1

Videopræsentation v/Jason Ross;
dansk udskrift.
Vi gennemgår vi de fire aspekter af
LaRouches Fire Love

Når vi opererer økonomisk på den måde, der er karakteristisk for den menneskelige art som helhed over lang, historisk tid, over økonomisk tid, kan vi få enorm udvikling og omskabe vores forhold til naturen. For at gøre dette, er der nogle skridt, der kræves; nogle aspekter af lovgivning og nogle specifikke forslag til en politik. I denne brochure om Amerikas rolle i Silkevejen gennemgår vi de fire aspekter af LaRouches Fire Love. Det første skridt er en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; dette er den afgørende lov, som I netop hørte blev rejst som et spørgsmål under pressekonferencen i Det Hvide Hus. Dette var Roosevelts politik, der opdelte bankerne i kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker; som gjorde det muligt at få udlån ud til realøkonomien på en sikker måde.

(Sidste halvdel af LaRouchePAC webcast, 10. mrs., start på 25 min.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7z9NfI_Ns0

(Se webcast første del, ‘Hvorfor briterne hader Trump’, her).

Jason Ross: Det, du netop har gennemgået, Mike, gør det virkelig meget klarere, hvorfor der er så meget opposition til det potentiale, vi har netop nu, som virkelig er enormt. Nogle mennesker siger, at det Demokratiske Parti nu er en ulmende ruinhob. Det er en ret god beskrivelse af det, synes jeg. At de, i stedet for at tænke på, hvilken politik, de bør forfølge, hvad deres mission burde være, så er det blevet til en masse beskyldninger mod Rusland for alt muligt. Dårligt vejr? Giv Rusland skylden. Dårligt valgresultat? Giv Rusland skylden. Hacking af valget? Præsidentvalget var én. Hvad med Senatet? Hvad med Huset? Hvad med delstatskongresserne? Hvad med guvernør-skaberne i hele landet? Dette var generelt set ikke noget godt valg for det Demokratiske Parti.

Tænk på de muligheder, der kunne være, mht. at samarbejde med Trump-præsidentskabet om initiativer, der nu er mulige. Lad og tage et eksempel. Dette er et klip fra pressekonferencen i går med Det Hvide Hus’ pressesekretær, Sean Spicer. Manden, der stiller spørgsmål, er Newsmax’ John Gizzy. Det handler om præcis den form for samarbejde, som burde finde sted. Lad os høre:

John Gizzy: Tilbage under mødet og Deres åbningstale om bankerne, i den sidste kampagne, førte kandidat Trump en hård kampagne for en genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven, som ville opsætte en barriere mellem kommercielle banker og store investeringsbanker. Den blev selvfølgelig ophævet i 1999, ophævelsen underskrevet af præsident Clinton. Senator Sanders førte også valgkampagne over dette, bemærkede, at det var i Republikanernes valgplatform i Cleveland, og sagde i december, at han med glæde ville arbejde sammen med Trump-administrationen om genindførelse af Glass-Steagall.

Er der planer om, at præsidenten skal mødes med senator Sanders? Og er en ophævelse [han ville have sagt »genindførelse«] af Glass-Steagall på hans dagsorden?

Sean Spicer: Der er ingen aktuel plan om at møde ham. Jeg er sikker på, at, som han har gjort med flere andre kongresmedlemmer på begge sider af midtergangen, et møde vil blive aftalt på et tidspunkt. Vi har ikke noget på bogen lige nu, men hør, han har vist – og jeg mener i dag, eller i går, var endnu et eksempel; i dag endnu et eksempel – hans beredvillighed til at række over midtergangen, hans beredvillighed til at se til begge kamre, og ikke blot i erhvervslivet, men også fagforeninger og andre industrier, hvor vi kan finde fælles jordbund. Jeg mener, at, hvis senator Sanders og andre ønsker at arbejde med Det Hvide Hus inden for områder, om måder til at forbedre finansindustrien, så vil vi gøre det.

Gizzy: Er I stadig forpligtet over for at genindføre Glass-Steagall?

Spicer: Ja.

Ross: Der var det! Det er atter blevet bekræftet ved en pressekonference i Det Hvide Hus, at Trump officielt har støttet Glass-Steagall. Dette er den mest afgørende lov, der kan få vort land på fode igen. Vi er meget glade her i LaRouchePAC; vi har netop udgivet en digital version af en brochure om LaRouches Fire Love og Amerikas Fremtid på Silkevejen. Det kan vi se på nu. Den vil også blive udgivet på tryk for at komme ud i landet i titusinder af eksemplarer. Det, vi her har sat sammen, er en introduktion, en gennemgang af, hvor vi står i verden lige nu, og en detaljeret gennemgang af politikken for LaRouches Fire Love.

De, der har fulgt vores webside, eller hvis man er en nytilkommen, kan dette være en introduktion. Hr. LaRouche udgav i juni 2014 et politisk program, »Fire Love til USA’s omgående redning«, som, tilføjede han, »ikke er en valgmulighed, men en uopsættelig nødvendighed«. Når vi ser på disse love, når vi ser på den idé, der udgør den overordnede ledetråd, så ser vi, at der er en idé om, hvad det vil sige at være menneske. Dét er nøglen til dette. Hr. LaRouche diskuterer dette mod slutningen, efter at have forklaret, hvad de Fire Love er for love. Han beskriver Vernadskijs anskuelse (faktisk LaRouches egen anskuelse) af, hvad det vil sige at være menneske – om mennesket og skabelsen. Han forklarer, at der er en idé, som man må forstå, når man tænker på økonomi set fra et menneskeligt standpunkt.

Som Mike fremhævede, så er resurser for menneskene ikke noget, vi finder i den vilde natur, ligesom en ko, der vandrer rundt og leder efter græs eller noget kløver at spise. Vi skaber resurser. Vi er den eneste art på Jorden, der skaber resurser. Faktisk, så er de fleste af de resurser, som vi benytter i dag, de fleste af de resurser, som vores liv foregår omkring, de fleste af de betingelser, som vi lever i, skabt, det er et menneskeskabt miljø; det er menneskeskabte resurser.

Tænk på alt det, der er en del af dit liv på daglig basis. Tænk på elektriciteten; tænk på de materialer, du kommer i kontakt med. Disse er for det meste slet ikke naturlige i den forstand, at de ikke er naturlige for en biologisk organisme som mennesket. Det vil sige, de er ikke resurser for lad os sige en flok chimpanser, eller sådan noget. Elektricitet, som vi frembringer ved hjælp af kul; ved at tage et klippestykke fra jorden og forvandle det til elektricitet, som vi kan overføre gennem tynde ledninger og bringe ind i hjem og foretagender og fabrikker for at skabe bevægelse, for at bringe lys, kommunikationer, varme, afkøling, alle disse ting. Dette er en resurse, vi har skabt. Resursen uran; et klippestykke i jorden, der nu er en kilde til utrolig energi for os. De materialer, som vi bruger – metaller, substanser, der aldrig har eksisteret nogetsteds på Jorden, undtagen når vi skaber dem; plastik skabt af olie. Man finder ikke plastik nogen steder i Jordens skorpe; man finder olie. Aluminium, metallet, findes ikke på planeten – undtagen måske på en meteorit; aluminium er en ren, menneskelig skabelse. Der findes intet, ikke så meget som et gram af det i Jordens skorpe. Så vi skaber resurser.

Når vi opererer økonomisk på den måde, der er karakteristisk for den menneskelige art som helhed over lang, historisk tid, over økonomisk tid, kan vi få enorm udvikling og omskabe vores forhold til naturen. For at gøre dette, er der nogle skridt, der kræves; nogle aspekter af lovgivning og nogle specifikke forslag til en politik. I denne brochure om Amerikas rolle i Silkevejen gennemgår vi de fire aspekter af LaRouches Fire Love. Det første skridt er en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; dette er den afgørende lov, som I netop hørte blev rejst som et spørgsmål under pressekonferencen i Det Hvide Hus. Dette var Roosevelts politik, der opdelte bankerne i kommercielle banker og investeringsbanker; som gjorde det muligt at få udlån ud til realøkonomien på en sikker måde. Hvor banker kun var engageret i typiske lån og ejendomslån og den slags ting; ikke i spekulativ investering. Når banker gør det, kan regeringen forsikre dem. Med Glass-Steagall genindført vil vi gøre det muligt at få finansiering derud til langfristede projekter. Som de grafiske kort i dette afsnit indikerer, har vi haft en enorm mængde – billioner af dollars; jeg mener, det var $4,5 billion fra Federal Reserve (USA’s centralbank), og lige så meget eller mere fra den Europæiske Centralbank. Enorme mængder penge er blevet skabt og sat ind i banksystemet; og næsten ingen af dem kommer ud i realøkonomien.

Så hvis man skal forsøge at finansiere en økonomisk genrejsning, hvis man forsøger at skaffe kredit til langfristede projekter, som at genopbygge dæmningerne, der er forfaldne i hele landet; som at påbegynde byggeriet af et højhastighedsjernbanenet; dette er projekter, der koster billioner. Men, billioner af dollars er blevet smidt ind i banksystemet, og de er ikke gået til noget; de bliver bare dér. Med Glass-Steagall gør vi det muligt for banksystemet igen at agere på en langsigtet måde; og vi skiller os fra disse bankers bankerot. Lige nu er hele banksektoren ved at nedsmelte totalt; en smule mere i Europa, ser det ud til, end her, men det er en offentlig hemmelighed. Dette banksystem vil ikke eksistere ret meget længere i verden. Hvad skal erstatte det; og hvad vil grundlaget for den måde, dette nye banksystem opererer på, blive?

Dette bringer os til den anden lov; en ny nationalbankinstitution. Alexander Hamiltons principper, det, han gjorde som grundlaget for økonomi – og i den digitale brochure kan I finde links, hvor I selv kan læse Alexander Hamiltons hovedrapporter til Kongressen. De er tilgængelige. Det er ting, der er et virkeligt højdepunkt i økonomisk fremgangsmåde. Vi gennemgår, hvordan en ny nationalbank ville operere. Dette er virkelig afgørende. For at gøre det muligt at få langfristede investeringer til billioner af dollars, må vi have en ny fremgangsmåde. I har måske hørt i pressekonferencen, hvis I lyttede til det hele, at et tema gentagne gange tages op fra Det Hvide Hus lige nu, uheldigvis; det er ideen om partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og det private. At dette skulle være måden, hvorpå de billioner af dollars til infrastruktur, som præsident Trump har krævet, kan finansieres. Det vil ikke fungere; det vil ikke fungere. For det første, med mindre man får Glass-Steagall, så vil man ikke få en sådan finansiering; men et andet aspekt er, at offentlige/private partnerskaber kræver projekter, som man kan investere i, som direkte vil tilbagebetale investeringen. Et offentlig/privat partnerskab for at restaurere LaGuardia Lufthavnens terminaler; OK, det kunne måske tiltrække finansiering.

Men hvad med projekter, der ikke vil betale sig tilbage i flere årtier? Hvad med et nationalt højhastighedsjernbanenet? Hvad med byggeri af nye kraftværker? Hvad med investering i langfristet forskning og udvikling, såsom rumprogrammet? Det er her, hvor der ikke kommer en direkte tilbagebetaling, at der er en specifik, unik rolle, som skal spilles gennem et nationalbanksystem; hvor nationens forøgede produktivitet som helhed er tilbagebetalingen, så at sige. Ved at dirigere investeringer på måder, der gør hele nationaløkonomien mere produktiv, så er der faktisk ingen omkostninger ved at opbygge infrastrukturen. USA’s transkontinentale jernbane kostede noget mht. den fysiske indsats, det krævede at bygge den; men indkomsterne for denne investering, [var] den nye nationaløkonomi, som den skabte. Den nye nation, som den skabte, hvor man kunne rejse fra kyst til kyst på under en uge, i modsætning til de tre uger, som det ville have taget før. Man skulle tage til Panama over land, og dernæst fortsætte med skib op igen til USA’s vestkyst. At få en jernbaneforbindelse i stedet forandrede nationen rent samfundsmæssigt; den forandrede nationen økonomisk på en dybtgående måde. Udviklinger kunne nu finde sted; økonomi var mulig. Adgang til forsyninger og materialer og markeder og ideer og infrastruktur; dette udvidedes.

Så igennem et nationalt (statsligt) banksystem gør vi det muligt at tiltrække den form for kredit, der eksisterer rent potentielt, og dirigere den til projekter, der har langsigtet gavn og tilbagebetaling. Og vi bliver ikke bundet af at lede efter måder, hvorpå disse projekter kan omsættes til penge; hvilket er en afgørende fejl ved synspunktet om offentlig/privat partnerskab. Ofte, hvad disse ting gør, er, at de tjener penge på allerede eksisterende programmer ved at privatisere dem og så få brugerbetalingen eller indkomsten fra dem. Så vi må have en ny nationalbank. De $1 billion, som præsident Trump har nævnt, er alt for lidt.

For et par uger siden mødte jeg lederen af det Amerikanske Selskab for Civilingeniører. Det var dagen efter talen om nationens tistand (28. feb.), hvor Trump havde gentaget sit krav om $1 billion. Denne ingeniør sagde, »Det er ingenting! Det er ingenting, sammenlignet med, hvad vi har brug for«. Det Amerikanske Selskab for Civilingeniører har udgivet deres rapport, der siger, at vi har brug for $3,6 billion i investeringer blot frem til 2020. Og det er uden tanke for sådan noget som et helt nyt højhastighedsjernbanenet; det er kun til reparationer og til at få vores infrastruktur op i en anstændig form. Så med de enorme mængder, der er involveret, så er dette ikke noget, der vil få nogle mennesker til at udstede nogle lån til rentesatser, man vil have råd til. Det vil blive gennem national kredit på Hamiltons måde; og vi gennemgår [i brochuren], hvordan vi får dette til at ske.

Dette bringer os frem til den tredje lov, som vi diskuterer. At, når man investerer kredit, så må man have en måde, hvorpå man kan måle, om man forøger produktiviteten. Hvad er standarden for produktivitet i en nationaløkonomi? Er standarden for økonomisk værdi, at man tjener penge? Er det, at man sætter noget til salg, som folk er villige til at betale for? Det kan det ikke være! Folk betaler for alle mulige værdiløse ting; folk begår fejltagelser, når de bruger penge. Ideen om, at penge er et mål for værdi, er simpelt hen usand. Den måde, som LaRouche ser dette på, er i stedet med ideen om en økonomisk platform. At, når vi går til et højere niveau af energi, for eksempel, en højere kilde til energi, så har vi ikke alene mere af en energiresurse, men den lader os også gøre nye ting. På denne grafiske fremstilling [Fig. 1] ser man overgangen fra træ til kul, som fandt sted hen over en 50-årig periode fra 1850 til 1900. Kul er mere praktisk end træ, for man kan gøre en masse fine ting med træ, som man ikke kan gøre med kul; såsom at lave møbler eller bygge et hus. Man bygger ikke et hus med kul. Men kul lader én gøre nye ting. Olie og naturgas er mere energitætte; de lader én gøre nye ting – forbrændingsmotoren, elektricitet, flyvning. Man vil ikke have en flyvemaskine, der flyver på kul; og slet ikke på træ. Så kommer det potentiale, man kunne have for nutiden – fission, fusion; højere energiniveauer, der er tusinder, ja hundrede tusinder af gange mere kraftfulde end den kraft, der er tilgængelig i kemiske substanser.

Her ser man et eksempel fra før den transkontinentale jernbane [Fig. 2], hvor man ser, hvordan rejsetiden fra New York var forskellig fra 1830 til 1857. Hvordan vejbyggeri, men faktisk for det meste udvidelsen af jernbanen, gjorde det muligt at integrere denne del af nationen på en langt tættere måde. Tænk på denne storslåede, nye idé, du har fået; en ny måde at gøre tingene bedre på. Kan man tjene flere penge, hvis man kan udskibe ens varer længere og hurtigere og lettere? Selvfølgelig. Men tænk over det, det betyder, at en god idé, en bedre måde at gøre tingene på, kan spredes lettere. Folk kan lettere bevæge sig rundt. Vi er ved at blive en ny slags nation.

Når vi tænker på den form for platform, som vi skaber, så må vi først og fremmest tænke på, hvad vores energikilde er. Hvad er vores evne til at forandre naturen, så den passer til vore behov og vore forhåbninger for fremtiden? Og det er hævet over enhver tvivl, at de største fordele, den største chance for at opnå dette, ligger i fusionskraft. Mængden af potentiel energi i fusion er bogstavelig talt over en million gange over det, man får fra kemisk energi. Sidstnævnte vil ikke forbedres gennem større effektivitet, med bedre gasturbiner eller sådan noget; det er simpelt hen forskellen mellem de elektronbindinger, der holder et molekyle sammen, versus det, der foregår i en atomkerne, som holder den sammen. Energimængden i en atomkerne er simpelt hen over en million gange større end de elektriske bindinger, der holder et molekyle sammen.

Som Mike nævnte, så bliver deuterium i havvand til en resurse; bliver til et brændsel for fusion. Bliver til et vidt udbredt tilgængeligt fusionsbrændsel, i modsætning til den form for geopolitik, vi ser i dag, mht. adgang til energiresurser. At energi til at blive til en virkelig art, der rejser i rummet, kun vil fremkomme med fusionskraft. Hvis det tager flere måneder at komme til Mars, er det ikke rigtigt under ens kontrol. Hvis det er umuligt at afbøje en asteroide, der vil tilintetgøre alt liv på Jorden, fordi man ikke kan nå den i tide; tænk på den grundlæggende set uendelige værdi, det har at have udviklet fusion.

Det, vi dækker i denne brochure, er i sin kerne en idé om, hvad det vil sige at være menneske. Vi afslutter med en forståelse af, hvad denne menneskelige identitet er; hvad kreativitet er; og hvordan den bliver angrebet. De britiske angreb, som Mike netop har fortalt om, og som eksplicit ses inden for områderne af politik eller i Opiumkrigen, i felterne som militæret eller økonomi. Det eksisterer også i kulturens verden, i videnskabens verden, i de kulturelle forandringer, vi har set i løbet af de seneste 100 år eller så; med omdefineringen af videnskab, der begyndte omkring år 1900, hvor Bertrand Russell – i en æra, hvor Planck og Einstein var i færd med at revolutionere verden – forsøgte at dræbe videnskaben og forvandle den til matematik. Denne britiske intrige var utroligt succesrig; som det i dag bevidnes af den totale beundring for ideen om kunstig intelligens, for eksempel. Folk forstår ikke naturlig intelligens; hvad det vil sige at være et skabende menneske.

Dette aspekt er noget, som universet responderer på. Vore opdagelser er aldrig fuldt ud korrekte; vi ved aldrig alting fuldt ud. Men de opdagelser, vi kan komme frem til, har stadig en voksende magt over naturen; på trods af, at de aldrig helt er ligesom, aldrig helt indfanger essensen af, hvordan universet fungerer. Det faktum, at denne aftagende ufuldkommenhed korresponderer til en voksende magt, uden nogensinde helt at få alting rigtigt, mener jeg taler stærkt for det faktum, at det er en skabende proces i sig selv, som er en fællesnævner mellem vort intellekt og universet som helhed. Hvis vi kan få adgang til dette, er de økonomiske potentialer uendelige. Vi kan udvikle fusion som en energikilde; vi kan revolutionere vores forhold til råmaterialer. Vi kan gøre en ende på truslen om tørke ved at udvikle kontrol over vandcyklussen; på samme måde, som vi ikke blot håber på, at der vil vokse noget mad i vores køkken, som vi kan spise. Vi sår og planter mad, vi har landbrug, vi transporterer det. Vi kan udvikle et lignende forhold til vand, hvor vand er noget, vi transporterer, hvis det er nødvendigt; at vi kan ændre vejret, hvis vi kan styre det; at vi tager direkte fra havene, når det behøves. Vi kan virkelig transformere os selv som art; og vores nuværende potentiale er virkelig enormt. Med åbningen for samarbejde med Rusland, som vi ser fra Trump-administrationen, med møder mellem militære topfolk i USA og Rusland. Med den forestående konference om Bælt & Vej-initiativet i Beijing i maj, som vil være en virkelig chance for USA til at ophøre med at spille en fjendtlig rolle over for dette Nye Paradigme, som under Obama og Bush; og i stedet gå med i det og give en særlig form for lederskab, som faktisk kun kan komme fra USA. En unik form for potentiale, som vi kan tilbyde verden, som i rummet, som i fusion, og som i andre ting.

Har du noget at tilføje?

Billington: To korte bemærkninger. Med hensyn til national bankpraksis, slog det mig, da du talte om det, at vi har hørt fra folk i USA’s regering, der har været involveret i at forsøge at få kinesiske investeringer til USA, at de altid løber ind i det anti-kinesiske, anti-russiske, neokonservative hysteri i Kongressen, så snart, det drejer sig om et større projekt. De siger, »Åh, nej, vi kan ikke lade kineserne få dit og dat«. Men de sagde til os, at kineserne selv ville være absolut lykkelige for at tage deres enorme reserver i amerikansk statsgæld, der nu intet indtjener med de nulrentesatser, der anvendes; og, da de ikke så godt, projekt for projekt, kan sætte dem i noget i USA, da at sætte dem ind i en nationalbank – en infrastrukturbank – hvor de sandsynligvis ville få et højere afkast. Men, hvad der er vigtigere, så ville disse penge komme ud at arbejde; de ville komme ud at arbejde for at opbygge en nation. Ikke deres nation i dette tilfælde – vores; hvilket, som civilingeniørfolkene sagde, vi har desperat brug for. Så kapitalen, ud over at generere national kapital, så er der institutioner i verden, der ville være mere end villige til at sætte kapital ind i en sådan bank; som bliver forvandlet til faktisk rigdom. Pengene udgør ikke værdien; værdien ligger i infrastrukturen, i transformationen af naturen, der finder sted som følge af en kreditpolitik, der kommer fra en nationalbank.

Og ellers vil jeg blot gentage, at dette er et tidspunkt i historien, hvor vi, faktisk for første gang, har chancen for at tilintetgøre ideen om imperium. Helga Zepp-LaRouche siger ofte, at folk vil sige, »Det er en ønskedrøm; den menneskelige natur er trods alt ond. Der vil altid være onde mennesker«. Jo, selvfølgelig; men pointen er, at vi står på randen af, at menneskeheden som helhed kommer ud af barndommen – bliver voksen. I stedet for søskende, der skændes med hinanden og kaster spaghetti efter hinanden, så har man en verden, der anerkender den andens fordel – som det blev sagt ved den Westfalske Fred – og ideen om, at vi kan lære at mestre de store kulturer på Jorden; det være sig den konfucianske kultur, Gupta-kulturen eller Abbaside-kalifatet i Bagdad. At vi forstår, at Jordens store kulturer alle har perioder med storhed og perioder med mørke tider. Men ved at række ud for at finde disse store øjeblikke i alle kulturer, har vi potentialet til at skabe en verden, hvor ideen om den darwinistiske bedst egnedes overlevelse kan blive smidt på historiens skrotbunke; og vi begynder rent faktisk at have muligheden for, at alle mennesker kan opleve deres virkelige menneskelighed – deres skabende evner til at gøre noget, der vil få varig værdi for menneskehedens fremtid.

Der står vi. Vi har denne mulighed i vore hænder. Folk må lære at bryde gennem pessimisme, kynisme, frygt, og erkende det enorme potentiale, som vi har lige foran os, i vore hænder på dette tidspunkt i historien; og leve op til dette ansvar, og til denne enorme chance.

Ross: Storartet! Vi viser websiden endnu engang på skærmen, så I kan finde vores rapport om Amerikas rolle i den Nye Silkevej. Hvis I lytter, så er det lpac.co/us-joins-nsr for den Nye Silkevej. Nyd rapporten! Jeg håber, den er til hjælp i jeres organisering.

 




»Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«,
en guidet rundtur

Video; introduktion v/Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Der er stadig mange mennesker, der siger, at denne vision blot er en drøm – at det er umuligt. De nationer, hvor nutidens stormagter kæmper mod hinanden i geopolitiske stedfortræderkrige, såsom Yemen og Syrien, vil imidlertid fortælle dig, at det er det nuværende paradigme, der er umuligt og ikke kan fortsætte.

Opførelsen af Verdenslandbroen ville betyde en økonomisk og kulturel renæssance for planeten, et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden. Projekterne og de økonomiske hovedkoncepter, der præsenteres i denne rapport, er i sandhed det udkast, ud fra hvilket førende regeringer i hele verden arbejder; udfordringen består nu i at bringe USA tilbage til sine rødder og transformere det til en magtfuld allieret for denne nye, økonomiske orden.    

Download (PDF, Unknown)




Schiller Instituttet interviewer
dansk Ruslandsekspert Jens
Jørgen Nielsen på treårs-
dagen for kuppet i Ukraine

København, 22. februar, 2017 – Som det danske bidrag til den internationale aktionsdag på treårsdagen for kuppet i Ukraine havde Schiller Instituttet et timelangt interview (engelsk) med den danske Ruslandsekspert, Jens Jørgen Nielsen, om Ukraine, Krim, Rusland og Vestens fejltagelser.

Jens Jørgen Nielsen er historiker og filosof, med et dybtgående kendskab til Rusland og Østeuropa. Han har været Moskvakorrespondent for dagbladet Politiken, har forfattet mange bøger om Rusland og Østeuropa, inklusive »Ukraine i spændingsfeltet« (udgivet februar 2016) og en bog om Putin (»På egne præmisser – Putin og det nye Rusland«, udgivet 2013), og han optræder jævnligt i medierne som Ruslandsekspert og er leder af organisationen Russisk-Dansk Dialog, og desuden lektor ved Niels Brock.

