Combatting Disinformation og Myrotvorets (Peacemaker) Database. 

Den 10.-11. september vil Schiller Instituttet afholde en international (virtuel) konference med fire paneler. Med titlen: “Inspiring Humanity To Survive the Greatest Crisis in World History” (At inspirere menneskeheden til at overleve den største krise i Verdenshistorien). Beskrivelsen af den indledende drøftelse: “Et panel af talere fra USA, Kina, Indien, Rusland og andre nationer vil blive præsenteret efter hovedtalen af Helga Zepp-LaRouche. Lyndon LaRouches kritiske interventioner, der går 70 år tilbage i tiden, vil være med til at danne rammen om diskussionen.”

https://schillerinstitute.nationbuilder.com/conference_20220910-11

Billede: Agua Clara Locks. Mariordo (Mario Roberto Durán Ortiz), CC BY-SA 4.0 via Wikimedia Commons

 

Den 31. august 2022 (EIRNS) – I en artikel fra 23. januar 2008, der blev udgivet mindre end 48 timer efter den sorte mandag, hvor de internationale aktiemarkeder eksploderede, og London og Washingtons panikslagne beslutning om at redde den globale spekulationsboble med sjove penge, advarede Lyndon LaRouche eftertrykkeligt: “Hvis man undlader at gennemføre de nødreformer i USA, som jeg har foreskrevet, garanterer man nu en slags kædereaktion af et globalt hyperinflationært kollaps, som truer med at trække den samlede verden ind i en langvarig ny mørk tidsalder.”

Lyndon LaRouches råd blev ikke fulgt. I stedet blev kvantitative lempelser udløst, hvorefter der i mellemtiden er blevet udstedt værdiløse papirer for ca. 30 billioner dollars, for at forsøge at redde boblen, som voksede fra ca. 1,6 billiarder dollars i 2008 til næsten 2 billiarder dollars i dag. Vi står nu midt i den kædereaktion, som LaRouche advarede om, og som kombinerer hyperinflation med et fysisk-økonomisk sammenbrud, der vil efterlade nationer og deres befolkninger som ruiner i sit kølvand.

Det bør nævnes, at der er en voksende erkendelse af, at der faktisk er en sammenbrudskrise undervejs – uden at man dog ved, hvorledes den skal gribes an. Her blot et uddrag af nogle fremtrædende kommentarer fra de sidste 24 timer:

“(En) økonomisk katastrofe (er) kun en måned væk” – Christine Jardine, talsmand for de britiske Liberale Demokraters kabinetskontor.

Vesteuropa er på vej mod et “energikollaps” – Ungarns udenrigsminister, Peter Szijjarto.

“De næste 5-10 vintre vil blive forfærdelige, hvis der ikke gøres noget” – den belgiske energiminister, Tinne Van der Straeten.

Uden fossile brændstoffer vil “civilisationen bryde sammen” – Elon Musk.

Den britiske inflation vil stige til over 22 % næste år – Goldman Sachs.

Europa befinder sig faktisk på tærsklen til en ny mørk tidsalder, og USA er ikke langt bagefter. Det er en ny mørk tidsalder, udløst af selvpåført energimangel som følge af den anti-russiske sanktionspolitik, men som er forårsaget af det finansielle etablissements vedvarende forpligtelse til en malthusiansk politik for global afindustrialisering og befolkningsreduktion.

Det er derfor ikke så overraskende, at Kina, Rusland og størstedelen af udviklingslandene nægter at gå ned med det synkende skib, herunder dets politik med geopolitiske krige og blodig undertrykkelse af oppositionens røster.

Der er kun kort tid tilbage til at efterleve Lyndon LaRouches advarsler og politiske råd – men det er tilstrækkeligt, hvis vi tager fat på det. Det følgende er LaRouches samlede indledning til ovennævnte artikel fra 2008, offentliggjort i Executive Intelligence Review den 1. februar 2008, “HYPERINFLATION IS HERE! Det økonomiske sammenbrud” (https://larouchepub.com/lar/2008/3505hyperinflation_breakdown.html)

“USA’s vanvittige beslutning i den forgangne uge om at iværksætte en “stimuluspakke” for USA’s økonomi, har ført USA til sin nuværende indtræden i en ny retning: en hyperinflationær økonomisk sammenbrudskrise. Det er en krise, hvis konsekvenser, hvis ikke de afværges med de foranstaltninger som jeg for nylig har beskrevet,, med garanti vil sprede sig over hele verden og næsten helt sikkert snart bringe hele planeten ind i en “ny mørk tidsalder”, sammenlignelig med den der blev udløst af det 14. århundredes middelalderlige venetianske systems lombardiske bankfirmaer, som f.eks. det berygtede Bardi-hus. Jeg har ved forskellige offentlige lejligheder siden udviklingen i 1968 udtrykt frygt for de ændringer i USA’s og andre nationers økonomiske, monetære og finansielle politik, der blev iværksat ved en kombination af Nixon-regeringens ophævelse af Bretton Woods-valutaordningen med faste valutakurser og Carter-regeringens ødelæggelse af USA’s fysiske økonomi med gennemførelsen af Rockefeller-Brzezinskis Trilaterale Kommissions politik. Hvis de ikke vendes, vil de i sidste ende føre til, at der ikke blot indføres en fascistisk politik i USA, hvilket netop er det resultat, der har været undervejs omkring Shultz, Rohatyn, Bloomberg og Schwarzenegger, men også til et generelt sammenbrud og en krise, ikke blot i den amerikanske økonomi, men i verdensøkonomien som helhed.

“I løbet af de sidste to uger er både USA og Storbritannien overgået til en sådan almen hyperinflatorisk form for generel økonomisk sammenbrudskrise, til en periode med en slags hyperinflatorisk pengepolitisk stimulering, som kan sammenlignes med Weimar-Tyskland i 1923. Medmindre denne nuværende tendens i den igangværende politiske udformning stoppes, er der ingen del af verden, som ikke snart vil blive ramt af de verdensomspændende konsekvenser af en form for global sammenbrudskrise, sammenlignelig med det 14. århundrede i Europa.

“Denne trussel kan stoppes, selv nu; men hvis man undlader at gennemføre de former for amerikanske nødreformer, som jeg har foreskrevet, vil man nu risikere en kædereaktion af en form for globalt hyperinflationært kollaps, som truer med at trække hele vores planet ind i en langvarig, ny mørk tidsalder. Dette er, eksempelvis, de eneste virkelig vigtige emner, der skal tages i betragtning i den nuværende amerikanske præsidentvalgkampagne forud for valget. Alle andre anliggender er nærmest irrelevante.”