Her følger nogle af de områder, der blev dækket af det meget polemiske interview, og som fordømmer Vestens fejltagelser og geopolitiske intentioner: Interviewet indledtes med en beskrivelse af begivenhederne i Ukraine, ikke som et demokratisk skifte, men som et ulovligt kup, anført af pro-nazistiske elementer, og som en del af det geopolitiske forsøg på at holde Rusland og de asiatiske nationer nede; den historiske baggrund for spørgsmålet om Krim; at Vesten, med sin sanktionspolitik, skyder sig selv i foden – Rusland er ikke isoleret, men arbejder sammen med Kina, BRIKS, osv. Han udtalte, at der ville have været fare for atomkrig, hvis Hillary Clinton var blevet valgt til præsident, og at mange russere nu frygter, at der kunne komme et kup/mordforsøg mod Donald Trump pga. dennes beredvillighed til at normalisere relationerne med Rusland. Han beskrev perioden mellem Sovjetunionens kollaps og kuppet i Ukraine som en tabt mulighed for at skabe en sikkerhedsorden, der burde have inkluderet Rusland.

Interviewet blev gennemført af formand for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark, Tom Gillesberg.

Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFtvjZ9tDmo&feature=youtu.be

Audio: https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/jens-jorgen-nielsen-russia-expert-on-the-3rd-anniversary-of-the-coup-in-ukraine

   




Statsministre fra Norge og Finland besvarer EIR’s spørgsmål om konflikten med Rusland

København, 1. nov. 2016 – Følgende ordveksling fandt sted ved en pressekonference med de otte nordiske og baltiske statsministre, i sammenhæng med, at Nordisk Råd træder sammen i København, den 1. nov., 2016. En video vil blive udlagt på dette indlæg snarest.

EIR: Jeg vil gerne spørge om relationerne med Rusland, som er meget vigtige for de nordiske og baltiske lande. Den amerikanske professor Stephen Cohen ved New York Universitet i New York har kaldt situationen for potentielt værre end Cubakrisen (1962), og nogle af årsagerne hertil er, at der er nogle i Vesten, der afviser at tillade en multipolær verden. Hvordan kan de nordiske og baltiske lande deeskalere konflikten, der, hvis det ikke stoppes, kunne føre til verdenskrig, og ville tættere, økonomiske relationer være en del af denne deeskalering?

Norges statsminister Erna Solberg (partiet Høyre): Resumé, parafrase:

Det er vigtigt, at lande ikke overtræder international lov. Rusland garanterede Ukraines grænser i 1994, men de annekterede Krim, og de har militært personel i Østukraine. Gruppen af Normandiet 4 forsøger at deeskalere. Begge parter må levere i henhold til Minskaftalen. Små landes første forsvarslinje er international lov. Det er derfor, vi må stå fast på sanktionerne og håbe, at det vil øge Ruslands ønske om at samarbejde og levere mht. Minskaftalen.

Som vi drøftede på vores møde, så er der forskel på de spændinger, man føler i de baltiske lande (Baltikum: Estland, Letland, Litauen), i forhold til de nordiske lande (Norden: Danmark, Norge Sverige, Island, Finland, samt Færøerne, Grønland og Åland). De nordiske lande har meget samarbejde med Rusland om fælles spørgsmål. Vi vil sikre, at vi har evnen til at forsvare os gennem NATO, men vi inviterer også Rusland til at være en del af vore militære aktiviteter som observatører. Nogen gange deltager de, andre gange ikke. Vi ønsker en dialog og at bevare Norden så normal som muligt, men vi kan ikke have en verden, hvor store lande blot afgør, hvad de vil gøre med deres naboer.

Den finske statsminister Juha Sipilä (Centerpartiet): 1. Vi må forblive forenet. 2. For at ophæve sanktionerne må Minskaftalerne opfyldes. 3. Midt i krisen må der være en dialog mellem os og Rusland.       

Se Også: 

Nordisk Råd: EIR-interview med Erkki Tuomioja, Finlands fhv. udenrigsminister om at nedtrappe konflikten med Rusland.

Nordisk Råds møde: Interview med islandsk parlamentsmedlem Steingrímur J. Sigfússon: for Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling; tager afstand fra konfrontationspolitikken mod Rusland

Foto: Den svenske statsminister Stefan Löfven, den finske statsminister Juha Sipilä, statsminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen, den norske statsminister Erna Solberg og den islandske socialminister Eygló Harðardóttir, da der onsdag var familiefoto inden mødet i forbindelse med Nordisk Råds 68. session i København. [Scanpix/Nikolai Linares]   




»Bankierer, der skulle have været
sendt i fængsel, er atter i færd
med at ødelægge økonomien«
EIR-interview med den japanske
økonom Daisuke Kotegawa.
Dansk udskrift

Kotegawa var ansvarlig for den gradvise afvikling af mange af de japanske banker under den asiatiske krise i 1997 og diskuterer her forskellen mellem den måde, hvorpå Japan adresserede de bedrageriske bankpraksisser, der førte til bankernes krise, versus, hvordan Vesten har gennemført en bailout (statslig redning) af de kriminelle, der var ansvarlige for krakket i 2007-08.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 




Jeff Steinberg fra EIR interviewer
senator Richard Black, nylig
hjemvendt fra Syrien:
Aleppo – hvordan man lyver for amerikanerne.
Video, dansk udskrift

29. september, 2016 – EIR’s Jeff Steinberg sidder sammen med senator Richard Black fra staten Virginia for at diskutere virkeligheden på jorden i Aleppo, Syrien, vs. de løgne, der gennemsyrer den vestlige presse. Black er netop vendt hjem fra en rundtur i Syrien, der også omfattede et møde med den syriske præsident Bashar al-Assad, og han har forpligtet sig til at oplyse sine amerikanske medborgere om, hvordan den amerikansk-britiske strategi for regimeskifte er i færd med at ødelægge dette engang fremgangsrige, ikke-krigeriske og fremskridtsvenlig land.

Jeffrey Steinberg: Det er mig en fornøjelse at være her med den pensionerede oberst i flåden, den republikanske senator Richard Black fra Virginia, der har tjent i Vietnam, og er én af de personer, der er bedst informeret om det, der foregår i Syrien.

Vi har, senator, i de seneste dage set et totalt sammenbrud af Kerrys og Lavrovs bestræbelser på at nå frem til en form for fælles amerikansk-russisk militæroperation for at udslette ISIS og Nusra, som er al-Qaeda-grupperingen i Syrien. Vi så en overlagt sabotagehandling – det er vist ikke at springe ud i en formodning – med bombningen af en syrisk hærstilling blot dagen eller så efter, at en aftale blev indgået mellem USA og Rusland …

Senator Richard Black: Og det er sket for anden gang, for øvrigt, så dette er tydeligvis ikke et uheld.

Steinberg: Korrekt. Så jeg mener, at vi nu har kurs mod en situation, hvor, på trods af al propagandaen, så er der en mulighed for, at denne krig faktisk kan vindes i klassisk militær forståelse, og jeg vil bede dig om at give os en analyse, en forklaring, en vurdering af det, der foregår netop nu i Aleppo, for dette er virkelig et afgørende slag – det er lidt som den syriske krigs ’Gettysburg’, hvor konsekvenserne af en slående sejr til de syrisk/russisk/iranske styrker fundamentalt ville ændre hele situationen. Jeg mener, at manglen på mediedækning, der har nogen som helst dybde eller indsigt, skaber et virkeligt vakuum og en forvirring for mange amerikanere. Jeg vil bede dig om at give os et billede af, hvad der foregår netop nu, som du ser det, med denne kamp om Aleppo.

Black: Det er ret utroligt – hvis man læser den vestlige presse, ville man tro, at kampen om Aleppo er en syrisk og russisk kamp imod en gruppe civile, og der er absolut ingen diskussion om de fjendtlige styrker. Det, der er sket, er, at, for mange år siden, tidligt i krigen, angreb de forskellige terrorist- og oprørsgrupper, og det lykkedes dem at indtage en del af Aleppo. Der, hvor de står i dag, er, at 1 ud af 8 indbyggere i Aleppo iflg. rapporteringer skulle befinde sig i den del, der er besat af oprørsstyrkerne. Den syriske regering har i årevis forsøgt at indeslutte og belejre denne sektion af Aleppo, uden held, indtil blot inden for det seneste år, hvor de, gennem en række meget fremragende manøvrer, lykkedes med at gøre det langt vanskeligere for al-Qaeda, som er den dominerende styrke – den hedder al-Nusra, men det er al-Qaeda, de samme mennesker, der angreb USA den 11. september – de er hjertet og sjælen i terroristgruppen i Aleppo. De fik forsyninger ad Castello-vejen, og endelig, pga. nogle andre ting, som den syriske hær gjorde, lykkedes det dem endelig at afskære Castello-vejen og lukke den og grundlæggende set lukke af for den eneste forsyningsrute til det, der nu er blevet til Aleppo-lommen, som nu er totalt omringet, så i militære termer refereres der til den som en lomme. Oprørerne påstår, at de udgør en kvart million civile inden for Aleppo-lommen; de har en kendt historie for en ca. firefoldig overdrivelse, så det kunne være 80.000, og det ville ikke overraske mig, hvis det var det korrekte tal; men der er civile dér. I forsøget på at bryde afspærringen og skabe en anden forsyningsrute – Castello-vejen ligger i det nordlige Aleppo – angreb al-Qaeda inde fra Aleppo-lommen, og ligeledes en lignende hær udefra – totalt set en hær på omkring 40.000, henved to fulde, amerikanske divisioner, tungt pansret og mekaniserede – og det er utroligt; vi hørte så meget om én lille dreng, der var bedøvet og havde støv i hele ansigtet, og vi tænkte, dette er verdens ende – det var den store historie. Men den historie, som medierne undlod at berette, var, at der var, hvad der svarer til en amerikansk, tungt pansret brigade, en al-Qaeda panserbrigade, der angreb og forsøgte at bryde ud, og de anvendte 95 tanks og skønsmæssigt 8-10.000 jihadister. Det var der intet spor af; det eneste, man så, var en lille dreng på en bus. Dette er en krigsskueplads; Aleppo-lommen er en krigsskueplads. FN og alle de andre, USA, vi siger, du gode Gud, vi må få føde og forsyninger til disse mennesker; man plejer typisk ikke at forsyne sine fjender. Da vi bekæmpede Tyskland, sagde vi ikke for Berlin, åh, vi må standse al kamp, vi må få føde og forsyninger til den nazistiske hær og til de mennesker, der er omringet. Den syriske hær, og den syriske regering, har gjort det klart, at alle, der ønsker at komme ud, kan komme ud; de får fri og sikker passage, og de har en lang historie for faktisk at gøre dette, og det er således helt klart, at de civile kan komme ud, når blot oprørene, terroristerne, vil give dem lov. En gruppe forsøgte at komme ud, og al-Qaeda dræbte 26 af dem, mens de forsøgte at komme ud. Men jeg mener, at, i stedet for, at FN lægger pres på den syriske regering, så må de lægge pres på terroristerne og deres allierede, tyrkerne, saudierne, qatarerne, og sige, hør, lad de civile komme ud. Vi ved, at den syriske regering vil give dem føde, husly, steder, de kan være; alt, hvad de behøver, inkl. lægehjælp og medicin, for der er rigeligt med hospitaler i Aleppo …

Steinberg: … i de andre dele, der er under regeringskontrol, henved ¾ af byen.

Black: … ja, i de andre dele; det er mere end ¾, det er langt den største del. Men altså, lad os skabe nogle arrangementer, og jeg er ikke i tvivl om, at, hvis man går til præsident Assad og siger, hør her, vil du etablere en proces, der giver alle de tilbageværende civile, kvinder og børn, og faktisk også enhver kæmper, der vil nedlægge våbnene, mulighed for at komme sikkert ud, og jeg er ikke i tvivl om, at han ville sige ja. Der er visse ekstraordinære krigsforbrydere, der er i Aleppo-lommen, såsom den gruppe, der hedder al-Zenki, 1000 jihadi-krigere, der alle bliver betalt af den amerikanske skatteboger; vi betaler rent faktisk deres lønninger, og for ikke så længe siden begik de en forfærdelig grusomhed, da de kidnappede en lille dreng, der var en flygtningedreng, og de kidnappede ham fra et hospital, han havde stadig intravenøse nåle i sin arm; og de tog ham til centrum af den oprørsbesatte del af Aleppo, og de skar hans hoved af med en kniv og viftede med det foran skaren og råbte, Allah-hu-Akbar. Det er disse mennesker, hvis lønninger vi betaler, som vi forsyner med antitank-våben, som vi forsyner med forstærkninger, alt sammen med amerikanske skattebetaleres penge. Utroligt! Så jeg vil tro, at den syriske regering ikke vil være villig til … hvis de er ubestridelige krigsforbrydere, så vil de ikke forhandle med dem. Men jeg mener, hvis man har den typiske jihadist, der tog derhen for at tjene et par dollars, rejste fra Tunesien, så vil de sandsynligvis sige, vi vil tage ham og give ham amnesti; det har de historie for at gøre og har gjort det om og om igen. Så svaret er, sig ikke, forsyn de civile på krigsskuepladsen; svaret er, se at få de civile væk fra krigsskuepladsen.

Steinberg: Ja, selvfølgelig. Det slår mig, at, pga. sabotagen af den sidste, bedste indsats for et reelt, strategisk amerikansk-russisk samarbejde, at præsident Putin og det russiske militær har været rundt om denne blok tre eller fire gange allerede blot i Syrien, for ikke at tale om løgnene i Libyen tidligere; og nu befinder vi os i en ren kampsituation, hvor, som jeg forstår det, så blev oprørernes forsøg på at bryde belejringen af Aleppo-lommen ikke alene nedkæmpet, men oprørerne led meget, meget store tab, så udsigterne til ikke alene simpelt hen at opretholde denne blokade, men til at gå ind og på afgørende vis nedkæmpe oprørsstyrkerne og herved konsolidere kontrollen med hele Aleppo, er noget, der ligger i kortene, potentielt set i de umiddelbart forestående uger og måneder forude. Og dette er en form for vendepunkt, og niveauet af hysteri, og niveauet af forsøg på at sige, som du før påpegede, at dette er tæppebombning af civile og uskyldige, alt sammen er en refleksion af den kendsgerning, at vi befinder os ved et vendepunkt, hvor hele Obamas politik kunne være totalt i ruiner, og man kunne få en reel militær sejr, hvor den syriske regerings styrker, sammen med fremmede lande, der blev inviteret ind af en suveræn myndighed, rent faktisk kunne opnå en militærsejr, der bringer denne rædselsfulde historie til en afslutning.

Black: Ja, og hvis man tænker over det, så er hjertet og sjælen i de hære, der angriber Syrien, al-Qaeda, og al-Qaeda er den gruppe, der tilintetgjorde tvillingetårnene den 11. september. Hvis det amerikanske folk blev behandlet oprigtigt fra vores regerings side, ville vi se folk, der råbte hurra i gaderne; vi ville sige, hør, vi står for at besejre al-Qaeda, vi står for at få hævn for det, de gjorde, da de tvang hundreder af mennesker til at springe en kvart mil i døden for at undfly flammerne i tvillingetårnene, og nu har vi dem endelig med ryggen mod muren og kan slå dem, og man skulle tro, at det eneste, der kunne gøre folk vrede, var at sige, hvorfor er vi ikke med dér, hvorfor har vi ikke mulighed for at gå ind og selv levere et par hårde stød. Vi burde tilslutte os russerne og syrerne og besejre al-Qaeda; de er fjenden. Syrien har aldrig begået en fjendtlig handling imod USA; det er, ligesom de andre lande, som vi gentagne gange har angrebet, en neutral, ikke-krigsførende stat, og alt, hvad vi har gjort imod det, har været en illegal aggressionskrig.

Steinberg: Jeg mener, at, i og med det nu er 15-året for det oprindelige 11. september-angreb, så er det, du foreslår, ikke alene fornuftigt, men det er noget, man ville mene, folk ville kræve af deres regering. Jeg vil gerne atter takke dig for en meget oplysende diskussion, og jeg håber, at I, der lytter med derude, forstår, at det, I hører fra Obamaadministrationen, i den grad er en misrepræsentation af det, der foregår, så det er absolut afgørende, at folk som senator Black har en stemme derude, så noget af sandheden bag denne krigspropaganda rent faktisk kan komme frem. Og selvfølgelig, eftersom det er et præsidentvalgår, så er det dobbelt så vigtigt, at det amerikanske folk bliver informeret. Så igen, mange tak, og fortsættelse følger, er jeg sikker på.  

Black: Mange tak, Jeff.     




Tiden er nu inde for en
Ny Renæssance for menneskeheden!
LaRouchePAC Internationale
Fredags-webcast, 1. juli 2016.
Inkl. videoklip fra hovedtalere på
Schiller Instituttets konference i Berlin.

Aftenens webcast omfatter en eksklusiv video-premiere fra Schiller Instituttets internationale konference i Berlin, 25.-26. juni – en global intervention, der ikke kunne være kommet på et vigtigere tidspunkt. I kølvandet på Brexit-valget ser vi det finansielle systems sammenbrud dukke op igen og en accelerering af fremstødet for krig – udviklinger, der ikke blev forårsaget af Brexit-valget, men som er udtryk for det samlede transatlantiske systems sammenbrudsproces som helhed. Lyndon LaRouches vurdering er klar: diverse manøvrer og spil internt i systemet kan ikke fungere; systemet er gået ned, og der er ingen måde, hvorpå det kan overleve i sin nuværende form. Dette betyder ikke, at vi absolut skal i krig, men man spiller et meget farligt bluff. Som det blev demonstreret på denne historiske konference, så er den eneste løsning den at indføre en ny tankegang, et nyt paradigme for menneskeheden, et skifte i lighed med det, der fandt sted med den berømte, 14-hundredetals Gyldne Renæssance, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche uophørligt har understreget.

Lyndon LaRouche på Schiller Institut-konference i Berlin (uddrag; se video min. 14:05):

»For det første undersøger vi dette spørgsmål med, hvad er mennesket pr. definition? Menneskets evne til at skabe højere niveauer af udvikling af menneskehedens menneskelige evner?

Det andet er: Hvordan finder vi ting, der vil gøre menneskeden mere succesfuldt eksisterende? Det er endnu et spørgsmål. Alle disse ting er enkle, videnskabelige spørgsmål, og det, vi er afhængige af, er det, vi kalder at fremme fysisk videnskab, og at fremme det til et højere niveau, pr. person, uophørligt. I denne proces må man definere, ved hvilke midler, dette skal gøres. Det har altid været min interesse at komme frem til en ny, mere avanceret teknologi; en teknologi, der vælter og fjerner behovet for en eksisterende teknologi. Mit speciale er at koncentrere mig om revolutionen i anvendelige teknologier. Og dette er det eneste redskab, jeg kender til, ved hvilket mennesket kan forbedre det, mennesket nu har behov for [for fortsat at eksistere].«

Engelsk udskrift.      

 – THE TIME FOR A NEW RENAISSANCE FOR MANKIND IS NOW! –

LaRouche PAC Friday webcast for July 1, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! It's July 1st, 2016. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly webcast here
on Friday evening from LaRouchePAC.com. As you'll see, I'm joined
in the studio by my colleague Benjamin Deniston; and we're joined
via video by two members of the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee:
Bill Roberts, joining us from Detroit, Michigan; and Michael
Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California.
        We have a very special broadcast tonight in which we will be
featuring a short video "teaser," which will provide you a
substantial overview of the conference, the very important and
historic conference, which just recently concluded over last
weekend in Berlin, Germany, sponsored by the Schiller Institute.
        As a preface to that video, which will provide us the
material for a further discussion here tonight, let me just say
that it couldn't have come at a better time — this conference.
It's clear to see that there's an absolute disintegration of the
trans-Atlantic system, which we are experiencing right now. This
is not {only} an economic or financial disintegration, but this
is in fact a disintegration of the entire {system} as a whole.
This is a political breakdown, this is a social breakdown; this
is an intellectual breakdown of the axioms which have provided
the foundation of that failed system. The axioms underlying this
trans-Atlantic system have failed. It's bankrupt in every sense
of the word, not only financially, but also politically,
culturally, intellectually, and the only solution to that would
be replacing this failed system with an entirely new paradigm.
        This is exactly what Mr. LaRouche had to say when we had an
extensive discussion with him yesterday. The people who are on
this broadcast tonight all participated in that discussion. What
Mr. LaRouche said is that there is no way that this
trans-Atlantic system can survive. It's not to say that it is not
very dangerous and that it could have very terrible consequences
if the war were to be launched or if other things were to get out
of hand. But what's being done under these circumstances by the
so-called "leadership" of this failed trans-Atlantic system "is a
complete bluff. It will not work," Mr. LaRouche said. He said,
"We're facing a very serious kind of collapse, one which mankind
is not well-prepared to deal with."
        This is very clear. At the same time that you have a
plummeting of the entire financial markets in the trans-Atlantic
system, you've got an inverse escalation in the bellicosity and
the aggressive stance that is coming out of Obama and his
colleagues, against Russia and China, both. Obama was in Ottawa
just yesterday at [the “Three Amigos”] summit of the North
Americas, in which he was {twisting} the arm of the Canadians,
telling them that they need to participate in a much more
prominent way in combatting so-called "Russian" aggression, by
lending their troops to this NATO deployment.
        The Atlantic Council is calling for this NATO deployment to
become a {permanent} deployment on the borders of Russia. Russia
is very clear: Shoigu, the Defense Minister, responded, saying
that NATO has already doubled its deployment along the border of
Russia and this is already before the NATO Summit has happened,
which is scheduled to occur in Warsaw, where you can expect that
that deployment will "significantly increase."
        Mr. LaRouche went on to say, when we were discussing this
with him yesterday, that you can see that all the so-called
"leadership" of this system is bankrupt. "The leadership itself
is bankrupt as an institution. Not that they {have} a problem,
but that they {are the} problem." "They are fraudsters," he said,
"and we are, in fact, the only leadership available on the
scene."
        What Mrs. LaRouche had to say — and this is, again, in the
aftermath of her experience as the primary organizer and keynote
speaker of this very important conference which you are about to
see some excerpts from — she said, "Look, this could not have
come at a better time. This was literally two days after the
Brexit vote. And the Brexit is merely paradigmatic of the entire
breakdown crisis. You have an ongoing disarray, ongoing chaos and
disintegration coming out of this. You have the breaking apart of
the entire leadership of the United Kingdom. All of the major
political parties are like gangs of wolves at their own throats,
and it's very possible that Scotland, Ireland could both leave
the United Kingdom, turning 'Great' Britain into 'Lesser'
Britain, or 'Very Small' Britain."
        She said we have no idea where this is going, but it makes
it very clear that this conference couldn't have occurred at a
better time, because what was presented and what you will see in
this brief overview that we're about to play for you, is that
{there can be no piecemeal solutions.} Too little, too late. You
can't solve this problem here and this problem there, and try to
piece it all together. The only thing that will work is an
entirely new paradigm that supplants the failed way of thinking
with an entirely new of principles, she said, "A new era of
civilization. And, if you don't make the jump," she said, "you're
just not going to make it."
        With that said, I would like to present to you a brief
overview of the conference which occurred in Berlin. This is to
entice you to watch the full proceedings, which will be available
in video form in due time.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: I think we all have all come to this
conference because everybody who is in this room knows that we
are experiencing an absolutely unprecedented, systemic, and
existential crisis of civilization. You have the coincidence of a
war danger, where NATO is confronting Russia in a very, very
aggressive fashion which could lead to a third world war. You
have a U.S. confrontation against China in the South China Sea.
You have the danger of a new 2008-type of financial crisis which
could blow up the financial system. And, two days ago, you had
the Brexit — Great Britain voting to leave the European Union.
As we all know, this was not a vote against Europe as such, but
it was a vote against a completely unjust system and a corrupt
elite.
        The conference has one subsuming topic, and that is to
define solutions to these crises, to discuss what would be the
new paradigm, and is mankind capable of solving such an
existential crisis?
        We have distinguished speakers from four continents, from
many countries. They are representative of the kinds of people
who are determined that a solution is being found. Before I go
into touching upon these various mortal dangers, the solution is
easy. So, be addressed and be calm. If men unite for a good plan
and act in solidarity with courage, {any} crisis in human
civilization can be overcome, because that is the nature of human
beings: that when we are challenged with a great evil, an even
greater force of good is being awoken in our soul.

AMB. (ret) CHAS W. FREEMAN, JR: Helga, I'd like to thank you for
that very inspiring set of opening remarks. We have entered a
world in which, as William Butler Yeats put it in 1919: "Things
fall apart; the center cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon
the world." In Europe, in America, and in parts of Asia there is
a sense of foreboding — an elemental unease about what is to
come. There is vexing drift amidst political paralysis.
Demagoguery is ascendant and the stench of fascism is in the air.
        This is the global context in which China has proposed to
integrate the entire Eurasian landmass with a network of roads,
railroads, pipelines, telecommunications links, ports, airports,
and industrial development zones. If China's "One Belt, One Road"
concept is realized, it will open a vast area to economic and
intercultural exchange, reducing barriers to international
cooperation in a 65-country zone with 70% of the world's
population, with over 40% of its GDP, generating well over half
of its current economic growth.
        In concept, the Belt and Road program, which is one of the
major topics of this conference, is the largest set of
engineering projects ever undertaken by humankind. Its potential
to transform global geo-economics and politics is proportional to
its scale.

        COL. (ret) ALAIN CORVEZ: I want to congratulate the Schiller
Institute for organizing this conference at a critical moment
when the threat of a nuclear war which would lead to the
extinction of humanity becomes clearer every day, because of the
concentration in the heart of Europe of weapons capable of
destroying the planet within seconds.
        To respond to the reinforcements of U.S. strategic forces
inside NATO on European territory, Russia was forced to deploy an
equivalent arsenal of deterrence on its western borders. It's
therefore high time that the strategists of various countries,
even those far from the European Theater, demand restraint and
more wisdom from the heads of state of the entire world.
        This is the purpose of this beneficial institute founded by
Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche, whom I wish to compliment personally.

        JACQUES CHEMINADE; French Presidential candidate: So,
LaRouche thinking proceeds from the becoming, as a science which
is the active principle of the economy. The trans-Atlantic
financial system in which we are living, based on accumulation of
money, is leading to the opposite, not to increasing the size of
the physical economy, but to chaos and war, or, more precisely
and more tragically, to a combination of both.
        The preceding speakers have shown that the current world is
more dangerous, yes, more dangerous, than it ever was during the
height of the Cold War. Those proclaiming themselves "realists"
and "reasonable," while following the rules of the system, in
reality contribute to its collapse by the mere fact that they
operate inside the system without fighting it.
        Now we have arrived at the point in history where systemic
change, a just concept of economy and man, are necessary for the
survival of all. Money has no intrinsic value. It is nothing but
an instrument, acquiring value through what it promotes. From
there on, what is the goal to reach?

        LYNDON LAROUCHE: First of all, we're looking at this issue
of man, as such — man's ability to create higher levels of
development of the human powers of mankind. The next thing is:
how do we understand, how do we find things that are going to
make mankind more successfully existent? That's another question.
All these things are simple, scientific questions. What we depend
upon, is driving what we call "physical science," and driving it,
{per capita}, to a higher level, always.
        In that process, you have to define what the means is by
which you're going to do this. My concern is always to come up
with a new technology, a more advanced technology, one which
overturns and obviates the need for an existing technology.  My
specialty is concentrating on the revolution in the applicable
technologies; and that is the only device by which I know that
mankind can improve the requirements for mankind now.

        MARCO ZANNI; head of M5S delegation in the Eco. and Monetary
Affairs Cttee. of the European Parliament: The European financial
system is collapsing; it's collapsing because of wrong policies
brought about by European governments and by the European Union.
Clearly, a first step — and we proposed one bill in the Italian
Parliament and one in the European Parliament in the framework of
the banking structure reform is restoring banking separation.  We
think that we have to set up a sort of modern European
Glass-Steagall that will simplify the regulation on the banking
system, and will make the separation between the core part of a
bank and a speculative bank in order to create a banking system
that is no longer focussed on speculation, on the financial
system; but on the needs of the real economy, on the needs of
people.  This is the first step.

        AMB. (ret) LEONIDAS CHRYSANTOPOULOS:  Another threat facing
humanity is the US animosity towards Russia, as if we were still
in the Cold War period.  This was discussed in the previous
panel, but very roughly I would just say about it.  A missile
system is being set up to encircle Russia; and of course, Moscow
is preparing a defense field to counter it.  The EU embargo on
Russia after the Ukrainian crisis is not at all helping the
situation.  Also, threats have been recently made by Obama
against China and the need to restrict her economic power.  With
a collapsing EU and a USA looking for confrontation with Russia
and China, a solution for humanity can be the BRICS initiative;
which is the initiative of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and
South Africa to pursue a policy of economic development for the
benefit of humanity.  They have created their own development
bank to invest in the necessary development projects.  China has
established the Asia Infrastructure [Investment] Bank; joined by
over 20 Asian nations as founding members, and has set up a Silk
Road Development Fund.

        AMB. HAMID SIDIG; current Ambassador of Afghanistan to
Germany:  I would like to express my gratitude and honor to be
part of this important event.  Over the past 30 years, the
Schiller Institute has played a significant role in promoting
international discussion on major topics, and has shaped the
future of our work.  Since ancient times, the Silk Road has been
a symbol of the commercial artery to connect Asia and Europe;
creating wealth and cultural exchange to benefit all countries
involved in this area.  Our conference today — and I hope to
build on this ancient tradition, by bringing together scientists
and politicians to develop a New Silk Road; and begin the process
of healing, integrating, and regenerating this very important
region — Central Asia.  Our vision is to create a secure and
peaceful life for our region, which will allow thousands of
refugees to return back to their homes and rebuild their
communities again.

        BEREKET SIMON; chairman of Commercial Bank of Ethiopia,
advisor to PM:  I would like to express my heartfelt sympathy and
support to the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, and the larger
Middle Eastern and North African countries who are subjected to a
wanton destruction as a result of a mistaken policy of regime
change by some global powers.  Allow me also to thank the
Schiller Institute for inviting me to speak on a broad topical
issue — the importance of the economic development of Ethiopia
in the context of the New Silk Road and the greater African
region.
        Dear Friends, Ethiopia considers China's Silk Road economic
projects and maritime Silk Road projects jointly known as One
Belt, One Road as another milestone opportunity that could
contribute to sustain its economic development together with all
the countries in our region.  We believe that the last decade or
two have witnessed the resurgence of trade between Africa and the
East.  The New Silk Road would also further strengthen the mutual
benefits of expanded trade between nations.  This will apply to
the relationship between Ethiopia and its traditional partners
[inaud; 20:49].  Together with our neighbors in the region, we
are determined to an Ethiopian, and indeed African, renaissance
which can harness the new possibilities opened by developments
like the New Silk Road.  I thank you.

        AMB. (ret) MICHEL RAIMBAUD:  Good morning.  I want to talk
to you about Syria and the title of my intervention is "In Syria
and Elsewhere, Against the War Party and the Law of the Jungle,
We Have to Rebuild Peace and International Law"; these are my
themes.  First of all, the world today is in great danger of war;
more than ever before.  It's going through a global crisis —
that has been said already.  One hears much about a new Cold War,
which would lead us back to the old confrontation between the
free world, so-called, the Axis of Good, and the totalitarian
bloc, dubbed the Axis of Evil by George Bush.
        We have lift immediately the sanctions; if there's a message
I want to give you, these sanctions have to be lifted.  It's a
crime of war; it's a major crime of war.  This has to be lifted
right away; we have to fight for this.

        Message from FOUAD AL-GHAFFARI; Chairman of Advisory Office
for Coordination with BRICS, Yemen:  Dear Mrs. Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, the noble chairwoman of the Schiller Institute and
the New Silk Road Lady; dear Mr. Hussein Askary, the Middle East
coordinator of the Schiller Institute, Ladies and Gentlemen who
are gathered in this conference here in Berlin today; I carry a
great deal of joy and gratitude for you and for your team for the
outstanding awareness achieved in my country about the New Silk
Road and the World Land-Bridge, and the new economic system of
the BRICS.  All that awareness delivered special marks that is
occurring through our advisory office, the rights to publish and
distribute the Arabic of the EIR Special Report, "The New Silk
Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge"; and printing 1000 copies for
the Yemeni market.

        DR. BOUTHAINA SHAABAN; from the Presidency of Syria: If we
need to create a world for all, if we need to create a peaceful
world, if we need to create a prosperous world for all, we need
to create a conceptual, intellectual concept of one world; we
need to create a conceptual concept of the Silk Road.  Not only
an actual Silk Road, but an intellectual Silk Road.  All of you
know that Aleppo and Syria were extremely crucial in the ancient
Silk Road that connected Asia to Europe.  Syria and the Syrian
people will be more than happy to be also very active in a New
Silk Road, in a political, social, intellectual Silk Road that
connects Asia to the West; that connects Eurasia to the West.

PROJECT PHOENIX video:  Not only Aleppo, but all of Syria with
its people, culture and artifacts, represents a unique and living
testimony to the coexistence and continuity of different human
civilizations.  It is imperative that the world defend and
preserve it; and when peace is established, make it the world
capital for the dialogue of civilizations.

        HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  So, I think we should be fully
conscious that in this present crisis lies a tremendous chance to
reach a new Renaissance as significant, and maybe even more
significant, than the change from the Middle Ages to the modern
times.  That if we break with the axioms of the globalization, of
the deductive thinking, of all the things which have led to this
crisis; and focus on the creativity of mankind as that which
distinguishes us from other species, that many of us can probably
live to see a world where each child is educated universally and
that the normal condition of mankind will be genius.  That that
which is human will be fully developed, to have all the
potentials developed of the human species as creative composers,
scientists, engineers, extraordinary people discovering things
which we doesn't even know the question here of; like China going
to the far side of the Moon.  We will understand secrets of the
Universe which we don't even know yet to ask.  And people will
become better people.  I believe that the true nature of human
beings is good; that every human being has a capacity of
limitless perfection and goodness of the soul.  And to accomplish
that, is within reach; and let's work for it.

        OGDEN:  So, as you can see, this was an absolutely
extraordinary conference.  And on the final screen, you saw
briefly the website displayed where you can find the full
proceedings of the conference.  It's
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And although that was a tour
de force of incredible speakers of a really incredible caliber,
that was not even all of the speakers who were present.  So, we
encourage you to go to the website and watch all of the
presentations in full.  Mrs. LaRouche was emphatic in saying
after the fact, that this was an absolute breakthrough in terms
of the activity of the LaRouche Movement, the types of people,
the caliber of people who were there.  This was not just an
analysis, or talking about issues, or the problems of the planet.
But it could be seen very clearly that we are the center of
organizing the solution, organizing the change in paradigm.
        One of the other things that was a major feature of this
conference, which we just couldn't include in that overview, was
an outstanding Classical musical concert that was organized on
the evening of the conference.  This included a Russian
children's choir singing Russian songs; it included a string
orchestra based out of London that plays professionally at the
lower Verdi tuning of A-432; it included a performance of Chinese
folk songs and other Classical music; and then a grand finale
performance of the Mozart Coronation Mass by the greater European
Schiller Institute Chorus, joined by other choruses from around
Berlin.
        So, this is an absolute breakthrough; and as Mrs. LaRouche
said, the conceptions which lie at the heart of the solutions to
the crisis were there.  And this was representative of the
leadership of the world.  And I think that's what we have to
offer in this moment of danger and uncertainty.
        So, I think we can open up the discussion from there; it's a
hard act to follow, I'm sure, but …

        MICHAEL STEGER:  Well I think that the point that Helga made
that you just referenced, Matt, on this question of shaping
policy; what you see increasingly now not only in Eurasia, but
what we saw with the participation at the conference with
significant participation from Europe, high-level participation
from the United States.  You see an increasing desire to look at
the fact that this current system, even the {New York Times} had
the intellectual ability to recognize that this post-World War II
system, the system set up by Churchill, by the FBI — this Wall
Street system — since Franklin Roosevelt's death, is essentially
now coming to an end.  That's what the Brexit references.  The
conference as a whole was in the context of the Brexit vote; but
it's not simply a vote to leave the European Union.  This is a
reaction by an increasing majority in the trans-Atlantic within
the population; which recognizes that the system is dying.  It's
dead.  There's no longer a future, a life in the current system
they're living in.  Whether that's Great Britain, whether it's
the United States, where you see the major populist revolts here;
this was discussed by many of the speakers.  And many of them
didn't expect it to occur; and yet, when you're on the ground and
you're organizing the population, when you have increasing
suicide rates, increasing drug overdoses, increasing levels of
unemployment, it's not hard to figure out when talking to the
population.
        It's a new system, a system of value, a financial system;
but it's a policy.  It's a policy for the long-term development
of mankind that has to be conjured and redeveloped in the minds
of the population.  And I think that's what's so essential about
the conference is that Helga's entire intent with this
conference, and why Lyn's participation was so important, was
because it provokes a quality of discussion.  A new conception of
where mankind must go and what mankind must become; and that
really is the essential nature.  Because at this point, this
trans-Atlantic system has no longer any life; it almost like it's
breaking, it's fracturing.  Each break leads to more breaks.  The
question is, what's the new whole; what's the new conception of
mankind in the trans-Atlantic and for the world?
        And I think we have a lot of work to do, but clearly it's
the most open situation politically that we've ever seen.

        WILLIAM ROBERTS:  I would just add that I think for an
American audience, the thing really to take away from this whole
process is that clearly what we're seeing in terms of the process
of development of the New Silk Road, and in terms of the beauty
of the idea which I think people, as they have a chance to
experience the cultural panel, the musical process from this
conference, will geopolitics is irrepressible at
this point.  What that means is that there's no turning back;
there are no half measures or piecemeal measures to do anything
of a halfway nature at this point.  I would say that this
includes that it really should be very obvious to the American
population that this current election process is a complete and
utter sham.  A so-called "democratic" election process, where you
have a couple of candidates, but there's absolutely no discussion
of the ridiculous war crimes of the last 15 years of
administrations in the United States.  Even in Britain now, you
have Jeremy Corbyn who is threatening to bring a war crimes
tribunal, should he come into government, against Tony Blair. The
Blair crowd is shaking in their boots, and you can see that there
is a complete and total situation of weakness of this entire
British Empire at this moment.  And because this is really
unclear in the minds of the American people, and because it's
very unclear how close we are to thermonuclear war, how
aggressively the threat of thermonuclear warheads is being used
against China and Russia.  Because the ignorance to that is the
most dangerous thing that's contributing to the danger that's
facing this planet right now.
        I think the one pathway or one tool in the United States
that expresses that level of an abrupt shift against geopolitics
in particular, is what is now the motion around the 28 pages to
expose the role of the British and the Saudis and the cover-up of
that process.  Sen. Bob Graham has made the point in a recent
interview in the {Daily Beast} that it's very clear now that the
two-month period that the Obama administration gave him
assurances of that they would review the pending release of the
28 pages.  That's come and past now; and it's clear the intent is
to keep this thing in the dark and continue the desperate war
push.
        I'll just mention one more thing.  There are also now, the
Obama administration is completely pushing a lie and vastly under
counting the number of innocent civilians that have been killed
by drone strikes throughout the countries that we're not at war
with.  It should really just hit people, the contrast between the
beauty of this process of a world beyond geopolitics and the
unconscious war crimes and the acceptance of the legitimacy of a
process which completely covers over and overlooks the tremendous
war crimes of these recent two administrations.  So, I think that
should be a real immediate wake-up call that we do have to, as
Americans, break out of this current paradigm.

        OGDEN:  What Helga began the discussion with, which I think
shaped the entire quality of all of the panels, was the statement
— which was a very profound statement — that in the face of
great evil, mankind is capable of finding within himself great
good.  And I think that you were witnessing that in all of the
speakers.  The spirit that was moving all of these speakers, is
one that this system can no longer be allowed to continue; it has
reached the point where it is too horrible to contemplate the
logical outcome of following through with a continuation of the
values that underlie this system as a whole.  And we see it
breaking itself down all around us.  None of these events that
have occurred are somehow causal of the breakdown of the system;
they are merely systematic, they are paradigmatic.  The Brexit is
paradigmatic; everything that you see in terms of what Michael
was sighting about the depression, the demoralization, the
despair in the populations in both the United States and Europe.
This is symptomatic of a system that is in dire need of dramatic
change.
        The good news is that that change, the wind is blowing in
from the East.  You have a new system, which has come to life
based on proposals that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche laid out in
their seed form 30 or 40 years ago.  It's now taken the form of
the official policy of the most populous country in the world.
You have the official, public integration between the New Silk
Road and the Eurasian Economic Union; this is explicitly based on
a return to the values that Franklin Roosevelt envisioned would
dominate the world following World War II.  However, [they] were
supplanted by some very evil and destructive forces.  Now you
have the New Silk Road, you have the opportunity for an entirely
new paradigm, which Helga says repeatedly; and which she said at
that conference.  It would be so easy; this is not some daunting,
never-ending distant dream of a new system which is a fantasy.
It's very real; it's very present; and it's something that, on
the turn of a dime, by a handful of leaders comprised of many of
the people you saw speaking at that conference and the circles
that they represent.  A decision overnight to enter this new
paradigm and to drop some of the failed values that have led us
down this path to danger and destruction, would be sufficient to
bring Europe, to bring the United States, to bring the Western
world into harmony with a New Paradigm which is already emerging.
Not that anything is perfect, but there is a directionality,
there is an impulse towards the perfection of man, towards the
increase of the productive powers of the human race, towards the
greater good of the human species; which is guiding us or pulling
us into the future.  And if we're willing to listen to that
voice, the voice from the future; we can save man at this
critical juncture in our history.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think it really goes to the issue to the
power of ideas in this whole process.  Because I think Helga made
the very emphatic point that this was a major breakthrough
conference.  If people are familiar with the Schiller Institute,
much of its activity is centered on these international
conferences.  And if you go back to the mid-'90s, the conferences
we were involved in, Helga was involved in then, and the
launching of the whole Eurasian Land-Bridge perspective when it
was just an idea.  It was just a conception; it was a right idea,
it was true, it was on principle.  And Lyn and Helga fought for
that conception; and now you see it coming to fruition.  So I
think this whole process is useful, especially for people who
watch too much TV in the United States and are immersed in the
insanity of the United States, to get a sense of what's actually
real; what's actually powerful.  What matters in history.  It's
not the crap you see thrown around that this culture is inundated
with; that is a passing breeze in history that's going to come
and go.  What matters is your truthful commitment to principles,
to true ideas.
        And I think Helga's concluding remark about looking at where
we are from this much longer historical perspective and saying
"We need a new shift in our very recognition of what mankind is.
We need to look to things like the Golden Renaissance; and look
at mankind in the Middle Ages, in the Dark Ages.  And compare
that to what mankind became after the Renaissance.  It's a
complete transformation of the human species that I think Lyn was
intervening with in some of the discussions; that we have to
recognize that that character of continual complete revolution in
the very nature of our existence, is human.  So you're looking at
a moment like this, and Lyn really emphasized the self-breakdown
of this trans-Atlantic system.  This self-feeding breakdown
process.  People talk about the Brexit like what maneuvering are
they doing; why did they decide to do that.  They're panicking;
they're responding to crises that are being created by the
breakdown process itself.  This is not something that's in
control.  In that complete disintegration, it's these
conceptions, these ideas, this gathering of people of this
caliber for international discussion around what does mankind
really need to be doing as mankind on this planet.  Can we
finally reach the point where we actually unite nations around a
real conception of what is a universal, unifying, truthful
principle about humanity?  About what makes our species unique
and different from anything else we see on this planet.  That's
us; that's mankind.  We can have that as a common goal, as a
common unifying factor; and that's emerging now.
        So, I think for people inundated with the degeneracy of the
political process, the cultural process, this stands out as a
reference point that people can use to lift their minds out of
the gutter of popular opinion and into history and see what's
actually happening right now.

        OGDEN:  Absolutely.  One thing that people will have noticed
from that overview video that you had the opportunity to watch,
is that there was a very significant involvement from leadership
within Syria.  Right in the war zone, including a government
advisor, Her Excellency, the advisor who you saw speaking; which
was a live video hook-up directly from Damascus.  And she engaged
in a dialogue process with the attendees of that conference,
which was very significant.  Helga LaRouche said that that panel,
which was an entire panel on the reconstruction of Syria.  What
happens after we bring peace?  How can we bring peace to this
region?  A region which is a crossroads of civilization; was a
crossroads of the old Silk Road, is a crossroads between three
continents.  She raised the fact that President Assad, prior to
the outbreak of the fighting, had proposed an idea called the
Five-Sea Strategy.  And if you look at the five oceans — the Red
Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Black Sea, the Mediterranean, and the
Persian Gulf — you have Syria situated right in the middle of
those.  So, it's not only a crossroads of the Silk Road as a land
route from Asia to Europe to Africa; but it's also a crossroads
of the Maritime Silk Road, and the connections between these five
seas.
        There was a video presented which was prepared prior to the
conference called "Project Phoenix"; which is a vision for the
reconstruction of Syria.  And there was other dialogue at the
conference from very high-level persons from within cultural
circles and also government circles within Syria.  So, Helga was
emphatic to say that this panel on the reconstruction of Syria
was certainly a highlight of the conference; and I think it was
just exemplary of the fact that the Schiller Institute really is
the go-to body in terms of these people who are desperate for a
solution, desperate for a future for their countries.  They know
who has the ideas, they know where to go to get those ideas.  So,
the combination between the expansion of the New Silk Road, the
reconstruction of Syria, there were three resolutions that were
passed at the conference.  One for the immediate end to the
sanctions against Russia; another for an immediate end to the
sanctions against Syria; and also one against the Saudi
bombardment of Yemen, which is ongoing to this day.  And you saw
a gentleman who sent in a video from Yemen; right from the war
zone there.
        I can't emphasize enough, and I think you got a little bit
of a flavor during that overview, of the caliber of this
conference.  But I really can't emphasize enough:  You need to
watch this conference in full.  You need to share this; you need
to get this around to everybody who you know.  As you were
saying, Ben, this is a completely different perspective on the
world than what you would normally get from your average
mainstream media.  So, I just wanted to encourage you, again, to
— as the videos become available — to go the
newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.

        STEGER:  Just to add to that, Matthew, I think you might
have mentioned this at the beginning; but in the discussion with
Helga and Lyn yesterday, the reality is that the kind of collapse
and crisis we are now incurring is something beyond anything
mankind has experienced up to this point.  This is not a collapse
of the stock market; it's not a Lehman Brothers financial
collapse.  You're now seeing the political dissolution.  The
Presidential spokesman for Russia, Peskov, made some comparison
to the breakdown of the Soviet Union; but you see that this is
even of a greater scale than that kind of collapse.  You might
say that the world is better prepared for this crisis than the
one in 1989, but I would say that it's not prepared sufficiently.
And the leadership in the United States and the trans-Atlantic is
not prepared sufficiently at all at this point.  And the
population has to bear some responsibility on this.  There's so
much emphasis on democracy in the West; democracy in and of
itself is not a principle.  As Ben referenced, we need an actual
return to a sense of universal principles; knowable scientific,
physical characteristics of the Universe to shape our policies.
But those principles cannot exist within a small set of people;
you can't expect an elite to somehow solve and address the
problems we now face.  The population as a whole — and this is
why our outreach in the United States to uplift people beyond
this Presidential fiasco; and to recognize that there is not a
preparation, there is not yet a capability to address this
problem sufficiently.  But what this conference addresses is the
level of discussion, the level of participation that begins to
move it in that direction.  And that is of an urgent nature;
because these events, as we saw last week, are only going to
increase in the weeks ahead.
        Just in the last couple of weeks, you've seen fundamental
changes in orientation from Japan towards Russia and China.  The
new Philippine President Duterte made major motions toward the
FDR and Lincoln tradition and a collaborative effort towards
China.  You've seen major changes even in the last week by Turkey
and their rapprochement towards Russia.  There are major
developments constantly happening which are reshaping the world.
But the crisis of a collapse of this trans-Atlantic system is far
beyond anything most people have ever imagined; and I think the
seriousness and urgency to develop these ideas and participate in
this dialogue has never been greater.

        DENISTON:  The collapse goes to the heart of this British
system.  A lot can be said, but go to Adam Smith, go to the
original fundamental cultural assumptions, ideas about the nature
of man.  Man is governed by pleasure and pain; that mankind is
just a species that can respond only to pleasure stimulus, avoid
pain stimulus.  The whole ideological framework of the British
system, which has increasingly infected and taken over the United
States and run the trans-Atlantic system, goes to those deep
issues about what is your understanding of the nature of mankind
in the Universe.  And we're seeing the breakdown of this entire
British ideological imperial cultural system that has dominated
really for centuries.  I think that is the scale that we're
looking at.  This is the breakdown of a century-spanning imperial
outlook that's had ebbs and flows and increases and decreases of
its dominance; but it's not reaching the point of self-inflicted
collapse.  So in a certain sense, Americans have a certain
tradition in direct opposition to that clearly; and people should
be celebrating that in the next couple of days, not just hot dogs
and fireworks.  But actually use this as an opportunity to get a
real rooted sense of what is our mission as Americans in
opposition to this imperial ideology.  In direct resonance and
collaboration with what you're seeing out of Asia right now; this
is the time to bring that back.

        OGDEN:  Right.  It's exactly what you said — to constantly
come back and say what is the ideological failure which is
underlying all of the events that you're seeing.  The breakdown,
the refugees, the disintegration politically, financially,
culturally of the European system; and as Helga emphasized at
this conference, it's only a paradigm shift on the level of
change from the Dark Age to the Renaissance which will something
that will function at this moment.  That didn't just happen; that
was not some sort of organic process of historical materialism
transforming itself.  That was a willful change; that was a
willful change in the fundamental ideas underlying society and
the way that society worked.  It's people who have to ability to
self-consciously reflect on the fact that we are facing the
failure of a system of thinking; and then to say to examine what
those failed ideas are.  And then to say, how do we replace them;
how do we discover a new principle and create a fundamental
intellectual revolution which will allow mankind to carry itself
forward into the future?  I think that's what we witnessed in the
proceedings of that conference; but as Michael said, it's
something which cannot stay within the confines of that
conference and the people who attended it.  It is something which
must become an integral part of our national dialogue as a
people; and it's our responsibility to bring that about.  That's
not something that we can sit back and wait for somebody else to
do.
        So, I think that's a good Independence Day message.

DENISTON:  People think they are what they experience; they think
that's what they are.  That's not what you are; people are what
they create, or what they fail to create.  People are not just
your experiences in life; people are what is your new fundamental
contribution you're making to human society, or you're failing to
make to human society.  Until people completely transform their
understanding of what they think their lives mean, we're not
going to reach the level needed to make the transition that was
presented very clearly this past weekend.

        OGDEN:  All right.  I'm going to bring a conclusion to our
show at this point, but what you should immediately do is visit
the newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com website.  Some of the
videos are available; I know that Helga Zepp-LaRouche's keynote
video is available in full.  That's a 30-35-minute length video;
so at least please watch that.  And then, as the other videos
become available, it'll be posted on that website; so bookmark
it, make sure that you follow the YouTube channel, and you'll be
notified as soon as those videos are made available.
        So, I'd like to thank all of you for joining us today.  And
I'd like to thank Bill and Michael for joining us via video.  And
again, to emphasize:  newparadigm.schillerinstitute.com.  And we
will have continuing coverage on larouchepac.com as well.  So,
thank you very much.  Happy Independence Day, and good night.
 




Projekt Fønix:
Genopbygning af Syrien –
Aleppo: Den evige stad

28. juni 2016 – I historiens løb har Aleppo været vidne til mange øjeblikke af storhed, så vel som også nedgang og urolige tider, men byen har altid igen rejst sig af asken, som Fugl Fønix. Det syriske folk og den syriske regering har holdt denne samme ånd i live, konfronteret med den værste krise i landets historie.

I denne fremlæggelse gennemgår vi et forslag til genopbygningen af Syrien, ved navn Projekt Fønix, og som fokuserer på, hvordan Syrien, der har en ideel placering ved korsvejen, hvor tre kontinenter mødes, kan få gavn af at blive opkoblet til Den Nye Silkevej og den fremvoksende Verdenslandbro. Denne video blev optaget til Schiller Instituttets Internationale konference i Berlin, Tyskland, 25.-26. juni, 2016: »En fælles fremtid for menneskeheden, og en renæssancekultur for klassiske kulturer«

Se også: Projekt Fønix – diskussionspunkter for en genopbygning af Syrien.

Se også: En fredsplan for Sydvestasien, af Helga Zepp-LaRouche. EIR-Pressemeddelelse i anledning af udgivelsen fa den arabiske version af rapporten “Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen”.

Se også: Playlist: The World Land-Bridge & Global Development




BREXIT-afstemning er langt alvorligere og mere
dødbringende end blot en reaktion. Vi må levere det
nødvendige lederskab for at undgå krig. LaRouchePAC
Internationale Fredags-webcast, 24. juni 2016. Video, engelsk

Det er i dag den 24. juni, 2016 – en særdeles lovende dato. Det er en meget, meget farlig periode, og vi står med ekstraordinære udviklinger på hånden. Det kunne vel næppe være tydeligere netop nu, forskellen mellem sammenstillingen med det døde-og-døende transatlantiske system, centreret omkring den Europæiske Union; og så fremtiden med det Eurasiske System. På den ene side, med det totale sammenbrud og den bogstavelige disintegration af det europæiske system – briternes exit af den Europæiske Union, samt det transatlantiske finansielle systems totale bankerot, der nu afsløres. Og, på den anden side, Vladimir Putins og Xi Jinpings igangværende indsats for en konsolidering og sammensmeltning af den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union, den Nye Silkevej, og hele verden centreret omkring Stillehavet, som Lyndon LaRouche i mange årtier har arbejdet hen imod, i form af samarbejde mellem de store nationer Rusland, Kina, Indien og andre. Valget er meget, meget klart.

Engelsk udskrift.

(En oversættelse af første del af webcastet følger snarest. Bliv på kanalen! -red.)

BREXIT VOTE IS MUCH MORE SERIOUS AND DEADLY THAN MERELY A REACTION.  WE MUST PROVIDE THE LEADERSHIP TO AVOID WAR.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, June 24, 2016

        MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good afternoon!  It's June 24th, 2016. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our weekly
LaRouchePAC Friday evening webcast. I'm joined in the studio by
Ben Deniston from the LaRouchePAC Science Team; and via video, by
three members of our Policy Committee: Diane Sare, from New York
City; Kesha Rogers, from Houston, TX; and Rachel Brinkley, from
Boston, MA.
        Today is June 24th, 2016 — a very auspicious date. It's a
very, very dangerous period, and we have extraordinary
developments on our hands. I think it could not be more clear
right now the distinction between the juxtaposition of the
dead-and-dying trans-Atlantic system, centered in the European
Union; and the future, of the Eurasian system. On one hand, with
the complete breakdown and {literal} disintegration of the
European system — the exit by the British from the European
Union, and the complete bankruptcy which is now being exposed of
the trans-Atlantic financial system. And on the other hand, the
ongoing efforts by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping to consolidate
and coalesce the Eurasian Economic Union, the New Silk Road, and
the entire Pacific-centered world that Lyndon LaRouche has been
working towards for many decades in the form of the collaboration
between the great nations of Russia, China, India, and others.
The choice is very, very clear.
        Earlier today we had a discussion with Mr. LaRouche. He was
very emphatic to emphasize that the crash that we're now seeing
in the trans-Atlantic financial system must be blamed on Obama.
This is not something which can be construed as a reaction to an
event, but in fact the bankruptcy of the trans-Atlantic financial
system was already a reality before this [Brexit] vote even
occurred. This is not a reaction, he said. This is something
that's much more dangerous, and much more serious, and much more
deadly, especially when you consider the fact that Obama is
continuing to push the world towards the brink of thermonuclear
war with the emerging Eurasian system of Russia and China.
        Mr. LaRouche said we're experiencing a complete change in
the whole fundamental situation. Everything is now going towards
a crash. And it's not because of a reaction to an event, but it
was already pre-determined. Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge
of thermonuclear war, which under the current circumstances Putin
would probably win; but Obama is insane enough to continue to
push the world in that direction." He said, "Putin is currently
in charge, in terms of his role being hegemonic. That was very
clear by the recently concluded events in the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and then the bilateral meetings
that are going to happen this weekend between Putin and Xi
Jinping."
        Mr. LaRouche said, "We're on the edge of something very big.
You must get Obama out! It's very dangerous to have him in office
under these circumstances. Our job is to calmly bring a solution
to this crisis from inside of our role here in the United States,
with Putin playing a key leadership role internationally. We are
in a position," Mr. LaRouche said, "to enter into a phase in
which a solution is possible."
        Now, I want to open up the discussion; I want to invite
Diane to elaborate a little bit more on the role that Obama,
together with David Cameron, played in creating the circumstances
that we are now observing in terms of the aftermath of the
Brexit.

        DIANE SARE:  Well, everyone has heard of the famous
expression "the kiss of death"; and Obama delivered this in
London on April 22nd when he went there for two purposes.  One
was to express his firm support for Great Britain remaining in
the EU; and I'm going to read his exact comments, so that there's
no question on that.  And then also, to celebrate the birthday of
Her Majesty the Queen, whom he says is one of his favorite people
— I'm reading from his remarks; and he said, "And we should be
fortunate enough to reach 90, may we be as vibrant as she is. She
is an astonishing person and a real jewel to the world; not just
to the United Kingdom."  And in fact, that has been Mr.
LaRouche's point — that the Queen of England does not see her
realm as the United Kingdom; she's been trying to run a global
dictatorship, and Barack Obama is one of her tools.  And like a
typical malignant narcissist, Obama either intended to crash the
entire system; or is blithely unaware of how despised he is.  So,
at a joint press conference at 10 Downing Street with a British
Prime Minister who is now resigning, David Cameron, Obama admits
he said, "Yes, the Prime Minister and I discussed the upcoming
referendum here on whether or not the UK should remain part of
the European Union.  Let me be clear:  Ultimately, this is
something that the British voters have to decide for themselves;
but as part of our special relationship, part of being friends is
to be honest and to let you know what I think.  And speaking
honestly, the outcome of that decision is a matter of deep
interest to the United States; because it affects our prospects
as well.  The United States wants a strong United Kingdom as a
partner, and the United Kingdom is at its best when it's helping
to lead a strong Europe.  It leverages UK power to be part of the
European Union."  And then he adds:  "Let me be clear.  As I
wrote in the op-ed here today, I don't believe the EU moderates
British influence in the world, it magnifies it.  The EU has
helped to spread British values and practices across the
continent.  The single market brings extraordinary benefits to
the United Kingdom; and that ends up being good for America,
because we're more prosperous when one of our best friends and
closest allies has a strong, stable, and growing economy."
        So presumably, the time between April and this referendum
was enough for people to stop vomiting and make it to the polls,
and vote to get out of the European Union as quickly as possible;
which is what many of them did.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think also, according to what Mr. LaRouche
said — and this is absolutely the case — the crash was already
happening.  It's a faulty view of history to say, "Well, an event
happened, and therefore there was a reaction."  And Mr. LaRouche
is saying, the problem is that people think in terms of
reactions; one thing happens and then another thing happens.  In
fact, Europe was already bankrupt.  Think about what was already
happening.  You had major European banks refusing to put their
money into the ECB; you had negative interest rates at the ECB,
which is an unprecedented, never-before-happened event in the
history of that system.  And you had a complete breakdown of the
ability of both the European and the American workforce to be
able to have productive jobs or anything of that means.  So, we
already were in a complete bankruptcy of this entire
trans-Atlantic financial system; and now today, it is more clear
than ever that the New Paradigm — which is represented by
Vladimir Putin's and Xi Jinping's collaboration; the combination
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the New Silk Road policy
of China, which is based not on an idea of rival blocs or
economic competition or something like that.  It's based on the
idea of a win-win collaboration.  Now's the time for the European
countries and for the United States to finally reject this Obama
paradigm; and say we are going to join this New Paradigm.  And
many other nations in Europe could follow very closely behind
Britain and leave the European Union, since it's now clear that
it's a completely bankrupt institution.

KESHA ROGERS:  And Obama can follow behind Cameron and leave the
United States immediately.  What you're seeing right now, as Mr.
LaRouche once said, is the end of a delusion; an end of a dead
system.  And the end of an era of a zero-growth paradigm; which
has dominated the culture and society for far too long.  And it
actually goes against the true essence of our nature and being as
human beings.  And this is exactly the strategic conception of
man and the fundamental understanding of human beings that Putin
actually understands; and those who are taking this direction of
the New Paradigm forward.  Because it's based in the identity for
the future, of actually creating the future.
        I just wanted to say that tomorrow, there will be several
meetings, including one I'm going to be hosting here around the
space program and the identity of the great mind of Krafft
Ehricke.  The title of the event is going to be "Free Mankind
from Terrorism and War; Embrace Krafft Ehricke's Age of Reason".
I think that's where we are right now; the question is, can we
bring about an age of reason by getting the population to
understand that what they have accepted in terms of the policy of
dictatorship and backward, degenerate culture that we have been
under for the last 15 years.  Namely, with the destructive and
murderous policies of 9/11, that have not to this day been
brought to justice; and 9/11 never ended.  That's why Obama is
continuing to get away with the murderous policies that are
influencing the entire world right now.  That we haven't brought
these crimes to the forefront; that we haven't brought the
perpetrators of these crimes — Obama, the Saudis, the British —
to justice and actually declared that we are going to join with
this New Paradigm.  That's what really has to come across right
now.
        The conception of Krafft Ehricke is very crucial in
understanding what has to be the turning point for the thinking
and identity of our nation, based on its foundation around being
the example of a true Renaissance culture.  When you think about
the Apollo mission, and you think about what we did with the
space program; and why Obama has targetted the space program.  It
wasn't a matter of opinion or a budgetary question; it was a
direct targetting on this potential for human progress and to
continue to promote this zero-growth paradigm.  What we're seeing
right now is that Russia and China are saying that this is not
the direction that we will allow and have mankind to go in; we're
going to actually develop and promote the true conception of what
human destiny actually is.
        So, what you see right now in terms of after this vote
indicating the further breakdown of Europe and the trans-Atlantic
system, which was already in the process on the opposite side,
you have something that is completely remarkable being brought
in.  Putin and Modi — the Prime Minister of India, President Xi
Jinping in China, the SCO summit this weekend, and the signing of
massive agreements for economic cooperation and development,
including space collaboration.  The question is, where is the
United States in this?  The idea that the Renaissance conception
of mankind based on this identity of creating the future and
restoring a moral value to society, is seen directly in what
Russia and China are doing right now; and why this is a critical
call to the moral of the United States to change that and to join
with that direction.

        RACHEL BRINKLEY:  Another important aspect is what is the
solution; what are the new systems.  And the question of the
space collaboration between Russia and China is not just over a
few projects; this is what they emphasized over the last few
days.  They're looking at two things — space travel for one, and
space station collaboration for two; and also with an emphasis on
health and the implications [of space] on human bodies.  So,
these are big questions; these are not just, let's put a rover
and test geology or something.  This is looking at how the
Universe works, how the Solar System works, how the human body
works; and saying that this is going to have implications on
Earth in medicine, to give people a sense that this is how
mankind makes advances.
        This has to be in the context of the question of Alexander
Hamilton, which LaRouche has emphasized, and he recently made the
point that what was it that was important about Hamilton?  He
said, what he did in Philadelphia, what he did in creating the
Constitutional system of the United States.  He knew that it
wasn't just the military victory that would enable the United
States to survive; the intention of the United States was to be a
system that created a better future for every single individual,
not a slave system.  So, he created the inherent economics of
political economy to create that better future; and that is what
the discussion is right now.  This is not just Russia and China
making some oil deals, or a new pipeline or something like that;
it's actually above nations as such.  That's what LaRouche said
about this Brexit vote; it's not just business as usual, this is
not a vote on pragmatic politics.  There's something bigger
acting.  People did not want war; they're tired of Obama's kill
policies which have terrorized the planet through his support for
ISIS, the refugee crisis out of Syria; this is clear.  So, this
is something that's being called for, there's something acting
which is coming from the future.
        The problem with Americans is that they've lost the sense of
how to think about that, about the future.  So, that's our job
right now, to create that discussion and that optimism about how
to do that.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  I think that's the question now.  What can we
create?  I was just reflecting on the discussion with Mr.
LaRouche earlier and some of his remarks throughout the week, and
I think his emphasis that you can't respond to or interpret
events is really critical at a time like this.  When you're
seeing these types of developments — because the Brexit vote is
one example; these are not events causing the process.  These are
events caused by the process; you have a breakdown process.  This
is an explosive development in that context, but there's already
an ongoing breakdown of the trans-Atlantic system; the cultural
system as much as the monetary system, the whole political
system.  Look at the British imperial ideology.
        But the point is, if you're responding to the events of that
process, you are still contained by that process.  How do you
break free from that process?  It's a question of creativity.
What are you doing to actually bring something fundamentally new
to the world situation?  I think that's why what you're seeing
out of Russia and China now is that; it's something new.  It's
not just a response, crisis management or trying to handle it, or
trying to respond to the events per se.  We're beyond that; the
events per se are death, that's where this thing is going.  Be it
a complete breakdown of the system, or whether it's that drive to
thermonuclear war.  So the question on the table now is, what can
you create?  What can you do that's fundamentally new to create a
new system; to actually generate a new orientation for mankind,
for leading nations, that doesn't come from a response to current
events?  That comes from a new orientation to create in the
future.
        The coverage of this in the media — the markets responding
this way or that way — it's just ridiculous.  The whole thing
has been going down for years; and we've  known it.  The question
now is, not who has the best spin on what mechanism caused what;
that doesn't matter.  The question now is, who's actually got an
insight into what the necessary future has to be?

        SARE:  I just wanted to say along those lines, to really
caution our viewers and anyone who's thinking that the way to
think about this is not to say how do we put together this broken
system; like Humpty Dumpty has fallen off the wall.  It's over;
and only recognizing that almost every fundamental axiom that
people had about economics in the trans-Atlantic was faulty.  And
I do have to point out that in 1988, Mr. LaRouche called for the
reunification of Germany based on his knowledge of the collapse
of the Soviet Union's economy.  And he made a proposal that the
West would provide food to Poland in return for early steps
toward an early reunification of Germany; and exactly one year
later, the Berlin Wall came down, and one year after that, Berlin
was the capital again and Germany was re-unified.  And he and his
wife both said at that time, the Soviet communist system has
failed; but that does not mean that the free trade trans-Atlantic
system is a success.  This, too, is finished; and it's end will
be much larger and more catastrophic than the disintegration of
the Soviet Union as we saw in '89.  So now we are truly there;
and the point is for the United States to recognize what Rachel
just said about Alexander Hamilton, what's embedded in our own
Constitution.  That that understanding of the intent of our
republic, combined with what Kesha represents in terms of the
space program and a true scientific orientation, is the platform
from which the United States can move to the future.
        And I just want to add — because Ben had sent something out
and I think Kesha, too — there's something circulating on the
web of 30 gigantic projects that China is engaged in building
which are changing the whole planet; these are huge
infrastructure projects.  One of them is a 16-mile long
suspension bridge across the Yangtze River; another is a group of
nuclear power plants; and so on.  I think the most expensive any
of these projects was, was something like $3.4 billion.  The
bridges might have been $1 billion or $750 million or something.
Think about that and think about the bail-out.  The first
bail-out of AIG — and there was more than one; but the first
bail-out of AIG was $80 billion.  Now, $80 billion is probably
more than the sum of what was spent on all of these 30 giant
projects combined.  You will also argue that this is not the same
kind of dollars; just like that's the problem with the metric of
what the space program generated, but I'm just using it as an
example.  Because particularly in the United States and Western
Europe, people have a totally insane view of what constitutes
value and what is money.  And if you just look at something like
this, you can see that the destruction, the degradation and
collapse of the United States has absolutely nothing to with
money per se; because we could have taken that $80 billion from
the AIG bail-out and invested it into high speed rail, nuclear
power, getting back to the Moon, any of these things.  And I
think we've done a number of $80 billion [bail-outs] just for
AIG, but the policy decision was not to do that.  And that's the
point of the insanity; and that's what we have to change, because
money itself has no intrinsic value.  Once you understand that,
you can stop panicking about all the money that's going to be
wiped out if everyone crashes and has their silly irrational
responses, or maybe it's finally rationality setting in.  Money
doesn't matter per se; the question is, what is the direction of
human progress, what is the direction of humankind?  From that
standpoint, we can turn on a dime; not that everything is going
to be repaired instantaneously.  It'll take probably two
generations for the United States to achieve a standard of living
that would be appropriate for this nation.  But nonetheless, the
direction could occur tomorrow; provided we do what Kesha said
first at the beginning, which is that Obama is no longer in
control of running the direction of this country — nor anybody
who thinks like Obama.

        OGDEN:  Well, I think it's very important that you brought
up this question of the fictitious values at the root of this
entire trans-Atlantic system; because what we're seeing in the
distinction between the bankrupt collapsing system in the
trans-Atlantic Europe-centered area, and then the growth in
China, in Russia, in India, and in that new Eurasian system.
These are not comparable types of systems; this is not one
person's loss is another person's gain or something like that.
These are completely two distinct species of outlook on the
world; and I think that's what we're getting at here.  What we're
experiencing with these crashes within the span of just a few
hours, HSBC lost 10% of its stock value; Standard Charter lost
10% of its stock value; the pound was down to a 31-year low —
lower than it's been since 1985.  But what is all of this?  This
is just the evaporation of fictitious value.
        On the other hand, you have substantial, real growth in the
form of the reconstruction of the New Silk Road, the development
of the vast interior Eurasian continent, the development of new
transport routes, these new development corridors.  Diane, I
think it's appropriate that you brought up the turning point in
1989 with the crash of the Soviet Union, because what we're
experiencing now is something at least of that caliber, if not
far, far greater than the caliber of 1989.  And you're right, Mr.
LaRouche was clear at that point that the Soviet system was
merely the first show to drop; now we're experiencing the second
shoe has dropped.  This system is bankrupt.  And at that time in
1989, is when Lyndon and Helga LaRouche planted the seeds for
what has now emerged as the New Paradigm, as the new Eurasian
economic system.  At that time it was first — in its nascent
form — the Productive Triangle; then it became what was the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.  This was adopted in the form of the New
Silk Road; and now this is being expanded to the World
Land-Bridge.  This is a vision for a global and extraterrestrial
development policy.  But Mr. LaRouche made several trips to
Russia during the 1990s; several trips to India as well.  Mrs.
LaRouche has travelled now multiple times to China in the last
several years.  This is the center; this is Mr. LaRouche's
emphasis on the impetus of leadership, the hegemonic influence at
this time of the creative leadership of the leaders of these
nations.  President Putin, President Xi Jinping, Prime Minister
Modi, and others.

DENISTON:  I think it's worth underscoring that it's still
playing out, too.  We have this SCO summit going on right now, in
which the heads of these nations are going to meet.  After that,
Putin is going to be travelling to China for a heads-of-state
meeting with Xi Jinping.  In this whole process, you're having
these dialogues to solidify — and I think this is really big —
solidify the Eurasian Economic Union cooperation with the New
Silk Road; which I think is a huge step in these very large but
regional projects moving closer to this Eurasian Land-Bridge,
World Land-Bridge perspective that Lyn and Helga have defined.
        So another point of emphasis that Mr. LaRouche has had over
the past weeks, I think is very sobering and represents a very
high level of thinking, is don't assume we know how any of this
is going to play out.  This is a developing, creative process;
there's a lot more things going on right now.  And we should be
orienting towards not trying to assume we know how all these
things are going to be finished, or what the results are going to
be.  This is an ongoing, creative process right now, and this is
how you have to think about it.  In the next days, as was
mentioned, out of the activity we're going to be engaged in over
this weekend which is very significant — both here in the United
States and in Europe — that's going to be a critical escalation.
But then over the next weeks also, we're just going to see a lot
of important developments coming.

        ROGERS:  I think it's important what Diane brought up on the
point of the system of monetarism that has dominated the culture
and society, that has actually set mankind backwards from what
the intention of the foundation of our republic actually
represented under the conception of Alexander Hamilton.  That's
really what you have to look at, too, when you think about the
cultural pessimism and the zero-growth paradigm that has
continued to dominate for the past several decades now.  It's
interesting, because people try to say that the targetting of the
space program has to do with not having enough money; we just
have to take these budget cuts.  And that's the same point.  How
much bail-outs have we put on these various financial speculators
and derivatives and so forth that we could not put into the space
program?  The idea was that it was never about the fact there
were not enough financial resources to put into the space
program.  It was in the intention not to invest into the future.
And there were many people who promoted this zero-growth paradigm
that Krafft Ehricke took on directly, who stated that the space
program represented too much of a "false optimism" for the
population; that it actually gave the population a sense of
optimism and a sense of their identity as human beings and a
commitment to the future.  The empire and those promoters of
zero-growth were adamant that they had to put a stop to that.  I
was reading an article from back in 1963 in the {New Atlantic};
it was referenced in a book by Marsha Freeman — "The Conquest of
Space and Stature of Man" by Hannah Arendt.  Hannah Arendt was
one of these major promoters of zero-growth and backwardness; and
she made the point that the fight against the space program is
not that of money, but a question of man being inherently corrupt
and that nothing good could come out of scientific progress.
        And that's the thing right now, is that what Russia and
China and this New Paradigm are promoting that only good can come
out of the nature of mankind's creative mental process in terms
of shaping and defining the future and creating that which has
never been created before.  As we're seeing with the outcome of
what China is doing with their space program.  That used to be
our mission; why we went to the Moon in the first place, and why
President Kennedy made the announcement that we would send a man
to the Moon and bring them back before the decade was out.  It
was our obligation to take on something that was fundamentally
new; that's our creative nature.
        That just puts the question that this monetary system has to
be thrown out the window; a new system of economic value based on
the real conceptions of the creative powers of the human mind has
to be brought in.  And the best conception to bring that about is
the space program.

        BRINKLEY:  Absolutely.  And Mr. LaRouche made the point that
also what do we replace this system with?  The idea has to be a
Eurasian policy; and that's what you see in space, that's what
you see in real economy is what are the mutual interests.
Europe's only chance is to join with this policy; so Obama has
explicitly prevented that.  He's called for everybody on the
planet not to join with Russia and China; he tried to prevent it,
whether it was Japan, Mexico, all the coups going on in South
America right now — Argentina.  Puerto Rico is being destroyed
and murdered by Obama and Wall Street.  LaRouche said this is
also why the [Brexit] vote occurred; Obama's economic policies,
his defense for this doomed system is clear.  Also the question
of Obama said our great ally is Great Britain, and it will be now
and forever.  Well, what are we showing with the 28 pages?  Saudi
Arabia did not act alone; actually this part might not be in the
28 pages, but it's in many other pages that are there to be
released.  Through the BAE deal, Prince Bandar, to be found out
that Great Britain might not be our greatest ally.  And Obama's
defense of Britain, of Wall Street, his continual murder policy,
the fact that somewhere 111-114 Americans commit suicide every
day; that this is Obama's policy. He is a murderer; and he has
got to be removed.  That's the fact; it's an absolutely evil
intention, and he's got to be thrown out.

        SARE:  I'd just like to add along those lines:  One is we
are having our regular Saturday meeting here in Manhattan,
although it's slightly expanded.  I will be keynoting it; and we
have Jason Ross from the Science Team is here and others, to
present these two views.  We also are holding a concert on Sunday
afternoon, dedicated to Sylvia Olden Lee, called "In Praise of
Sylvia Olden Lee", who was one of our very important
collaborators in the Schiller Institute in this fight for the
question of Classical beauty.  And Classical music is something
which can strengthen people, which strengthens our better angels,
as Abraham Lincoln might have said, to actually insure that
justice is done.  And I bring these things up, because here in
the US, you have this really diversionary, silly spectacle of
debates about gun control and Congressmen rolling around on the
floor and things like that; pretending that they're in some kind
of civil rights sit-in, when here you have the murderer-in-chief
— President Obama — presiding over a weekly kill session on
Tuesdays, deciding who he's going to kill.  Then you had
September 11th, which Rachel was alluding to, where close to 3000
Americans were killed; and justice has not been done.  And Obama
— as Bush before him — is covering up for the perpetrators of
othe crime and colluding with them as best we know.
  And I think this is a very important flank for those people
who say, "Well, it's impossible; we only have a couple more
months.  In January, we have a new President anyway."  Well, just
look at what's been happening in the last few weeks, to see how
quickly things can change.  NATO has deployed 50,000 troops in
exercises on the border of Russia.  Do you really think we should
just presume that we're going to safely avoid thermonuclear war
while we have a killer lunatic who is now more desperate than
ever as President of the United States?  I think it's very
important that people stop pretending or picking other so-called
"issues" which are really non-issues; when we have a great crime
which was committed 15 years ago on September 11, 2001, which has
not been addressed.  By addressing this and getting to the truth
of what was involved in this — the Saudi role, the British role,
the Wall Street role, the FBI role, the Bush role, Obama's role;
by addressing that, we have a lever by which to expel the current
President from the White House and hopefully land him safely in
jail where he belongs.  And to change therefore, the direction of
the United States.

        OGDEN:  If Obama was so interested in Britain's staying in
the EU, perhaps as Kesha suggested, he could follow suit after
David Cameron and announce his resignation as well.  To his
credit, David Cameron has announced that he is leaving his post
as Prime Minister before his term is over.

        DENISTON:  Obama might be too big of a narcissist; it'll
take more aggressive action for that one.

OGDEN:  But I do think that absolutely, Diane, what you just said
about the events that are coming up this weekend — both in New
York and then, Kesha, what you're hosting down in Texas — the
emphasis has got to continue to be, what is the creative
intervention that can be made to uplift the American people and
to lead the American people.  That was one thing that really did
stick out when we were speaking with Mr. LaRouche earlier today;
that it's never enough just to have the correct analysis of
events.  Our emphasis has got to be, how do we calmly bring a
solution to the table that will be the solution to this crisis?
And that's what you were saying, Ben, that we're in completely
uncharted territory; this is an unprecedented situation in the
history of mankind.  You have no idea what's going to happen
tomorrow, what's going to happen the next day.  It was almost a
comedy to watch how surprised all the pundits and the investors
and the big masters of universe and everybody were, when they
thought that they were going to sleep last night with the remain
vote having come out on top.  And then they wake up this morning
and lo and behold, it's the completely opposite result.  That
proves to you that these guys have no idea what they're doing.
        Diane, you brought this up in the webcast last week.  Why
would you give anybody any credit, when they had no idea that the
Crash of 2008 was right around the corner?  Why would you put
your trust in these people?  So, you have a completely
unprecedented situation.  The rise of the Eurasian system is not
something which is a fait accompli; this is what's driving the
directionality of the possibility of a thermonuclear war breaking
out.  Granted, the support for the sanctions and for the NATO
maneuvers in Europe is now becoming increasingly less strong; but
that doesn't mean that you're by any means guaranteed that we can
avoid a fate such as that.  So, it's decisive action and it's
creative leadership in the case of what we are able to provide;
and Mr. LaRouche was clear that it's the unique capability of the
members of this Policy Committee to provide that kind of
leadership within the United States.
        So again, I just want to emphasize the importance of these
two events that we have coming up this weekend.  So, I think with
that said, you can watch for coverage of those events as they are
broadcast.  The regular Saturday meeting will be live, available
on the LaRouche PAC website tomorrow for Manhattan; and we
encourage you to participate in that in person if you are in the
area, as well as the events in Texas.  And please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com as things rapidly change.
        If you haven't yet, make sure you subscribe to our YouTube
channel; make sure you don't miss any of these critical
discussions.  And also become a regular subscriber to our Daily
Updates which are delivered directly to your inbox via email.
So, thank you for tuning in, and please stay tuned to
larouchepac.com.




Obama, Orlando og det anglo-saudiske terrornetværk.
Kort video, engelsk

– Det massemorderiske voldsorgie i Orlando, Florida, er blot det seneste i en række forfærdelige terrorangreb, der, ligesom 11. septenber 2001, udspringer af den 30 år gamle Al Yamama olie-for-våben-aftale mellem de britiske og saudiske monarkier. En aftale, der skabte nutidens jihadistiske apparat som et dække for krigsoperationer, der har til formål at destabilisere rivaliserende nationer, med Rusland og Kina som hovedmål. Få hele historie her: lpac.co/orlando   




STOP 3. Verdenskrig: International terror.
»Efter ‘De 28 sider’ – 11. september: Ti år senere«.
Video, engelsk.

Følgende præsentation indeholder arkivoptagelser af angrebene på World Trade Center og Pentagon, den 11. september 2001.  

Lyndon LaRouche, juni 2007: »Verden har levet under et system, som er 11. september-systemet – der allerede eksisterede, som jeg advarede om, i begyndelsen af 2001. FØR præsident George W. Bush blev indsat første gang, og hvor jeg sagde, ’Verdens system har nået et punkt, hvor et fremstormende kollaps af systemet nu er i gang. Og jeg sagde dengang, at faren består i, at noget lignende dette vil indtræffe, under de nuværende tendenser i USA, og det indtraf! Og det hed ’9/11’ – 11. september.’«

Se også: USA: I har nøglerne til at standse terrorbølgen. Brug dem!

Se også: »Den anglo-saudiske baggrund for den aktuelle, internationale terrorisme: Frigiv sandheden, og lad os lukke imperiemagternes topstyrede terrorapparat ned, én gang for alle!«

 

    




Leder: USA: I har nøglerne til at standse terrorbølgen: Brug dem!
– Samt en kort gennemgang af det britiske og saudiske monarkis rolle i international
terror gennem de seneste 30 år, inkl. video:
‘Beyond the 28 Pages – 9/11, Ten Years Later’

13. juni 2016 (Leder) – Det massemorderiske voldsorgie i Orlando, Florida, angiveligt begået af en tilhænger af Islamisk Stat, Omar Mateen, er blot det seneste i en række af forfærdelige terrorangreb, der alle udspringer af den tredive år gamle »olieaftale« mellem det britiske og det saudiske monarki. Denne aftale har givet dem stor magt og store, skjulte ressourcer til at skabe nutidens globale jihadistiske organisation for angreb imod nationer.

Med mindre, og før, denne anglo-saudiske organisation afsløres – som vi kan gøre det med afsløringen af de dokumenter om 11. september, der er blevet hemmeligholdt i 15 år – og opløses, vil verden konstant stå over for blinde terrorangreb, over alt og til enhver tid.

Præsident Obama blev en overlagt og villig agent for briterne og saudierne i sine evindelige krige, der har spredt kaos i hele Mellemøsten og Nordafrika, og terror i hele verden.

Hvilket »sammentræf«, at Obama skal mødes med den saudiske kronprins Salman i Washington, mens hans CIA-direktør, John Brennan, gør sit yderste for at »frikende« Saudi-Arabien for sin rolle i at arrangere angrebene den 11. september og drabene på 3.000 amerikanere. Både Obama og Prins Salman mødes med blodige hænder.

EIR’s stiftende radaktør Lyndon LaRouche bemærkede i dag, at han har været klar over denne britisk-saudiske magt for ondskab i årtier; og at dette bidrog til, at han den 2. januar, 2001, fremkom med en særdeles offentlig og publiceret advarsel om, at der forelå en trussel om et større terrorangreb mod USA, der ville finde sted i efteråret 2001.

»Det er stadig det samme, det drejer sig om, selv i gårsdagens massemord i Orlando«, sagde LaRouche.

Den unge Orlando-drabsmand var rejst til Saudi-Arabien i 2011 og 2012, mens han var ansat i det britiske, internationale sikkerhedsfirma G4S; og han kom tilbage som en tilsyneladende meget forandret person.

LaRouche understregede, at, fordi Obamas krige nu umiddelbart fører til en konfrontation med Rusland, og truer med at blive til Tredje Verdenskrig, er det af afgørende betydning at afsløre de saudisk/britiske hænder bag – begyndende med 11. september – og at tvinge Obama ud.

 

’Aftalen’, der lancerede 1000 angreb

I 1985 indgik Prins Bandar bin-Sultan, daværende saudisk ambassadør til USA, et langvarigt partnerskab med den britiske regering under daværende premierminister Margaret Thatcher. Under dække af en olie-for-våben-aftale ved navn Al Yamamah (arabisk for »duen«), etablerede de britiske og saudiske monarkier en offshore-fond, der voksede til enorme proportioner og er blevet brugt til at føre global terrorisme imod udpegede nationer.

I løbet af de mere end 30 år, siden Al Yamamah blev lanceret, har de britiske og saudiske monarkier ophobet langt over $100 mia. i en kæde af hemmelige offshore-fonde, til finansiering af terrorisme, politiske mord, kupplaner og andre forbrydelser som den aktuelle saudisk/britisk/amerikanske invasion og bombning af Yemen.

Under Al Yamamah sendte den britiske våbenproducent BAE Systems for anslået $40 mia. våben til det Saudiske Forsvars- og Luftvåbenministerium, og for anslået yderligere $20 mia. i bestikkelser til saudiske prinser og regeringsfolk inden for forsvaret. Til gengæld sendte saudierne 600.000 tønder olie pr. dag til briterne. Gennem de anglo-hollandske oliegiganter British Petroleum og Royal Dutch Shell blev olien solgt på de internationale spotmarkeder og skabte profitter for hundreder af milliarder af dollars. En EIR-undersøgelse fra 2007 anslog, at, som et minimum, blev $100 mia. i overskud ophobet og deponeret i hemmelige offshore bankkonti, til brug for hemmelige, fælles anglo-saudiske operationer.

I en officiel biografi pralede Prins Bandar med at bruge disse hemmelige midler og med den særlige natur af Al Yamamah-aftalen, som kun kunne have været gennemført mellem to absolutte monarkier, der kunne agere over loven og udviske skellet mellem offentlige og private handlinger.

ISIS har, med andre ord, absolut IKKE været verdens rigeste, islamistiske terroroperation.

I 2007, da de britiske medier gennemførte en begrænset afsløring af Al Yamamah-bestikkelsesskandalen, lukkede den britiske premierminister Tony Blair den britiske Afdeling for Alvorligt Bedrageris (SFO) efterforskning, med den begrundelse, at det anglo-saudiske partnerskab var af afgørende betydning for den britiske nationale sikkerhed. Ordren til at lukke efterforskningen kom få timer efter, at den schweiziske regering havde besluttet at give SFO adgang til de hemmelige bankkonti, tilhørende Wafiq Said, en stråmand for Al Yamamah-midlerne.

Al Yamamah-aftalen var en lukrativ transaktion for Prins Bandar, som fik en kommission for sin rolle i lanceringen af programmet på mindst $2 mia. (amerikanske efterretningskilder anslår, at Bandar fik mere end $10 mia. for aftalen).

 

Spørgsmålet om 3.000 dræbte amerikanere

Bandar er direkte indblandet i angrebene den 11. september på World Trade Center og Pentagon. Penge fra den personlige bankkonto tilhørende Bandar og hans hustru, prinsesse Haifa (søster til den mangeårige direktør for saudisk efterretning, Prins Turki-al-Faisal), blev videregivet til to af de oprindelige flykaprere fra 11. september, Khalid al-Mihdhar og Nawaf al-Hazmi, via de saudiske efterretningsofficerer Omar al-Bayoumi og Osama Basnan. Penge overførtes fra Bank of Englands konti fra det Britiske Forsvarsministeriums Støttekontor til Forsvarseksport (DESO) til Bandars konto i Riggs National Banks. Desuden modtog al-Bayoumi og Basnan penge gennem en ’skygge’-ansættelse i et saudisk forsvarsfirma, Dalah Aviation, der var eneste entrepriseindehaver for det Saudiske Forsvarsministerium.

En føderal dommmer (dvs. udpeget af præsidenten) i Sarasota, Florida, gennemgår nu flere end 80.000 sider af tilbageholdte FBI-dokumenter, der drejer sig om en celle bestående af flykaprerne den 11. september, og dennes forbindelser til en prominent, rig, saudisk forretningsmand med stærke bånd til det saudiske monarki. Nogle uger før angrebene den 11. september, forlod den saudiske familie, der opholdt sig i et indhegnet bosted i Sarasota, meget pludseligt landet. De efterlod sig ejendele, der indikerede, at de brød op med meget kort varsel. FBI gennemførte en uddybende undersøgelse af familien, fordi de husede tre af flykaprerne fra 11. september, inkl. ringlederen Mohammed Atta i mange tilfælde, iflg. sikkerhedslogs og videooptagelser, der viser Atta og de andre gå ind og ud af ejendommen.

FBI hemmeligholdt dokumenterne og det faktum, at de foretog en undersøgelse, for den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse og 11. september-kommissionen. Tidligere senator Bob Graham, der var med-formand i den Fælles Kongresundersøgelse, hævder nu, at eksistensen af forbindelsen mellem de saudiske royale og Sarasota-cellen, når dette ses i sammenhæng med beviset for den saudiske regerings støtte til San Diego-cellen, nu rejser yderligere spørgsmål om angrebene 11. september. Hvad med Herndon, staten Virginia, og Paterson, staten New Jersey, har senator Graham offentligt spurgt?

Et 47 sider langt dokument, skrevet af de to stabsmedlemmer af 11. september-kommissionen, der tidligere havde arbejdet for den Fælles Kongresunderundersøgelse, og som havde skrevet det 28 sider lange, undertrykte kapitel, identificerede i alt 20 saudiske regeringsfolk med beviselige bånd til de 19 flykaprere forud for angrebene 11. september.

Disse forbindelser gik fra det sydlige Californien til den Saudiske Ambassade i Washington og til den Saudiske Ambassade i Berlin, Tyskland. Tidligere flådeminister John Lehman, medlem af 11. sept.-kommissionen, sagde til ’60 Minutes’, at kommissionen ikke førte en uddybende undersøgelse af de ledetråde, der burde have været forfulgt, og som relaterede til det saudiske monarki og det saudiske regimes støtte til flykaprerne. Lehman, blandt andre kommissionsmedlemmer, har krævet en tilbundsgående, fra øverst til nederst, ny undersøgelse af 11. sept. – en undersøgelse, hvor alle de undertrykte ledetråde og åbne spor til de saudiske royale fuldt ud forfølges.

I løbet af denne trediveårige periode med Al Yamamah-programmet er der flydt penge fra disse hemmelige offshore-konti, så vel som også gennem saudiske velgørenhedsorganisationer, til finansiering af et globalt netværk af moskeer og madrasser (skoler), der har rekrutteret flere generationer til det ekstreme wahhabi/salafist-apparat, som udgør rekrutteringspuljen til sunni jihadistisk terror over hele verden.

 

Hvad der skal gøres

De beviser, der indeholdes i det stadigt hemmeligstemplede, 28 sider lange kapitel af den oprindelige Fælles Kongresundersøgelse af 11. sept., åbner døren til en optrevling af hele det anglo-saudiske terrorapparat. Uden en forståelse af den rolle, som det britiske monarki og de britiske efterretningstjenester har spillet i det jihadistiske apparat, er det umuligt at lukke dets evne til at operere ned.

CIA-direktøren fremførte i et interview søndag, at amerikanere »ikke burde tro på« dette 28-siders kapitel, som han nu frygter, vil blive tvunget til at blive frigivet, med en ophævelse af hemmeligstemplingen. Men et republikansk medlem af Kongressen rapporterede i et tweet, »CIA-direktøren må referere til nogle andre 28 sider end dem, jeg har læst. Frigiv dem, og lad det amerikanske folk træffe afgørelsen.« I har i jeres hænder midlerne til at gå til modangreb mod denne britisk/saudiske operation. Brug dem. Fremtving en offentliggørelse af de saudiske beviser. Fremtving Obamas afgang. »Dette må gøres hurtigt«, sagde LaRouche i dag, »for at forhindre yderligere international ødelæggelse.«

Video: 'Beyond the 28-pages – 9/11: Ten Years Later' – Otte måneder før angrebene 11. september, 2001, forudsagde Lyndon LaRouche, at USA havde en høj risiko for en begivenhed à la ’Rigsdagsbranden’, en begivenhed, der ville gøre det muligt for dem, der var ved magten, gennem diktatoriske midler at styre en økonomisk og samfundsmæssig krise, som de i modsat fald ikke var kompetente til at håndtere. Vi lever nu i det ubrudte kølvand af dette stykke historie.

Titelbillede: Obama og Kong Salman bin Abdulaziz under et af præsidentens mange besøg i Saudi-Arabien samtidig med, at han opretholdt mørklægningen af 11. september. [flickr/whitehouse]

 

]           




»Vil USA gå med i Den Nye
Silkevej? Global, videnskabelig
udvikling, eller atomkrig«;
Helga Zepp-LaRouches
åbningstale ved Schiller Institut-
seminar i San Francisco, USA.
Video, engelsk.

Jeg tror, at, hvis man ser på verdenssituationen, især på den amerikanske offentlighed, der næsten intet ved om situationen; folk i Europa ved lidt mere, men, hvis man sammenligner den umiddelbart forestående fare for en eskalering af konfrontationen mellem NATO, USA og Storbritannien og så Rusland og Kina på den anden side, så er viden om det så svag, at dette for mig står som det mest skræmmende aspekt; for, fraværet af en offentlig debat om den mulige udslettelse at hele civilisationen, om det så skyldes mange folks ligegyldighed, fordi de simpelt hen er ligeglade, eller det skyldes, at de er for bange til at tænke tanken til ende¸ men manglen på en offentlig debat er det, vi må ændre.     




LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-Webcast 4. marts 2016:
Vi må udvikle rumprogrammet for hele menneskeheden.
Engelsk udskrift

Megan Beets fra LPAC Videnskabsteam rapporterer fra en begivenhed med Kesha Rogers i Texas om rumprogrammets betydning for USA og hele menneskeheden; Jeffrey Steinberg fremlægger en analyse af begivenhederne omkring Libyen, som Hillary Clinton var en del af, med afsættelsen og mordet på Gaddafi, og hele operationens konsekvenser for den aktuelle situation i Nordafrika og Mellemøsten, der kan føre til generel atomkrig; og Jeff Steinberg fremlægger hr. LaRouches tanker om en genrejsning af USA’s økonomi, med en genoplivning af rumprogrammet som spydspids. Engelsk udskrift.        

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s March 4th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you are joining us for our weekly broadcast
here on Friday evenings for the LaRouche PAC webcast, at
larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio this evening by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Megan Beets
from the LaRouche Pac Science Team. And Megan Beets just returned
from a trip to Houston, Texas where she was involved in a very
significant event and other meetings with Kesha Rogers. Many of
you might have seen the recording of this event, which was also
live-streamed on this website last Saturday. It featured Tom
Wysmueller, and Kesha Rogers, as well as Megan Beets.
We’re going to begin our broadcast this evening with some
remarks from Megan Beets, coming off the discussion that we had
with Mr. LaRouche this morning. As many of you know, Mr. LaRouche
has placed a premium on Kesha Rogers’ role as a champion, a
unique champion, of the resurgence of the United States space
program. Kesha Rogers very aggressively campaigned for this cause
in her three campaigns for Federal office that she has run so far
— 2010, 2012, and 2014, in which she was the Democratic nominee
two elections in a row, in the 22nd District of Texas, for the
United States House of Representatives, and also ran an
internationally profiled Senate campaign in 2014.
So, without further adieu, I would like to ask Megan Beets
to come to the podium to deliver a few opening remarks, and then
after that, we’ll feature some more discussion coming off of the
meeting we had with Mr. LaRouche this morning, with Jeffrey
Steinberg filling in some of those details.

MEGAN BEETS: Thanks, Matt. I can tell you from my visit to
Texas that at this moment, when the breakdown of the
trans-Atlantic system is undeniable — we’re witnessing the
complete malfunctioning and shutdown of this old system — we’re
also see the reopening of the space program down in Texas.
Now the event that I was privileged to participate in with
Kesha and Tom Wysmueller down in Texas, represents a real
beginning of a change of direction of the United States, a
rebirth, so to speak, of the United States as a nation. Now, the
requirement today is that the United States dump our commitment,
our addiction, to this dead, dying trans-Atlantic system, and
decide once again to take up a mission in the sense of purpose
and contribution to mankind.
Now, you look around today. You look around at our citizens.
You look at the heroin epidemic. You look at the death, the
self-induced deaths from drugs, from suicide, from alcoholism,
and so forth. You look at the breakdown in cities like Flint,
Michigan, the breakdown in places like certain counties of West
Virginia that were once booming coal towns. There’s no reflection
in the United States of reality.
Now, what’s reality? Look at the leadership coming from
Asia, particularly from China. Look at the kinds of optimistic
developments, the progress for humanity, that’s coming from the
leadership of China and their space program; and in their
commitment to development projects which are beginning to take
hold and take place all across Eurasia. That’s reality. There’s
no reflection of this yet inside the United States. And so when
we look around, it’s not just that the U. S. economy has
disappeared. The United States has disappeared. There’s no sense
of a unified purpose. There’s no sense of a unified mission for
the existence of the United States as a nation, and there’s no
sense within our people of what {we}, as a nation, will organize
ourselves to contribute to the purposes of mankind.
Now you contrast that with the U.S. sense of purpose and
mission as under John F. Kennedy and his Presidency, and his
leadership within the United States, and his dedication to the
space program. Now, as anyone who truthfully remembers — and
most especially, those people who were directly involved — can
tell you, this wasn’t just a mission for the United States. This
was a real mission for all of mankind. And this was reflected in
some anecdotes in the event last Saturday from some of the
attendees, who themselves were engineers or otherwise employed in
NASA during the Apollo missions.
One anecdote that was told by someone saying that he
disagreed with Werner von Braun that we should be sharing some of
our technology with the Russians, and his mind was changed by von
Braun. There was another former NASA employee who said that at
first in the 1990s, he disagreed with President Clinton’s sharing
of U.S. space technology with the former Soviet Union — with
Russia. And he said once he started working with Russian
engineers, he realized that our mission is mankind; it’s unified;
it’s the same. And this was reflected throughout the entire
event: the sense that our work during the space program was
contributing fundamental developments and contributions, not to
the progress of the United States, but to the progress of man as
a whole.
Now, why? What is the space program? What happened during
the space program in the United States?
Well, not only was the common, the general citizen,
transformed. Not only were there innumerable and immeasurable
benefits from the economic spin-offs. But most importantly, the
people were transformed. The astronauts were fundamentally
transformed. The engineers working in a space program were
fundamentally transformed, as we confronted problems in space,
problems that forced us to overturn our assumptions about the
principles which govern and control the Universe that we lived
in. And each of these problems that we confronted, we were to
conquer. And you see that in the accounts of the people who were
involved during that time in the space program: that we were able
to pull together around a common mission, thousands and thousands
of people across the country to confront these challenges in our
knowledge about the Universe, and to conquer them.
And in that way, in a very short period of time, man began
to rapidly transform and change into a more powerful species. We
began to progress into a species with more power and control over
the processes in the Universe, so much to the point that we were
able to land people on the surface of the Moon, which
fundamentally transformed our ideas and our knowledge of what the
Moon itself is, of what potential the Moon holds for a new
platform of development for man, which was completely unknown
until the accomplishments of Apollo.
Now this is what the Chinese are doing today with their
space program. In 2018, just two years from now, the Chinese plan
to land on the far side of the Moon. This has never been done
before. The far side of the Moon has been imaged with satellites,
it’s been seen by human eyes in the American astronauts who
travelled there. But nobody has ever landed on the far side of
the Moon.
Now, people may say, “Well, we know what the Moon is; we’ve
looked at it. We’ve taken pictures.” But the fact is, the far
side of the Moon is a completely unknown quantity to us. When we
land there, for example, what do we think the far side can teach
us? When we land there, we’ll have a chance to confront our
fundamental notions about the formation of the Moon, the
formation of the Earth, and possibly other planets in the Solar
System with the unique geological investigations that we’ll be
able to perform there.
When we land there, and when we’re able to set up
astronomical observatories in the very low radio frequency range,
which is a band of the electromagnetic spectrum which is
impossible to look at the Solar System in from anywhere
attainable to us besides the far side of the Moon; when we are
able to look at the Solar System in this new range, we’re very
likely going to discover that the planets, the interstellar
medium, distant galaxies, different stars, could exhibit
processes to us which were completely invisible before.
It’s this kind of potential for mankind to transform our
powers, to transform our relationship to the Solar System itself,
that’s being offered by the Chinese actions today. And it’s this
sense of meaning, this sense of mobilization and commitment to
progress for all of mankind, which is what we, down in Texas, are
reminding people of. What Kesha is reminding people of — even
people who participated in these great accomplishments 40 or 50
years ago, and who might have encountered now a sense of
demoralization with the actions since that time. We’re drawing
people back out to a commitment of this mission. And Kesha is
showing once again that the United States can, and must, commit
itself to this kind of purpose for all of mankind.
So I can just conclude by reporting that the beginnings of
these developments that we’re seeing coming out of Texas, is that
people down there still associate themselves with reality, and
are now playing a leading role, with Kesha, in being moved toward
recognizing that this is the viable option for the United States.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Megan. And like I said, if you
haven’t gotten a chance to see the recording of the event that
occurred down in Texas last Saturday, it is archived on the
larouchepac youtube channel, and I would encourage you to watch
it. It was a very uplifting event, and we can expect to hear
much, much more from Kesha Rogers, obviously.
Now, the second item on our agenda tonight is something
which you may have heard Mr. LaRouche emphasize during the
discussion with the LaRouche PAC Policy Committee this past
Monday. Towards the end of that show, you might have caught Mr.
LaRouche’s reference to a series of very significant articles
that were published in the {New York Times} over the weekend.
They were titled: “Hillary Clinton, Smart Power, and a Dictator’s
Fall: The Role of Hillary Clinton in the ouster and killing of
Colonel Muammar Qaddafi That Left Libya a Failed State and a
Terrorist Haven.” This article, or series of articles, which were
based on a number of interviews from people who were right on the
inside of the entire decision-making process that led into the
decision to overthrow Qaddafi, and to ultimately have him
killing, very vividly paints the picture of the months leading up
into that decision, and Hillary Clinton’s central role in making
that decision on the inside of the Obama White House.
And this, despite dire warnings from intelligence experts,
and military experts, as to what the aftermath of that decision
would be, and also even overtures of peace that were coming from
Libya itself, and the Libyan government — overtures for a
peaceful transition, which were directly and decisively ignored
by the Clinton State Department and the Obama White House.
These actions, this regime-change operation in Libya, as we
know now very well, directly led to Libya becoming a failed
state, and creating the vacuum in which Libya could be the
staging ground for what has now come to be called ISIS today —
these radical jihadist terrorist who in many parts are using the
weapons that were channeled into Libya at that time by the
Hillary Clinton-Obama operation, in order to overthrow Qaddafi.
They are now using those weapons to take over large swaths of
territory in Northern Africa, and in the Middle East. Obviously,
this is the context for the tragic events that unfolded on Sept.
11 in Benghazi in which Ambassador Stevens and three other
Americans were killed. However, I think this point to the more
important discussion that should be being had: What was Hillary
Clinton’s role? What was Barack Obama’s role in the decision for
regime change in Libya, and what will be the outcome if we allow
this same regime-change operation to continue to take place in
Syria and in many other countries?
One note I would say just before inviting Jeff up to the
podium to discuss this more in detail, is the importance of the
coincidence of the publication of these series of articles in the
{New York Times} with Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s surprise
announcement that she was resigning as vice-chair of the DNC in
order to more aggressively campaign against Hillary Clinton,
explicitly because of Hillary Clinton’s identity as a strong and
vocal advocate of the policy of regime change  what Tulsi Gabbard
has said she personally witnessed the tragic and disastrous
consequences of on the ground in Iraq, after the decision to have
regime change against Saddam Hussein. Tulsi Gabbard was active
service military. And we saw the decision again in the case of
Libya, and now we are confronting directly head-on whether or not
that decision will be made in Syria.
This also obviously has a lot to do with the context of
Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts to create the framework
for a ceasefire, along with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in
Syria.
Now, what I would like to ask Jeff to discuss at the podium
is what Mr. LaRouche’s take has been on the significance of these
articles, and also the very precise timing of these articles
being published right now, during this Presidential campaign
season, and what the implications of this should be seen in terms
of the ongoing fight behind the scenes continuing to this day in
the Obama Administration.

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. Well, the two-part series,
lengthy articles that were published late last week, early this
week, in the New York Times bring back into stark relief and
memory, the fact that the decision to overthrow and execute
Qaddafi was not only a turning point in recent history. It
unleashed a flood of instability. Massive amounts of weapons
flooded out of Libya. All across Africa a structure was set up
for laundering those weapons into Syria, where they ultimately
wound up in the hands of both the al-Qaeda, and later the Islamic
State forces. This has been a source of mass death, grave
instability, throughout the entire Africa and Middle East region,
and beyond.
Now, what the {New York Times} articles make clear is
something that was well-known to us and which Mr. LaRouche
commented on exhaustively as these events were playing out. But
from the standpoint of the current elections and things related
to the ongoing war danger, now at the threshold of the danger of
a general war, a nuclear war, it’s very important to reflect back
on this.
Effectively, as the result of Hillary Clinton joining the
White House, joining President Obama, joining Samantha Power,
joining Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett, in pressing for the
violent overthrow of the Qaddafi government, the assassination of
Qaddafi, and effectively the installation of the Muslim
Brotherhood and al-Qaeda into power in Libya, this meant that
Hillary Clinton had completely capitulated to Obama. Prior to
that point, during the Obama administration, despite the fact
that it was a grave political mistake on the part of Hillary
Clinton to have become a part of the Obama Administration in the
first place, the fact is that she had generally aligned herself
with Defense Secretary Gates, with General Dempsey, chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and had been a barrier to the worst
kinds of British policies coming out of Obama, Jarrett, Rice,
Power, and the others grouped around this President.
Obama is a British agent, plain and simple, and that was one
of the first points that Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our
discussion earlier today. And he said, Look, Hillary Clinton was
terrified into playing the role that she played in Libya. She was
not the only person pushing for regime change; she was, in the
words of Roberts Gates, “the tilt factor”. The decisive vote in a
very close 51-49 vote, where Gates himself, the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, were opposed to launching the no-fly zone.  Launching what
was being mislabelled a humanitarian intervention, when from the
very outset it was always about regime change.  You’ve got to
remember that the characteristic of the Obama Presidency is to be
found in those Tuesday kill sessions; where the President sits
down with a group of national security advisors, Cabinet members,
representatives of the military and intelligence community, and
makes life-or-death arbitrary decisions to add people’s names to
the kill lists.  In some cases — we know in at least four
instances — people were put on that kill list who were American
citizens; who were deprived of any day in court, any due process,
and were summarily assassinated.  Whether by special forces,
whether by drone attacks, or combinations of both.
So, that’s the character of the Obama administration.  And
with the 2011 decision to overthrow Qaddafi, Hillary Clinton —
out of absolute fear — remember, you’re dealing with a President
who relishes the idea of coming up with weekly lists of targets
for assassination.  With that Libya decision, with Clinton’s
decision to side with her own worst enemies, going all the way
back to the 2008 campaign when she campaigned against Barack
Obama; when Samantha Power publicly went out on the stump calling
her a witch.  When she capitulated and sided with those British
forces in the Libya operation, she not only participated in the
unleashing of absolute Hell across much of Africa and the Middle
East region; but she caved in to people who, at an earlier point,
she knew were absolutely despicable and were her avowed enemies.
That capitulation is something that she will live with forever.
Now, recently, in the course of reviewing the Africa events,
the Libya events, some additional information has come out that
even puts a further punctuation point on the fact that there was
a top-down decision in which Secretary Clinton participated,
along with President Obama, to overthrow Qaddafi; no questions
asked, no second thoughts.  There’s a very precise timeline that
has been provided by a retired US Navy Rear Admiral named Charles
Kubic, who was retired from the Navy and was a business man
working in Libya — also a trained engineer.  And when the United
Nations Security Council passed the resolution to establish a
no-fly zone and a “humanitarian corridor” around Benghazi — this
was on March 19, 2011 — on that very day, Rear Admiral Kubic was
contacted by people in the inner circle of Qaddafi; and they
said, “Let’s talk.”  Let’s not go with diplomatic formulations.
Let’s immediately convene a battlefield 72-hour truce.  And
during that time, let’s discuss an orderly procedure for standing
down the Libyan forces that were moving on Benghazi, and on an
orderly transition of power.  Qaddafi was prepared to leave
Libya, to go into exile; to arrange a negotiated government to
follow from him, and to basically stand down the Libyan forces
that were, in fact, battling al-Qaeda and other jihadist networks
in the area around Benghazi and Misurata inside Libya.  Admiral
Kubic conveyed immediately the approach that he had gotten from
the head of Qaddafi’s personal security.  He conveyed it to
Stuttgart, Germany; it was reported to General Carter Ham, the
head of the Africa Command, and General Ham responded favorably.
Details were being worked out the very next day to convene
exactly this kind of battlefield truce and negotiating process;
either in Tripoli, or right off the shores of Libya on a
designated US military ship.  And in fact, there was a halt on
the part of Qaddafi of the military movement toward Benghazi and
Misurata.  So, in other words, everything was there within the
first 24 hours of when the bombing began of Libya, for the
conflict to stop right there; for Qaddafi’s departure; for none
of the death and destruction that followed to actually take
place.  On the evening of March 20, 2011, General Carter Ham
issued a statement saying that the United States had no interest
in targetting Qaddafi.  That was the return signal that the
Libyans were looking for, coming from AFRICOM, that the
negotiations could begin perhaps as early as the next morning.
However that entire situation was cancelled; Admiral Kubic was
ordered to stand down, to drop the contact.  AFRICOM was ordered
to stand down and abandon any plans for any such negotiation for
Qaddafi’s departure.  Because the decision had been made “higher
up in the administration” that there would be no turning back;
that this was a regime change operation, and in fact, a part of
that was the fact that the British — who had agents inside the
inner circle of Qaddafi’s own personal security detail — were
the ones who fingered his location and set up his assassination
later that year.
So, in other words, the destruction of Libya, the
destruction of Africa, that came in part as a measure of Hillary
Clinton’s capitulation to President Obama, and above all else, to
the British; could have been at least short-circuited and the
worst damage prevented.  The death of Ambassador Stephens and the
three other American officials a year and later probably could
have been averted.  But none of that happened, because there was
a willful decision; undoubtedly the decision was made in London,
was passed in through Obama.  And rather than fighting against
that, Hillary Clinton capitulated; and it was out of a fear of
Obama, out of a fear that this was a killer President.  There
were a number of opportunities where she had the possibility to
resign and put the spotlight where it properly belonged; but none
of those things happened.
And as the result of that, all of the African continent is
now one extended battle zone.  As the result of that, we have the
existence of the Islamic State; because Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar flooded Syria and Iraq with the kinds of weapons that had
been derived from what was at one point a secured Qaddafi arsenal
of all kinds of weapons.  And those weapons have now spread
chaos, death, and destruction across that entire swath of North
Africa and the Middle East.  That’s the legacy, that’s the
consequence of the fact that, as Secretary of State, Hillary
Clinton failed to uphold her responsibilities; capitulated to her
own worst avowed enemies in the Obama administration, and
unfortunately, the rest is history.
Mr. LaRouche, at the time, pointedly said, from the moment
that he heard that Qaddafi had been assassinated, that the real
targets were Russia and China; and that these events in 2011 were
the beginning of a process that would now accelerate towards the
general warfare — potentially thermonuclear warfare — involving
the United States, Russia, and China.  So, look back with a
certain degree of hindsight, and understand the consequences of
what happened in that critical moment of March of 2011; and see
how all of the events that have followed from that, and why we
are on the verge of a potential thermonuclear war of annihilation
of mankind.  Understand how critical decisions in critical
moments, shape events for long periods of time to come.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much, Jeff.  Now, in the context of
what Jeff just said about the overarching policy that has
emanated from this Obama administration against Russia and
against China, you’ve seen obvious economic warfare also that’s
taken place from the United States against both of those
countries.  The next question pertains to one of those aspects;
and I know that it will also give Jeff an opportunity to discuss
a little bit about what Mr. LaRouche’s views are on the necessity
of a massive mobilization inside the United States to rebuild our
economy, spearheaded by Kesha Rogers’ efforts in Texas to revive
the legacy of the NASA space program.
So, the question reads as follows:  “Mr. LaRouche, the US
Department of Commerce has imposed a 265% tariff on Chinese
cold-rolled steel.  The Department of Commerce stated that the
tariffs are meant to punish China for dumping cold-rolled steel
onto the market; which is used to make auto parts, appliances,
and shipping containers.  In your view, will these imposed
tariffs help the US steel industry?  And if not, what measures do
you recommend to revitalize our steel industry?”

STEINBERG:  Well, the first thing that Mr. LaRouche said
was, if you want to revitalize the US economy, then you’ve got to
start out by shutting down Wall Street; because Wall Street right
now is about the only steel sector left in the United States —
they steal everything that’s available to be stolen.
Now, I think that this move by the Commerce Department came
as the result of pressure from a number of members of Congress;
most of whom are simply desperate and misguided and are not even
among the worst people in the US Congress.  The idea that somehow
or other, putting prohibitive tariffs on the importing of Chinese
steel at this stage of the game, when the entire real economy of
the United States is in a state of absolute collapse, is the
ultimate folly.  Now, let’s just look at some of the basic facts
of what’s been going on inside the US economy; and particularly,
let’s look at the steel sector.  We don’t have the data for all
of 2015, but we know that between 2014 and 2015 there was
actually a 26% decline in the amount of steel imported from
China.  And the reason for that is because there was an even
greater decline in the overall steel utilization inside the US
economy; because the US economy is in a state of physical,
economic collapse.  One of the areas where you had substantial
use of steel, not on a gigantic scale, but on a significant
scale, was in the shale oil and gas sector; which we know is in a
state of collapse right now.  And the fact that it was that
sector that was a major source of steel use in the US economy,
just tells you how far down the scale of real economic
development that we have fallen.
Now, the fact of the matter is, that on a global scale
centered in the trans-Atlantic region, you have a significant
collapse in physical economic output.  Real production in the
United States has collapsed; we’ve gone through 15 consecutive
months of a decline in industrial output.  The shale oil and gas
sector collapse is a small piece at the tail end of a 40-year
process of economic collapse, disintegration, out-sourcing of
what little real economic activity was going on.  So the idea
that a tariff, at this point, is going to protect a domestic
industry that collapsed over the past 40 years, is an act of
desperation; when in fact, we need real creative thinking.
Now, {Executive Intelligence Review} has recently — we’ve
talked about it on this show before — produced a supplement to
the World Land-Bridge report, called “The United States Must Join
the World Land-Bridge”; and it lays out a clear game plan for a
genuine economic revival of the United States.  It starts by
shutting down Wall Street; they’re hopelessly bankrupt.  And the
bankruptcy of Wall Street is now in the process of advancing the
disintegration of the real economy of the United States; and the
real economy of the United States means the American people.
When we were discussing earlier today with Mr. LaRouche, he said,
“Look, what’s the most chilling indication of the real rate of
collapse of the US economy?  It’s the exponential increase in the
number of people dying of heroin overdoses; it’s the number of
people, the exponential rise in the number of people committing
suicide in other ways, as well.  It’s the desperation and
demoralization of a population that was once inspired, that was
once the most productive population in the world; and is now
fallen into a state of complete collapse.”  In 2005, we saw the
takedown of the auto sector; and what that meant was the machine
tool design sector associated with the US auto sector was wiped
out.  Under President Obama, there has been a conscious and
systematic policy of shutting down our space program; and it’s
only through that space exploration, as Megan just emphasized,
that you have any prospect of a genuine future for mankind.
The good news is that the report coming out of Texas is that
some of the leading circles historically associated with NASA,
current and former NASA employees, have reached the point where
they realize: 1) that it’s all over for the United States if
there’s not a real fight to revive the space program.  They see
certain glimmers of reflection of what was once a driving force
in the growth of real productivity in the American economy;
namely, the space program, centered in NASA Houston.  You had the
return to Earth of Scott Kelly, who spent a year up in space; an
exciting development, it’s a glimmer.  It’s a sort of smell or
fragrance of the fact that NASA can be revived; that we can have
a resurgence of the kind of optimism that we had during the
Kennedy Presidency, before he was assassinated.  Where the Apollo
program was the centerpiece for the whole development of the real
US economy.  You’ve got NASA people now beginning to say, “Yes,
we’re ready for a real fight.”  The fight is on; and you’ve got
reflections of that that you’ll see emerging as a tendency in
other parts of the country.  Southern California used to be a
major center of our space program; you had the Jet Propulsion Lab
in the Los Angeles area, a crucial component.  And you, of
course, had the Lawrence Livermore Lab up in the Bay area.  These
are centers that can be revived; but only if we get a core
revival of that NASA mission.  The mission to join with China,
with Russia, with India, with other nations, in exploring and
developing the universe as part of man’s extraterrestrial
mission.
So, if you think about the steel issue again, from that
standpoint, how much steel would be required for the kind of
nationwide high-speed rail system that is part of the “US joins
the World Land-Bridge”?  How much steel will be required for a
proliferation of nuclear power plants throughout the United
States?  The modernization of the existing plants, and they’re
replacement where appropriate, by fourth generation nuclear power
plants.  What would be the requirements once we’ve actually
completed the process of successfully commercializing fusion?
These are the issues for the future; but these fights have to won
today.  And if you want to understand the biggest mass kill
factor with President Obama, it has been his killing of the NASA
space program; because that is a mass execution of the future.
And so, these issues are all very much inextricably tied
together.  Unless we get a revolutionary change in policy, which
means a return to the kind of Hamiltonian principles that we last
saw on display in the Franklin Roosevelt Presidency overall, and
in the Kennedy Apollo program in particular.  These ideas are
there; and we’re getting now, coming from the Houston vicinity,
from the NASA center there, a rumbling.  The start of a real
fight to basically bring the United States back into space; as
part of a collaborative mission for all of mankind.  And as I
say, once that happens, the issue of steel, the issue of dumping;
all of this becomes meaningless.  Because the actual physical
requirements will be so enormous, the return to optimism and the
benefits of that — particularly for a lost generation of young
people, who represent a high percentage of those who are going
off as heroin addicts, who are committing suicide, who have no
sense of future.  We’ve got to restore the future; and that
starts with a fight to revive NASA.  And the good news is that
that fight is now beginning; it’s in its early moments, but it’s
a fight that is winnable.  And the future of the United States
hangs in the balance.

OGDEN:  Thank you very much.  Because Jeff mentioned it, I
would just encourage our viewers to revisit the pamphlet; which
is both available in print form, and in digital form:  “The
United States Must Join the New Silk Road; A Hamiltonian Vision
for an Economic Renaissance”; which features much of what Jeff
just discussed in terms of a national high-speed rail program, a
Bering Straits tunnel or bridge project to connect us to Eurasia.
To the phenomenal developments that are happening now in China;
but it also has an entire section on a science-driver development
mission, which includes much of the cutting edge work that needs
to be done with a revived space program — not just in the United
States, but also collaboration that we must begin to cooperate
with China’s and Russia’s space programs.  And have what Mr.
LaRouche has so aptly termed the common aims of mankind; that is
the truest form of a war avoidance program for a durable piece.
So, with that said, I would like to thank Jeff; and I would
also like to thank Megan Beets for joining us here this evening.
And I would encourage you to stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
Thank you very much.




LaRouchePAC Internationale Fredags-webcast, 12. februar 2016:
Genopliv USA’s rumprogram! Genopliv en vision for fremtiden!

Dette fredags-webcast vil fokusere på LaRouches nødmobilisering for at genoprette det amerikanske rumprogram og gøre Barack Obamas ødelæggelse af rumprogrammet til det mest fremtrædende tema i spørgsmålet om nødvendigheden af at stille ham for en rigsret som præsident for USA. Engelsk udskrift.

This Friday’s LaRouchePAC webcast will focus on LaRouche’s emergency mobilization to restore the American space program and make its destruction by Barack Obama the most prominent feature of his necessary impeachment as President of the United States.

Transcript-MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening! My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly Friday evening broadcast, here, from larouchepac.com. This is our webcast for February 12, 2016. Today is Abraham Lincoln’s birthday. I’m joined in the studio today by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review magazine, as well as Megan Beets and Ben Deniston from the LaRouche PAC science team. I’m also joined, via video, by a special guest again this week — Kesha Rogers, joining us from Houston, Texas.

We have all just come from a discussion that we had with both Mr. LaRouche and Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche. I think the content of the presentation that you’ll hear tonight is directly informed by the tenor of that discussion. It’s very clear that there are immediate problems, an immediate crisis, which must be addressed and must be resolved, that are right in front of us as we speak. However, that will be the subject of the answer to our institutional question, which we have decided to leave to the end of tonight’s broadcast.

To begin with, we have the responsibility to take a step back and look at the much bigger picture. We have a responsibility of leadership, as an organization, and as a movement which involves the viewers of this webcast tonight. That responsibility of leadership requires us to go far beyond these immediate challenges, to look into the future, and to imagine what mankind can be, what mankind must be, and to take the necessary action to bring that future into being.

The recent attention to the incomparable genius of Albert Einstein that has been forced upon us by a very interesting outcome of an experimental investigation that has just had results that were reported yesterday, forces us to consider, however, not just the outcome of that experiment, but forces us to consider what mankind as a species is capable of, and what the identity of mankind as a species must become in a self-conscious way.

This is something that we’re going to take up in much more detail a little bit later in the broadcast tonight, but what we begin to consider, is that the space program as we knew it from President John F. Kennedy and others, is the necessary ingredient of a mission of any civilization which is worthy of representing mankind as a species on this planet. Mankind must not be a creature of the Earth. Man is not an Earthling. Mankind must be a creature of the stars! He must learn, both physically and mentally, how to navigate that wide ocean which is outer space. He must come to know what he does not know. He must come to understand the inner workings of the galaxy which he is an integral part of, and also other galactic systems. And, he must come to know his role as a species within that complex of galactic systems which comprise the Universe as we know it today.

In doing so, man affirms his nature as a species completely unique from all other species. Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that the insights of Vladimir Vernadsky and his understanding of the noösphere, and the uniqueness of the human mind and the human species as a whole, setting mankind apart from the animals, is something which very few people understand today, but was a very crucial investigation into the nature of the human race. Coincidentally, Vladimir Vernadsky and Albert Einstein were direct contemporaries.

We made great leaps, giant leaps, in this direction of man as a galactic species, not an earthbound species, with our landing of men on the Moon during the Apollo project of the 1960s and 1970s, and other great accomplishments of that era. To a certain extent, the legacy of that era has continued along certain trajectories. But since that time, when the mission of man leaving this planet was a professed mission of the United States government itself under the figure of John F. Kennedy, since that time, our progress in that direction has been moving backwards, compared to where we should have been, where we should have come by now, had we continued that directionality, and especially compared to what other countries, most notably China, have now accomplished and are committed to accomplishing further in the very near future ahead.

As President John F. Kennedy was wont to say in several speeches that he made, where he quoted Scripture: “Where there is no vision, the people perish.” And that is absolutely true today. That is what the last 50 years of a “backwards progress” has brought us, as an American people — as we’ve presented repeatedly over the past several weeks in this webcast — and as a trans-Atlantic system, where face an absolutely dire crisis — economic, social, and military crisis today.

Our job here this evening, is to take the necessary steps to restoring that vision, and there’s nobody more qualified to that, in my opinion, than my good friend Kesha Rogers. Following the remarks that Kesha makes, we will have follow-up remarks from Megan Beets, who will elaborate much more on what China is doing in their ambitious space program and where that’s come from in the recent years, and where that’s going towards. Ben Deniston will follow up immediately after her, to elaborate a little bit more of what the necessary insight into the genius of Albert Einstein and Vladimir Vernadsky must be, from the perspective of this recent experiment that affirmed many of Einstein’s hypotheses that he made nearly a century ago.

For those of you who may not know, or may need to be reminded, Kesha Rogers was the Democratic nominee for Congress in Texas’s 22nd District two years in a row — the 2010 elections and the elections in 2012, which, I’m sure, was a real thorn in the side of the political hacks in that area. She established her campaign based on the idea that we must revive NASA, restore NASA, despite the attempts by the Obama administration to destroy what NASA was committed to doing.

In 2014, Kesha expanded on her successes as an electoral candidate in the previous two elections, and declared a state-wide race for United States Senate, which, despite the fact that she was massively outspent by the Democratic Party establishment and by their chosen candidate, she came so close in the preliminary primary elections, that she forced those primaries into a runoff election, and received not just national prominence, but international prominence as a very significant political figure.

So, without more said about Kesha’s unique role in this mission to restore the vision to the American people, I’d like to introduce to you, Kesha Rogers.

KESHA ROGERS: Thank you, Matthew! Well, I think what you’ve laid out, and also in the discussions we had from Mr. LaRouche, one thing that’s important to point out is, this is the level of discussion which is absolutely critical to revive the educational and human commitment that has been lost in our society. The real question is, when we’re dealing with the space program — and this is what’s not being discussed in any of the political debates or amongst the space community itself — is this question of what is the nature of man; what is the responsibility to the understanding of the mind of man as different from any other species, animal species, out there.

I’ve gone to a number of events in the NASA community with certain representatives of the space community. You have this discussion where people want to talk about innovation or something of that nature; but what’s missing right now, is that there’s no real discussion on the principle of true discovery, on the principle of true creativity. If you’re going to get back to the foundation of what our space program truly represents, then that has to be the focal point of what is understood and what we’re fighting for. Looking at the space program, one of the things that is extremely important right now, is that what has been a dividing line, is this very question of what is the nature of man. It’s not about money, or it’s not about what projects are more reasonable or will actually work better; but more so it is what is the destiny of mankind to discover and to do what has never been done before.

I love the remarks from Mike Griffin, former NASA Administrator, who I believe made them in 2006, working under the [George W.] Bush Administration, who demonstrated the idea that mankind has always committed itself to doing that which is going to leave something behind for the children, grand-children, next generations — the building of great cathedrals. We think about Brunelleschi or Charlemagne, those individuals who played a significant role in creating something that they weren’t going to be able to see themselves, that they may not be able to participate in; but knew that their responsibility was to actually create for the future. I think that’s the ultimate question right now. What has been done in the progress of the society of mankind has been with the intention of creating for the future.

When you take the conception of the future out, and that human beings have no ability to actually determine or act upon that future, that was the understanding of the fight between Zeus and Prometheus, [where] Prometheus had a higher conception that mankind can know, and not only know, can actually act on and create the future.

How do we do this? We do this through the basis of discovery. We do this through the basis of understanding that human beings don’t have to live like their fathers and grandfathers before them, like the beavers, before them. We can create new discoveries! And that’s what we’re finding and which has been essential in understanding what the space program brings us, and the understanding of the new principles that were put forth in development of what you see in terms of the beautiful ideas that foster the creation of such wonderful and beautiful cathedrals; that mankind not only just enjoys, in terms of aesthetic beauty, but also which has created the ability for a mastery of science that had never been known before.

That’s what the space program represents! The same idea is actually recognized, when you look at music, what great Classical composition truly represents. The fostering of our society has been, always, to take the discoveries of mankind to the next level, to a higher conception, to a higher principle of mankind. The space program represents not just a program itself, but is what is the destiny of mankind.

I want to reiterate the beautiful example, again, of Krafft-Ehricke, because I think this gets at the truly beautiful and fundamental idea of that conception, as to why we have to have a space program. It is only for those very reasons, on the conception of what is the destiny of mankind, what is our responsibility. This is what we should be addressing in our education systems; that, as [krafft-]Ehricke explained, “The concept of space travel carries with it enormous impact, because it challenges man on practically all fronts of his physical and spiritual existence. The idea of traveling to other celestial bodies reflects the highest degree, the independence and agility of the human mind. It lends ultimate dignity to man’s technical and scientific endeavors. Above all, it touches on the philosophy of his very existence.”

And what we have to address in terms of looking at what has been lost in the space program, is that very conception of touching on that which is human. And identifying that which only mankind has the ability, based on our creative powers based on the image of the Creator, to be able to actually participate in. And we have taken that away. We’ve taken it away through the actions of the last two administrations through a policy of capitulation to Wall Street and a bankrupt financial system. The idea that our mission, as China has clearly set forward, and the paradox in that is the fact that we have been denied access through the insanity of certain Congress members and people who have taken away the collaboration, for human beings to collaborate on discoveries that are going to impact all of mankind. By denying the access of NASA per se to work with China, this was known as a clear understanding that nations had to work together if we were going to actually address the problems on Earth facing mankind, that were going to be addressed through discoveries that were going to benefit all mankind.

So that’s what we have to address right now. Can we get back to that understanding once again? What is going to be our direction? What type of future are we going to see — are we going to create, I should say, on the progress of where society and civilization are going. And I think what we are seeing coming down the pike in terms of a continued escalation toward war and chaos, we have a clear dividing line in front of us. And this is extremely important that the space program has — what it represents gives us a commitment again toward restoring a new direction for mankind. And doing what it is that is our responsibility and intention to do.

OGDEN: Thank you, Kesha. Now let me ask Megan Beets to come to the podium.

MEGAN BEETS: So Kesha referenced German space pioneer Krafft-Ehricke. I’d like to reference another German space pioneer, who lived at the beginning of the 1600s — Johannes Kepler. And Kepler also identified the Moon as a very unique place, and a unique destination for mankind. In 1608, he authored a really beautiful, fanciful document called “The Dream”; in which he imagined a journey to the Moon, and described and unfolded in his imagination what astronomical observation would be like from the vantage point of the Moon. Taking man off of Earth, taking man’s mind off of Earth and reconstructing the structure of the Solar System as seen from the vantage point of the Moon.

Now, very interestingly, he also discussed and imagined what the unique differences might be between the near side of the Moon — which we see every night when we look up into the sky and see the Moon — and what the differences would be with the far side of the Moon, and what those unique characteristics might be.

Now, 400 years after Kepler wrote this, man for the first time is finally planning to land on that far side of the Moon. Just a little over two years from today, China plans to send its Chang’e 4 lunar mission to go to the Moon, and for the first time in mankind’s history, to perform a soft landing on the far side of the Moon. The far side of the Moon is a very unique place; it’s unique in terms of the Moon itself. It presents geological characteristics which we believe to be quite different from the near side. It presents resources such as Helium-3, which might be in higher quantities than on the near side of the Moon. But it’s also a very unique vantage point in terms of the Solar System itself; allowing us to perform astronomical observations in wavelengths which we just simply can’t see from anyplace near Earth or Earth’s orbit.

So, as Kepler foresaw in a sense, the far side of the Moon is a beginning point for us to begin to exercise our creative play; and to begin to peer out into the Solar System and the galaxy beyond and reconsider the processes of that Solar System as something that might be different than anything we’ve known before. So this landing on the far side of the Moon will come precisely one year after China does something else; which is sending their Chang’e 5 mission as a sample return mission, to land on the surface of the Moon, sample lunar material, rendezvous with an orbiter, and sen this lunar sample back to Earth. This is the first time this has occurred in over 40 years, and using entirely new and different technology. Now that 2017 sample return mission is coming roughly after three years after something which happened just one year ago; which was China’s Chang’e5T — for test — mission. Which sent an orbiter to the Moon which went around the back side of the Moon, sent back some beautiful images from its orbit around the Moon; sent a capsule from lunar orbit back to Earth orbit, which was able to make a successful re-entry onto Earth and be recovered by Chinese space scientists. Again, this is the first time anything like this has happened in over 40 years.

Now, an important element for China’s space program is its quest for a very rare isotope for helium. Helium-3, which, as has been said by the father of the Chinese lunar program, Ouyang Ziyuan, is a unique fusion fuel which could power the Earth as far into the future as we could think. This is a fusion fuel which is very, very rare on Earth; but which exists in abundance on the Moon. Another promise of the Moon drawing mankind in to a higher level of power and a higher level of existence.

Those are the very recent and also immediate future plans and accomplishments of China in space. Going back to 2007, just prior to the launch of the very first phase of their lunar program, the Chang’e 1, China’s newspaper interviewed 10,000 Chinese youth. And of those 10,000 young Chinese, 99% were following the developments of the lunar mission; another 90% believed that they one day would travel to the Moon. This remarkable progress of China in their Moon program has been complemented by a very robust, in terms of the success of the accomplishments, manned space program — the Shenzhou program; which began in 1992, and is coupled with the Tiangong program, the space station program. So, it was in 2003 that China put its first man into space. It was five years after that that China put the first man into space to perform the first space walk of China; which was beamed back down to Earth in a live broadcast. In 2012, China sent a Shenzhou mission up into space to rendezvous and dock with the first component of their space station; the Tiangong I. The crew rendezvoused with the space station, opened the portal and entered the space station to beam photographs and video back down to Earth. Only one year after that, the next Shenzhou mission rendezvoused with the same component of the space station; the astronauts entered the space station, and one of the astronauts taught a simple physics class, performing simple physics experiments live to 60 million Chinese students in classrooms on Earth.

This year, 2016, the second phase of the space station, the Tiangong 2, will be sent up; shortly followed by the next manned mission to rendezvous with the space capsule. Now this is progress towards a full-size space station, which is expected to be launched in the early 2020s; which will permit long-term habitation and scientific work in space. Which is expected to be completed roughly at the same time as the International Space Station is decommissioned.

So, that’s a very brief overview, but I want to make two points on this. Number one, the entire Chang’e lunar exploration program and the manned space program, including the space station, is vectored toward establishing mankind on the Moon; not simply a mission to plant a flag and go home. The idea of China is to begin folding the Moon into mankind’s sphere of influence; fold the Moon into the noösphere in the sense of Vladimir Vernadsky. But also, to allow the Moon to transform mankind; to allow the discoveries that we make and the secrets of the Moon to change and upgrade man’s power in and over the universe. They also plan to use the Moon, very clearly, as a launch pad, a base for further expansion into deep space.

The second point to be made is, that while this progress is being made by China, these missions are being launched by China, this is an international program. This is not for the Chinese; and they’ve been very clear about that. China has nearly 100 agreements for space cooperation with over two dozen countries, which is part and parcel of their win-win cooperation vision for collaboration among all mankind.

Having said all of this, I think it’s important to back up and look down on the whole thing. It’s not the specifics of what China is doing here which are really the most important thing. What is important is the modality which China has committed itself to. The fact that the minds and the lives of the Chinese people are being engaged in the kind of creative play which we see in the manned space program, and the joy in the accomplishments of that. In the space station program. In their plans for the exploration of Mars and further out into deep space. And especially in their lunar program. This kind of creative play and progress is moving mankind as a species closer to what the German space pioneer Krafft-Ehricke called not homo sapiens, but “homo extraterrestris”. Mankind becoming a new species which is not based on Earth, but which is based in the Solar System as a whole. It’s in that sense that China today, with their commitment to their space program, with their commitment to involving people around to the world to participate in these kinds of accomplishments. It is in this sense that China today is leading the cause of humanity.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Megan and Kesha. Maybe just to pick up off directly what we were just presented with China’s focus, I just wanted to highlight some of what Mr. LaRouche was emphasizing today on the importance of this for uplifting mankind to a new level. And as we discussed last week, we have some very important elements with the lunar far side, which Megan referenced. This is a unique capability mankind will have when accessing the far side of the Moon, to give us a completely new perspective on the universe. But I want to just — coming off of Mr. LaRouche’s emphasis earlier today, and what Kesha was just bringing up, I want to emphasize that this is not just the ability to discover the currently unseen. We’ll see new things, but the point is, this will give us the ability to discover what is currently unknown. What does that mean? What does the unknown mean? This requires a fundamental return to real science, is what Mr. LaRouche was emphasizing earlier today. A real, true scientific conception of mankind as a creative force in collaboration with a creative universe. And today, as was mentioned, we have the excellent standard of Einstein brought to us again today, with the confirmation of something he had forecast a century ago; which was the existence of so-called “gravitational waves”, or waves in the space-time characteristics of the universe. This is getting all kinds of media headlines, media attention, coverage all over the place. I think it’s a pretty remarkable thing to reflect upon; just the very conception of waves, changes in the structure of the very space-time fabric of the universe; which Einstein had forecast, and expected to be there. And we’re finally with our technology, catching up to where Einstein had said we would be, over a century earlier; confirming what he had expected with his conception of gravity.

You can read plenty of media coverage about this particular confirmation of Einstein all over the place now. But take a look at Einstein himself; look at Einstein’s conception of gravity as a curved space-time. And Einstein, as a scientific thinker coming out of very specific scientific tradition, explicitly referencing back to the work of Riemann and Gauss. Riemann, somebody who overturned the entire chessboard of science, so to speak, with his calling for the ending of a priori notions of science, of geometry. Including conceptions about space and time, for example, which Einstein demonstrated. You see a direct reflection of orientation of this in Riemann’s work, in Gauss’ work earlier, who Riemann picked up on.

Look at this another way; what were they overturning? They were saying science, the process of mankind’s understanding of the relation of the universe, that must completely rid itself of these a priori notions about space, time, geometry, or what became even worse, the mathematical approach pushed by Russell and his followers. That science must rid itself of these a priori conceptions The kind of a priori sense perception, that type of a priori geometry of absolute space, absolute time, for example; which are really just a reflection of a sense perceptual reflection of the universe. That real science must rid itself of these conceptions.

What does that leave us with? If we are not going to base, premise science on these a priori notions — or I would say, sense perceptual notions, or you could maybe even say a kind of an animalistic notion, a biological notion of your interaction with the universe. Then what’s the basis, what’s the substance of mankind’s ability to have science, to change his relationship with the fundamental nature of the universe? It’s in human creativity; the human mind. The process of human discovery, is the substance of the ability of mankind to change his relationship to the universe; become a more powerful creative force in the universe. And that’s what’s primary; human creative thought is what tells something about the fundamental nature of the universe, because that’s the basis of the ability of mankind to come into a higher degree of coherence with the fundamental organizing principles of that universe. That it doesn’t come from sense perception; it doesn’t come from sense perceptual notions. It comes from a specific quality of the human mind, which we can define as human creativity; which is a non-logical, non-deductive process, a uniquely creative process which can’t be explained away as a phenomenon of something else. It’s its own capability, that Einstein knew; that Riemann knew. That this competent true current of scientific thought has been premised on the knowledge, the recognition, that this is the basis of science; this is the basis of our ability to understand the nature of the universe. This is the basis of the nature of the universe itself, if you invert it and understand it that way; that human creative thought is the key issue. Which means that mankind is a creative force in a creative universe. We’re in a very real scientific sense, a co-creator in a process of creation.

And I think it’s worth just highlighting another of Einstein’s insights into this reality of the true nature of science, the true nature of mankind. Interestingly, this takes us away from the very large, as Riemann had discussed, into the very small. And if you look at Einstein’s work on the very small, on the nature of atomic processes, sub-atomic processes; the activity in the very, very small, so-called quantum processes. And this was, as most people are familiar, this was the subject of a major scientific debate and fight at the time about what is the nature of causality? What is happening on these very small quantum scales? And Einstein was adamantly fighting against this hardcore reductionist approach that tried to just say everything on this level is purely statistical; there’s no cause that can be known, it’s just a statistical random process with no causality and no ability to know causality.

And people are probably more familiar with Einstein’s famous quote that he doesn’t think God plays dice; he doesn’t think the universe is, in its essence, just organized around completely random randomness. That’s the more well-known quote. He clearly had more developed thoughts than just that. In another discussion, he had said, if we want to actually understand causality on this level, understand the nature of quantum processes, perhaps it’s our own notion of causality which is what needs to be overthrown. It’s not, is the quantum world, the very small, deterministic in the way we were thinking about deterministic causality before, vs. just statistically random; or is it that our idea of causality is too simple, is wrong? And he used the example of a Bach fugue, a musical composition; and he said, our current notion of causality is equivalent to a very beginner trying to play a Bach fugue on the piano by just going one note to one note to the next note to the next note, in a linear fashion. And he says, you ruin the piece that way; the conception doesn’t come across, because a Bach fugue is not organized as a linear sequence of notes. There’s a certain conception and intention governing the piece as a whole; and all of the individual components, the keys are organized in a completely different fashion than a linear causality.

So if you want to understand quantum processes, if you want to understand what’s happening in the very small, we should reflect upon the ignorance of our own notions of causality; and look to insights to causality and organization which are coherent with the characteristics of human creative thought. That human creative thought and human creative discovery are what we know are the things that enable mankind to create higher states of organization; to make new fundamental scientific discoveries. And that is what therefore tells us something about the nature, the fundamental organization of the universe as a whole.

So, I think we look to the Moon, we look to mankind going into space; but we need to look to this prospective future from this proper standpoint of mankind having an obligation to be a fundamentally creative driving force in a fundamentally creative universe. That the only real science is a science of mankind as a co-creator in a creative universe. And Einstein certainly understood that from his own perspective, and the future development of mankind requires the Einstein standard today to be applied.

OGDEN: Thank you very much. What we’re going to do next is, I will read our institutional question for this evening; and Jeff Steinberg will deliver a more elaborated answer encapsulating some of Mr. LaRouche’s responses to it. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche: The World Health Organization has declared the Zika virus a global public health emergency. The National Institute of Health calls it ‘a pandemic in progress’. The infection is suspected of leading to thousands of babies being born with under-developed brains. Some areas have declared a state of emergency; doctors have described it as a pandemic in process, and some are even advising women in affected countries to delay getting pregnant.

“Mr. LaRouche, in your view, could the Zika virus become a major global pandemic; and in your opinion, how can the spread of the virus be stopped?”

STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I’ll refer people to an article that’s published in the current issue of Executive Intelligence Review, the issue dated February 12, 2016, which takes up some technical questions which I’m not going to get into here. There are serious questions about whether or not a British company produced a genetically modified mosquito, ostensibly aimed at curbing the spread of Zika virus and other mosquito-borne viruses; and that there were poor controls over it. There were other factors that may have contributed to this now becoming a very dangerous global pandemic.

But I think we’ve got to step back and take a different perspective on this. As early as 1975, Lyndon LaRouche directed a biological holocaust task force with the question on the table of whether or not the conscious policies of the British monarchy and other allied institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, were creating the conditions willfully for a new biological holocaust by virtue of austerity policies. Literally genocide policies that would have the effect of breaking down the systems that had been built up over centuries for dealing with and avoiding the spread of the kinds of diseases than can create mass-kill pandemics of the sort that we saw in Europe in the 14th Century, where one-third of the population and half of the parishes of continental Europe were wiped out in a relatively small period of time. In other words, the question is, are we dealing with the consequences of what can justifiably and fairly be called a Satanic policy coming from certain leading British oligarchical circles with their co-thinkers and allies around the world?

That biological holocaust project, that was directed by Mr. LaRouche, came as the result of the ending of the Bretton Woods system, and the shift of the IMF and World Bank towards policies of promoting population reduction, the fraudulent concept which you should understand as the result of what we’ve discussed here this evening, of limits to growth. And in particular, from that period of early 1970s moment onward, the advent of a fundamental assault against basic science, taking the form of various Green policies that repudiate the very nature of man as a creative species; whose very existence is based on the idea that mankind will make discoveries that will give mankind a greater understanding of how the universe works. Knowing that those discoveries will lead future generations to make even greater discoveries.

And that basically, within that possibility, every child born on this planet, should have the ability — through proper nurturing, proper education — to be able to make the kinds of discoveries that were made by people like Einstein, like Kepler, and others. This is the nature of mankind. And to the extent that there are polices that are put forward that deter mankind from realizing its true nature as the only known creative being in the universe; this is, in fact, indeed, a Satanic policy.

So, we’re dealing with a situation where there will be concrete initiatives taken to come up with an understanding of how the Zika virus has been spread; an understanding of what emergency measures can be taken; plus, the development of protective measures like vaccines and things like that. But on a much larger scale, we’ve got to look at the massive crimes against humanity that are being committed by virtue of the conscious assault against the kind of scientific education that leads to more and more people being actually able to participate in what it means to be truly human.

So, if you want to talk about a deadly virus that has to be stopped, let’s talk about President Obama’s policy; which has been to systematically shut down the entire NASA space program. Remember that at the beginning of the Obama administration, there were plans under way to replace the Shuttle program with the Constellation, which was to be a new rocket system for delivering man into space exploration. In his very first budget, President Obama canceled the Constellation program; knowing full well that with the cancellation and ending of the Shuttle program and the ending of Constellation, that there would be wide gap in the ability of the United States to even engage in any kind of manned space activity without hitching a ride from China or Russia, or one of the other nations that was going ahead with these programs.

Now we find that the rationale that President Obama used for canceling Constellation was that there was another rocket program called the Orion, which offered better prospects than Constellation. Well, what’s happened systematically over the course of the Obama Presidency, is once Constellation was canceled and literally shut down, you had the cancellation through attrition of budgeting, to where now the Orion program has been canceled as well. Major projects for the kind of exploration that Megan described; developing windows into the universe through the back side of the Moon have been shut down, and stripped or greatly reduced from the NASA budget in favor of “Earth science”. Which means the spreading of the false propaganda about the causes of global warming.

These are the policies that kill. That’s why the term “Satanic” can be appropriately used. If you take what’s happened under the last 15 years, particularly under the last 7 years of the Obama administration; the take down and destruction of America’s ability to participate as a qualified partner with nations like China, like Russia, like India in exploring mankind’s next discoveries of the universe; you realize that the United States has been done a terrible injustice — it is literally a crime against every citizen of this nation, both current and future citizens — that this has been done, that these programs have been shut down. We know that President Obama, every Tuesday, relishes the idea that he holds a kill session, and comes up with a target list of people to be executed during that next 60-day period; but when you consider the killing of the space program, you’ve got to consider that this is an act of mass genocide, not just against the present generation, but against future as yet unborn generations that will be dependent on making these kinds of discoveries, branching out deeper into the universe.

And if you take that idea, that understanding of what has been done to us, particularly over this last 7-year period under Obama, and go back and remember; have a clear image in your mind of President John F Kennedy announcing the Apollo program, and announcing that we are going to do this because it represents the challenge to mankind to make great leaps of discovery and to better understand man’s position in the universe. And if you consider that his brother, Robert Kennedy, would have revived and continued exactly that program; had Robert Kennedy not been assassinated, had John Kennedy not been assassinated, where would the United States be today? Would there have been anyone who dared to shut down our space program, our scientific research?

So, this is where we are. Remember the image of John and Robert Kennedy; and remember that we can once again resume that quest for mankind’s role in the universe, and to create future generations of geniuses. Because that’s the nature of mankind; and it’s a sin every time an individual child is denied the capacity to be that kind of creative individual who makes a discovery that impacts on mankind as a whole.

OGDEN: Thank you very much to everybody who participated tonight: Jeff, Megan, Ben, and especially Kesha. Mr. LaRouche, of course, has been very emphatic, as many of you heard him even in the discussion last night during the national activists’ call — the Fireside Chat — that Kesha has a very special role to play in her ability to mobilize the American people to restore that vision of the future once again. So, I’d like thank Kesha very much for joining us here tonight. Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and good night.




Kesha Rogers fra LaRouchePAC uden for
Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas:
»USA bør lancere et rumprogram som
videnskabelig drivkraft for økonomisk
genrejsning«; Luk Wall Streets og Barack
Obamas drivkraft bag folkemord

31. januar 2016 – Hej, alle sammen, jeg er Kesha Rogers fra LaRouche Komite for Politisk Strategi (LPAC), og jeg er her i dag ved NASA’s Johnson Space Center, hvor jeg var for seks år siden, da jeg lancerede en kampagne for Den amerikanske Kongres og krævede en rigsretssag mod præsident Barack Obama for hans nedbrydning og afmontering af det bemandede rumprogram, privatisering af det bemandede rumprogram og ødelæggelsen af det, der var vores nations vision under præsident John F. Kennedy. Det var Kennedys plan at gennemføre et forpligtende engagement for videnskab som reel drivkraft for økonomisk fremgang.

Det, vi har set i de seneste seks år under præsident Obama, og tidligere også under præsident Bush, er en fortsat degeneration af vores kultur; en håbløshed, og fortvivlelse. Vi har set et rekordhøjt tal og en stigning i selvmord, stigning i narkomisbrug blandt folk, der normalt er mere velhavende og velstillet, især blandt de mennesker, der ser på minoritetssamfund som dem, der ville være berørt af narkoepidemien; nu er det folk blandt den hvide befolkningsgruppe i aldersgrupperne 25 og 35 til 45 år.

Hvorfor er dette sket? Der er sket, fordi vi har fjernet en vision, vi har fjernet følelsen af at have en mission. Vi har ikke længere en videnskabelig drivkraft i nationen, og det skyldes præsident Barack Obamas bevidste politik, og den bevidste politik for ødelæggelse af denne nation gennem at kapitulere til Wall Street. Nu har vi så en situation, hvor vore unge mennesker befinder sig i dyb fortvivlelse og håbløshed.

Og det er ikke bare unge mennesker! Det er den kendsgerning, at denne nations befolkning ikke har nogen muligheder. Den største ulighed og ødelæggelse har ramt vores nation; hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er bankerot.

Hvad er løsningen? Kina har foreslået en løsning. Kina fremstår med visionen om en »win-win«-strategi med en stor mission for samarbejde, til beskuelse og inspiration for ikke alene Kina, ikke alene USA, men for hele verden, nemlig, at vi kan samarbejde om store projekter, såsom at minere Månen [for helium-3],[1] og atter betragte Månen som en affyringsrampe for hele udforskningen af rummet og forståelsen af menneskets rolle, menneskehedens rolle i galaksen. Det er gennem dette, at vi må inspirere mennesket.

Hvis vi gør dette, kan vi lukke Wall Street ned, og vi kan faktisk skaffe den nødvendige kredit, som det var Alexander Hamiltons hensigt, så vi ikke behøver at gå til Elon Musk eller nogen af disse folk med deres kæmpemæssige pengebank, der allerede er bankerot. Vi kan faktisk gøre det, Kennedy gjorde, som Franklin Roosevelt gjorde, og vi kan anvende den nødvendige kredit til at opbygge et videnskabsdrevet program og atter opbygge en stor mission for denne nation.

Vi kan sørge for, at vore unge mennesker ikke tager deres eget liv, at de gives en vision med en ægte kultur. Dette videnskabsdrevne program ville sikre, at vi har energi til Jorden, med helium-3 fra Månen, i flere generationer fremover. Vi kan sørge for, at folk bliver inspireret ikke alene af et videnskabsdrevet program, men et, der er forbundet med en storslået kultur, en storslået musikkultur, som hr. LaRouche har lanceret i vores Manhattanprojekt i New York. Og vi kan forene disse to kræfter og atter give inspiration til forpligtelsen over for menneskehedens fremskridt, der engang var den håbets bavn, der inspirerede hele menneskeheden, og atter bringe USA tilbage i spidsen for denne form for vision.

Tak.

[1] Se: Tema-artikel: Udvinding af helium-3 på Månen for en menneskehed med fusionskraft, http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=1894




»Vi konfronteres med Nuets intense uopsættelighed«

»Vi står nu over for den kendsgerning, at, i morgen er i dag. Vi konfronteres med nuets intense uopsættelighed. I denne livets og historiens gåde, som udfolder sig, findes der noget, der hedder at komme for sent. Sendrægtighed er stadig tidens tyv. Livet lader os ofte stå bare, nøgne og modløse over en tabt mulighed. De menneskelige anliggenders tidevand bliver ikke ved med at være flod; der kommer også ebbe. Vel kan vi råbe desperat, at tiden skal holde pause i sin passage, men tiden er døv for hver en bøn og haster videre. Hen over de blegnede knogler og virvaret af rester af utallige civilisationer står de ynkelige ord, ’For sent’. Der er en usynlig livets bog, der skæbnesvangert optegner vor årvågenhed eller vor forsømmelse. Fingeren i bevægelse skriver, og går derefter videre.«

(Dr. Martin Luther King, 1967)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

 




Glass-Steagall vil gøre en ende på WallStreet, City of London
og, endelig, det Britiske Imperium, og hermed faren for krig;
Et nyt paradigme med den Ny Silkevej, for genopbygning af hele verden!

LaRouchePAC Fredags-webcast 8. januar 2016, dansk udskrift. 

Vi har altså en situation lige nu, hvor tingene, over hele planeten, befinder sig på den yderste rand. På et hvilket som helst tidspunkt – mandag morgen, f.eks. – kunne vi vågne og finde, at hele det europæiske banksystem er gået ind i et kaotisk kollaps, der omgående vil spilde over til USA. Der vil være en indvirkning på Asien, men samarbejdet mellem Kina, Rusland, Indien og andre lande, i det asiatiske Stillehavsområde og i det eurasiske område, vil tage af for virkningen. Og krisens epicenter vil således være det transatlantiske område. Og det er grunden til, at briterne vil gøre fremstød for en krigsprovokation, en »bluff«-konfrontation, med Rusland og Kina for at få dem til at kapitulere og udplyndre dem, for at holde deres eget ynkelige, døende imperium gående i endnu et par dage. Der er vi kommet til i de globale anliggender.

Download (PDF, Unknown)




LPAC Fredags-webcast, 18. december 2015:
Kasinoøkonomien er i færd med at kollapse

Kasinoøkonomien er i færd med at kollapse. Skiferolie, junk-obligationer, Italien … WALL STREET. Er der en gruppe af ledende demokrater og republikanere, der er villige til at fortælle sandheden om Wall Street, og lukke det ned? Engelsk udskrift.

The gambling economy is collapsing. Shale oil, junk bonds, Italy… WALL STREET. Is there a leading group of Democrats and Republicans willing to tell the truth about Wall Street, and shut it down?

TRANSCRIPT

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s December 18, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching our weekly LaRouche PAC webcast here on larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Benjamin Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Science Team, as well as Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review. And the three of us had a chance to have extensive meetings with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier this morning, and early this afternoon.

Now, those of you who have been watching the LaRouche PAC website over the course of this week, especially starting with the Policy Committee discussion which Mr. LaRouche held this past Monday, you’ll know that we are in a week of heightened mobilization as an organization, and as a national movement with the LaRouche PAC; because of Lyndon LaRouche’s analysis of the proximity of a total meltdown of the Wall Street-centered, trans-Atlantic speculative financial system. Mr. LaRouche has made very clear calls every single day of this week, for a very explicit program of a return to Franklin Roosevelt, a complete shutting-down of the Wall Street speculative so-called assets, and a revival of the kind of emergency mobilization that Franklin Roosevelt enacted in his first days in office.

Many of you might have participated in the Fireside Chat which Mr. LaRouche held yesterday with activists nationwide, and many of you also may have seen that a leaflet has now been posted on the LaRouche PAC website titled, “The New Policy for the USA Now”. Now this leaflet contains a transcript of remarks that Mr. LaRouche made during an emergency meeting with his associates on Wednesday night, and if you haven’t gotten a chance to read through the text of it yet, I wish to read just a few short excerpts to give you a flavor of what Mr. LaRouche’s analysis of the current situation is. What Mr. LaRouche had to say during this discussion is the following:

“We are on the edge right now. We’re on the edge of a totally uncontrolled global process of self-accelerated collapse. In other words, the acceleration accelerates the rate of acceleration. There is no existing solution to this problem,” he said, “and it is on a global scale, or at least a trans-Atlantic scale immediately, and will of course affect Asia as well, and Russia also. And the only thing you can do is Franklin Roosevelt’s policy. You have to say, ‘Declare Franklin Roosevelt’s policy now against Wall Street.’ That’s the only way we can solve this problem. Otherwise, you’ve got something that’s going to accelerate and there’s nothing that you can do about it. And what you have to do, is pose the fact that there will be no solution unless Wall Street is put out of business right now. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt did in effect; he shut down Wall Street, which ended the inflation that was going on at the point before his election. And the only way you can do this, is to shut it down.

“What you do is you cancel all the so-called assets that are not appropriate for this role, and you simply say: ‘Look buddy, you don’t get any money at all. You get no compensation whatsoever. You’re shut out of business. You don’t exist.’ And that’s what Franklin Roosevelt did, in effect, in his operation to shut down Wall Street.”

Now later in the discussion, Mr. LaRouche came to the question of what the necessary solution must be. And he said:

“If you realize that this is reality time, none of the rules that have been pushed along recently have any merit whatsoever. They’re canceled. And the first thing we cancel is Wall Street. Then what we’re talking about, is the Franklin Roosevelt-style of a new system of the creation of a new system of government, of financial management by government. And it has to be that way, because a lot of these categories are things that are put up as well — will we bail this out, will we bail that out—forget it,” he said. “It’s dead. It’s a dead issue. What you’re talking about is the practical activity of creativity, productive creativity, and you have to define it as such. What is actually productive creativity, which is actually what we will have to defend.

“And that’s what we have to do, and that’s what Franklin Roosevelt did. He managed this thing by going through the whole process about these emergency bail-outs of people, who were jobless, who were without hope. And what we have to do is now, with the background of the experience of Franklin Roosevelt’s work, you simply say, ‘We’re going back to Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, while we still have a chance to do it.’|”

So, Mr. LaRouche said, we have to make the announcement, and this is what we’re doing over the course of this week. We make the declaration that we have come to a conclusion, a solid conclusion; and we have to get more and more people to jump in onto this policy that we’re presenting. And very rapidly, you will find that this will become the trend of policy-making inside the United States, in particular. And if you just consider the crucial evidence that we have here at hand, if you just consider the developments that have broken out in the recent period, when Mr. LaRouche said, you just have to say, “This is the greatest Christmas present that we could possibly give you — the opportunity to shut down Wall Street, and save the United States.”

Now, let me, in that context, present the institutional question that we got in for this evening, and ask Jeff Steinberg to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche. In recent weeks four Italian banks have collapsed, along with a number of U.S. hedge funds. There’s a $3 trillion junk bond exposure in the U.S. domestic shale oil and gas sector, with prices continuing to fall, even in the winter period of maximum demand. How do you assess the financial and economic situation in the trans-Atlantic region going into 2016, and how do you propose to address these problems?”

JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. We’re at a point right now where tomorrow morning, Monday morning, almost at any given moment going forward from today, we could experience the complete collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic financial and monetary system, which would in turn have repercussions on a global scale. There is nothing within the internal features of the current situation that can avoid this outcome. And look at some of the elements of this picture.

As the question indicated, we’re seen four Italian banks go under in the recent weeks, and we’ve seen bondholders and stockholders in those banks wiped out through bail-in — in other words, the grabbing up of their assets as a first stage towards a bail-out of those banks. And this has already resulted in widespread protests in Italy. It resulted in a suicide that is now being investigated by Italian authorities. You’ve got Ukraine facing a $3 billion unpayable debt to the IMF that comes due very soon; and the IMF has indicated, because of the geopolitical significance of Ukraine, despite the fact that Ukraine is a failed state, it is thoroughly bankrupt — that the IMF is going to pony up a bail-out of Ukraine that violates all of the IMF’s rules.

On Jan. 1, Puerto Rico has a billion dollar debt due — it’s part of an overall $35 billion in debt. They’ve made clear that they cannot make payments on that $1 billion debt due at the start of the new year. A number of U.S. hedge funds have already gone under, because of their exposure to that Puerto Rican debt.

The shale oil and gas sector, which has been touted by President Obama and others as the great driver for the U.S. so-called economic recovery, is in a state of complete collapse. Normally, going into the winter months, you would expect a substantial increase in oil and gas prices, because of the increasing demands, both for transit and also now for home and business heating. In contrast to that, the price in this past week has collapsed even further. Every time some of the major shale oil producers bring a barrel of oil out of the ground, and put it on sale on the market, they lose $30. There is a total of a $5 trillion amount between junk bonds and major bank lending into this shale oil and gas sector, that is about to blow up.

In the case of Canada, in the area around Alberta, in the western part of Canada, this blow-up has already occurred; and Canada is in a state of severe economic crisis. Obviously, on a scale of things, the United States going through the same process will have a far greater impact into Europe, into Asia, around the entire globe.

So, in other words, we are at a moment of reckoning, where the entire financial system is hanging by a thread, and will most certainly blow. There’s no way to predict a date certain, but, as I say, it could happen at any moment from now on; which means that you’ve got to basically shut down this entire system. The system that’s been in place and growing as a cancerous factor on the real economy of the world, going back for the last 40 years and more. You could go back to end of the Bretton Woods system in 1971, carried out by people like George Shultz, Henry Kissinger, on behalf of the British. You could go back to 1999, when under the impeachment blackmail, President Bill Clinton signed into law the repeal of Glass-Steagall. And, of course, it goes back much earlier than that.

Mr. LaRouche made the point in our discussion today, that you’ve got to look at the degeneration of the entire world system that began at the outset of the 20th Century, when Lord Bertrand Russell launched a tyranny against the kind of scientific breakthroughs that characterized the work of people like Bernhard Riemann in the 19th Century, the work of Leibniz in the 17th and early 18th Century, the work of Kepler in the 17th Century, going back to Brunelleschi and the height of the Italian Golden Renaissance, when modern science was first launched. All of that has been effectively negated and wiped out through a tyranny of mathematics that has been characteristic of Bertrand Russell’s takeover of modern science at the very onset of the 20th Century.

It’s manifested itself in a cultural deterioration. The only major 20th Century scientist to stand up in the face of Russell was Albert Einstein. In a different way, President Franklin Roosevelt stood up against that tyranny. He was confronted from his first moment in office as President, with a population that had been brutalized, had been beaten down, was living through a Great Depression that was already ongoing for a number of years. You had rampant illiteracy in rural America, and he carried out a revolution; a policy revolution that was based on the principles of the founders of the American Republic, the principles of Benjamin Franklin, particularly the principles of Alexander Hamilton. Those same principles were adopted by President Lincoln, and it carried even beyond his assassination by the British.

At the beginning of the 20th Century, end of the 19th Century, you had the British overthrow of Bismarck in Germany; you have the assassination of Sadi Carnot, the president of France; and in 1901 you had the assassination of President William McKinley in the United States. Those British actions, those assassinations, laid the basis for what Bertrand Russell did, wreaking havoc on all of the principles of previous scientific discovery, and the 20th Century, with very few exceptions, has been a total wasteland.

So, that’s the backdrop to the crisis that we are facing today. You not only have a Wall Street-London system that is thoroughly, hopelessly bankrupt. All of the bail-in, and all of the bail-out in the world, cannot come close to dealing with the multiple quadrillions of dollars in purely speculative gambling debt, that have been built up as a cancer that’s eaten away at the real productive economy. You have, in reality, today the Bureau of Labor Statistics is claiming that unemployment has fallen to 5%. This is total rubbish. By using their own statistics, and looking at the entire working age population, rather than just what they call the labor force, you see that real unemployment is more than double the number they claim. And furthermore, 40% of those employed workers in the United States are earning $15,000 a year or less. That is minimum wage, full-time employment.

Half of that number are earning below $5000 a year. If you work one day a month, you are considered to be part of the labor force. So the real conditions of life here in the United States, across Europe, are collapsing at an accelerating rate, as Mr. LaRouche indicated in his discussion with us on Wednesday.

The fact of the matter is that to understand what’s going on to the American people, and to the European population, you’ve got to look at some other statistics. You’ve got to look at the fact that there is a persistent rise in the rate of deaths among middle-aged people in the United States, from the ages of 45 to 54. It’s gone up precipitously. It started in 2001 — not coincidentally when Bush and Cheney came into office. It’s accelerated at an accelerating rate since 2009, when Obama came into office.

The Centers for Disease Control has declared that the United States is experiencing an epidemic increase in heroin addiction, and there has been in the last four years, a 60% increase in heroin addiction among households earning $50,000 a year or more. In other words, the middle class itself is going into a psychological breakdown. So this is the consequence of toleration for Wall Street.

Members of Congress. I was up on Capitol Hill yesterday for a good part of the day. Members of Congress know we’re on the verge of a major junk bond blow-out. They know about the looming crash. They know about the Glass-Steagall opportunity. Yet they’re showing cowardice in the face of the greatest threat that mankind has faced ever. Because this kind of collapse, under the conditions of Obama remaining in office, means that we are also simultaneously on the very edge of potential thermonuclear confrontation with Russia and China. And that would be a war of extinction of mankind.

So the question is: Is there a combination of leading citizens, of Democrats and Republicans, who are prepared to come together and show the courage to simply declare that Wall Street is finished. It’s shut down. No money in. It’s doomed. So shut it down; and if we shut down Wall Street in a timely fashion, that opens the door for the kinds of measures and actions that were taken by Franklin Roosevelt, in the very first days of his Presidency. Massive infusions of Federal investment into real job creation, into vital infrastructure. And we’ve got to then set our sights on the Galaxy. We’ve got to begin a revival of our space program because man doesn’t belong stuck here on Earth. At this point, we have the ability, by coordination and cooperation with other leading nations, like China, for example, in particular — to explore where our Solar System stands in the larger Galaxy. That’s where man’s future. That’s where the discoveries lie that will define and guarantee a bright future for mankind.

But if you don’t start by facing the fact that Wall Street must be shut down totally right now; then there is really no chance.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, when you consider what Mr. LaRouche declared the policy must be, and take a look at the Franklin Roosevelt precedent, you begin to ask yourself the question that Franklin Roosevelt asked himself: When you have a completely broken-down population, when you have a nation in chaos and in desperation, when you’ve had multiple previous administrations which have been disasters, if not traitors, to the people of the United States, how do you have an immediate turnaround from Day One?

And Roosevelt had to ask himself, how do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate value? How do you distinguish between something which has a productive, creative effect — as Mr. LaRouche said in the remarks I read earlier—versus something which has a destructive cancerous effect. And how do you protect what is legitimate and valuable, while cancelling and writing off everything which is illegitimate and destructive?

And this is exactly what Franklin Roosevelt enacted from the very first day that he was in office with his national bank holiday; shutting down all of the banks, sending in an army of auditors, and not allowing them to reopen again until they reopened under his terms. And this is what he enshrined in the Glass-Steagall Act. There is a bill in the House of Representatives and in the United States Senate, as many of our viewers know, ready to be cosponsored, ready to be passed into law, to reinstate Glass-Steagall. And this is obviously urgently what is needed.

When you look at the fact that since the 2007-2008 crash, rather than having the biggest Wall Street banks broken up, the ones that were responsible for the crash in the first place, and having their chief executive officers sent to prison; instead they were bailed out, and now the four largest banks in the United States have accumulated an ever-greater share of the financial bubble, holding, between the four of them, assets of almost $6 trillion concentrated in just these four biggest banks.

With all of the quantitative easing that has been sent nominally into the economy, all of this money has gone into propping this bank gambling financial bubble, while the lending to the real economy has steadily collapsed, showing you exactly what the administration of Barack Obama has been all about.

Now, if you look at Franklin Roosevelt’s actions on the other side, taking a population that was idle, depressed, uneducated, unskilled, wasting away, and immediately putting them to work: this is the precedent for what has to happen right now. Franklin Roosevelt — one of the very first things that he did was to get his adviser from New York State, Harry Hopkins, with whom he had previously worked to enact many of these New Deal measures in the laboratory, in the incubator, of New York State itself, the hometown of Alexander Hamilton, whom Franklin Roosevelt saw himself directly in the tradition of. Even through the lineage of his great-great grandfather Isaac Roosevelt, who worked directly with Alexander Hamilton to set up the first national bank [Bank of New York]. Franklin Roosevelt immediately ordered the large-scale, mass employment of millions and millions of idle and out-of-work Americans.

He did this with the PWA. Later he did it with the WPA for much larger-scale projects. This was done through the TVA, the Tennessee Valley Authority, which absolutely transformed the entire Southern states of the United States, and created the possibility for the United States to fight and win World War II. And emphatically he did it with the CCC, the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was one of his very first programs that he enacted from the very first day that he was in office. Taking young people from the streets of the cities and from the backwards rural countryside, who were uneducated, many of them completely illiterate and completely unskilled; enrolling them in the CCC program; sending them to camps that existed in every single one of the states of the United States at that time, as well as the territories. And ultimately employing over 3 and a half million young men, and young Americans, in the CCC program over the course of its entire existence — from 1933 until it was disbanded in 1941-42, for the war effort.

These are the precedents that can be taken right off of the shelf, and enacted immediately if we are able to take the Wall Street administration of Barack Obama, shut it down, shut down Wall Street. So, what we’ve done here at LaRouche PAC is, we’ve put together a programmatic sort of outline of exactly what has to be done along these lines in today’s terms, with an eye towards what is being done currently by countries such as China, such as their ally Russia, other nations of the BRICS, other countries in southern Asia — for example, India — and the program which is now become the official policy of the most populous nation on Earth, the so-called Silk Road. What China calls, One Belt One Road, or what originally was called the Eurasian Land-Bridge, when the LaRouche movement conceived of it over 20 years ago.

So, here to present a little bit of the details of this upcoming, forthcoming pamphlet — “The United States Must Join the Silk Road” — is LaRouche PAC Scientific Team leader Benjamin Deniston.

BENJAMIN DENISTON: Thanks, Matt. So I think we’ve mentioned this on a few of these broadcasts before, this new report. And to put it in context, we have the EIR full special report on the “New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” and about a month ago, in the process of her work organizing around that report internationally, Helga Zepp-LaRouche put out the call to develop somewhat of an addendum to that report, focused on the United States.

And her idea was that we have to move the U.S. population to fight for its future. And this is how we can do it. We have to give the American people a perspective for what it can mean for their own nation, their families, their legacy to join in this future orientation of the New Silk Road, the World Land-Bridge orientation. So we’ve been pulling together this addendum report as kind of a presentation of this thesis, to really try and give people a clear vision, a clear sense of what we can do with this country; if people decide to fight, if people decide to follow the actions we just heard. Especially now in this immediate day-to-day crisis conditions, we need to also bring to people a real positive conception, as Mr. LaRouche was actually saying emphatically earlier this week. We have to have a positive,— not just attacking the negative — but we have to have a new idea, a new concept, for what the future has to become. And that can give people the strength, the rallying point, to fight to win this fight right now.

So, I have a series of graphics here, and we can go to the first graphic, as a teaser for this report: some of the actual images directly from a draft version of this report, which will I think be available next week on LaRouche PAC. So here we have the cover — “The United States Joins the New Silk Road, a Hamiltonian Vision for an Economic Renaissance.” [Fig. 1]

If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 2]: It’s broken into a couple main sections, but after the introduction, which covers some of the material which we already discussed here today, the first bulk section of the report is pretty much a reconstruction program for the United States. Something going along with what LaRouche has called for, for a return to true physical economy. We’re seeing the end of this speculative Wall Street system, the end of this fantasy of money having intrinsic value, the end of this speculative insane system, and if we’re going to survive, we need to return to a real conception of physical economics. How do we improve the physical capability to produce the goods needed for society? How do we increase our ability to more effectively, more efficiently produce what’s needed to sustain society at ever higher and higher levels? These have to, again, become the metrics for economics. Wall Street’s metrics are death; and we’re seeing that right now. So, we have to return to a conception of physical production, the physical productive powers of the labor force. How do you increase the ability of the labor force to produce more goods at a higher value and a higher quality with less labor power? These physical economic conceptions. And how do you build up the infrastructure of the nation to most efficiently facilitate that process for the national economy as a whole, as a single, integrated territory?

So, this is some of what is dealt with in this first section; and here is kind of an opening spread, as you can see in this image of a development perspective for the United States. I’m going to go through how each one of these elements are treated in slightly more detail in the next section of this report.

So, if we go to the next image[Fig. 3], we have, in one sense, kind of a keystone for this whole project. Something that Lyndon and Helga LaRouche have been very much at the center of organizing for, for decades now. The long-standing proposal for a Bering Strait connection; connecting this relatively small gap between Alaska and Russia. Connecting that with a tunnel, perhaps a bridge, depending on whatever seems to be the best design; and connecting these two major land masses with high-speed rail systems. And this, in a sense literally, but also figuratively, connects the United States and North America directly into this entire New Silk Road orientation, this entire Eurasian Land-Bridge development which is now ongoing, as Matt referenced; this is ongoing. China is leading the way in building the New Silk Road program; extending it into other nations in collaboration with other nations — Russia, India, other major players throughout Eurasia. They’re pursuing this development of their interiors — high-speed rail, water projects, developing more power, more energy. And we can plug directly into this development orientation with the Bering Strait connection. A lot can be said on this project; it’s been on the books for a century, in conception. Now we have the perspective to actually do it; we can extend the rail network of the United States up to Alaska. Russia can extend through Siberia. We can build the connection across the Bering Strait; and we can actually connect these two land masses with this grand project, which will be a keystone for this whole development perspective for the coming time.

If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 4], this would connect directly into what we would need to build as a new high-speed rail system for the United States. Here we have displayed one particular two-phase proposal for the development of an actual modern, high-speed rail network for the United States. Our rail system currently in terms of passenger transport is almost nonexistent; we have a disastrous transportation system. So, if we’re talking about actually rebuilding the physical productive capabilities of the nation as a whole, this is going to be one critical element. Having an effective transportation system increases the physical economic potential of the national territory as a whole. Lowering the cost of transportation, increasing the speed of transportation, increasing the efficiency of transportation for goods and people as a medium to facilitate the increased productivity of the nation as a whole. So, this is going to be a major keystone project.

If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 5], we can see that this is not just about connecting the economy as it currently exists; but this will also open up the potential for the development of new territories. These rail lines you see here aren’t simply a means for getting from point A to point B; but they can also become new corridors of development. Creating corridors of high density of infrastructure, high-speed efficient transportation, canals and water projects as needed, electricity, power, communications. So, we can bring a high density corridor of all the basic advanced infrastructure needed for the development of entire new regions of the country. And I don’t have a graphic of it, but I’m sure many people are familiar with the distribution of population in the United States; and we have entire regions of the country which are virtually empty. Entire regions which have little to no development; so we have huge room and potential for the growth for the development of our territory, including the development of new cities — something that Helga Zepp-LaRouche has been campaigning for in the United States. The idea of actually building new Renaissance cities is part of this whole perspective; cities actually organized around the understanding of mankind as a creative force on this planet. Cities as cultural centers actually embodying and reflecting the conception of mankind which we need to rise to. Cities which actually inspire the population and encourage the population and push the population to rise to a higher cultural level; recognizing mankind as a creative force. The type of cities you saw in certain parts of the great 15th Century Renaissance, for example. We can actually be looking at, instead of disbursing our population in this terrible urban sprawl; we can actually have centralized, highly efficient scientific cultural cities, centered around a high density of creative focus, scientific focus, cultural focus. That’s the center of your city, your cultural process; and you build the city around that.

So, these are some of the things that — again, they’re treated in more detail in the report — but these are some of the basic elements that are just needed right now to save the United States. As Matt had referenced the historical precedent of Franklin Roosevelt, we’re going to need very similar actions in terms of actually retraining and rebuilding our labor force to do this. Just with what’s been put on the table already, this is going to be a major driver to force our nation, our people, to figure out how to re-industrialize our economy; to rebuild our productive capabilities. That means the physical productive capabilities themselves; but that also means the labor force itself, the actual skill set of the labor force itself. Things like a new CCC program to retrain an entire new generation with new skills, new capabilities; so they can become a part of this process of creating a new higher level for the economy for the United States. So, in a sense, this is going to force a driver program to rebuild an entire new generation as a highly productive, advanced section of the economy.

So, this is kind of the leading section of this addendum report, focused on rebuilding the United States. If we go to the next graphic [Fig. 6], we can see it is followed by a section on some of the science driver programs that are part of this whole perspective. Actually looking into pushing into the new frontiers beyond just rebuilding the nation with the available technologies, the available capabilities, and implementing what we have; but also looking into expanding the potential of the economy into new domains, into new levels.

In the next graphic [Fig. 7], we have a section on power, on energy, on energy-flux density. And the longstanding need to finally push for the development of fusion power; the longstanding need to explore, implement, and develop the domain of the nucleus — the nuclear economy. This is something that has been denied and suppressed for decades already now; we’re long past the time where we need to fully develop the capabilities of the nuclear domain for mankind. Giving us dramatically higher levels of energy-flux density; enabling us to power all these programs we’re talking about here, and many more programs. But also opening up a whole new domain of mankind’s ability to interact with the very nature of the universe itself. Moving man beyond just being limited to the domain of chemical reactions, and chemistry on a chemical domain; but moving into a nuclear domain. Not dealing with just the interactions of chemical elements; but dealing with being able to control the very chemical elements themselves on a nuclear level, which opens up whole new potentials for mankind.

This includes areas that are still anomalous — low-energy nuclear reactions, so-called “cold fusion”; hot fusion, advanced fusion power. There’s an entire new domain of potential that is just lying in wait for mankind to develop with this nuclear economy.

If you go to the next graphic [Fig. 8], we have the issue of water; the development of the water supply. And a lot can be said on this issue; there are many available options to develop the water resources needed: water transfer projects, along the line of the original NAWAPA project; proposals for desalination, the processing of ocean water to create new freshwater supplies. Those are available to us. We also need to look into the new frontier areas of being able to control the water cycle on a higher and more fundamental level; and this goes to what we’ve discussed with new methods for controlling the weather, controlling precipitation patterns.

As I said at the beginning, this was called for by Helga out of the need to move the US population; we have to give people a sense of what their potential future is. Not just getting jobs for people; there’s all this talk about jobs, the insanity of Green jobs. You have a bunch of these Presidential candidates still talking about Green jobs as if that would do something for the economy. What we’re talking about here, is giving people a sense of an actual higher level of the economy that we can build; a higher state of existence for the nation; that we can organize society around creating. And we can actually inspire and move our population to fight for this future; to fight for their own ability to have access to creating this new future.

And I think just to round it off, we were talking with Mr. LaRouche about this whole perspective earlier today; and I think what he had to say was also very important as a concluding point in this whole discussion. He said, we have to really go at the core issue; that in essence, underlying, we have these projects; we have the perspective for rebuilding the United States. We have to do this if we’re going to exist as a nation; there’s no ifs, ands, or buts about that. This is the future of our nation if we’re going to exist; returning to this orientation towards a physical economic approach to rebuilding our nation at a higher level. But in a sense, that is just an effect of something more fundamental; which is understanding mankind as the only species which can really do this. Understanding that this process, this ability to change the state of your species from state A to state B, to a higher order existence; is the most fundamental expression of what makes mankind unique as a living form on this planet.

And that, I think, gets at some of what Mr. LaRouche was saying earlier today about what’s happened over the past century; the disaster of the past century. That you had a fundamental attack on the economy, on the population, but also a fundamental attack on this most fundamental principle; the principle of understanding of human creativity. That there is something that the human mind can do uniquely that is the cause, that is the reason we can have these types of changes. That’s the reason we can have a higher population with a higher standard of living, higher population density, than we had before. Because mankind has the ability to create his own future; to create a higher level of existence for society. But where does that come from? You go to education today, people are taught that the human mind, the human brain is just an advanced computer; that thinking is just a deductive process, that the way that human beings think and discover things is essentially just an advanced form of a computer process. That even a basic understanding of human creativity as a distinct potential, as a distinct capability has been not just attacked, but virtually eliminated from society today. That the understanding that the human mind acts in a unique way which I think we don’t really understand yet, in a non-deductive, non-mathematical fashion to generate a new conception, a new discovery which didn’t come from the lower-order understanding; but is a new generation, but it’s that new generation which comes from the human mind itself which is the substance which enables mankind to move to a higher level.

I think that’s what we have to put up front; and this is part of a longstanding fight. If you just look back to the work of Kepler himself, the great genius who completely revolutionized mankind’s existence in the universe by discovering that we’re part of this higher order Solar System. And you look at Kepler’s own understanding of his own discovery process; and if you go to his works — go to the Harmony of the World — go to Book 4 of the Harmony of the World, where he says this is really the essence of my entire discovery process. Where he discusses the actual process of thought of discovery; and he, himself, roots his whole investigation in the continuity of the fight going back to the fight of Plato against Aristotle. The fight over whether the human mind actually generates new discoveries, or is just merely a product of sense perceptions. Kepler right then and there himself declares the evil of Aristotle’s view that the human mind is just a blank slate; that sense perceptions are just written on the human mind as a blank slate, and that’s all you are. That’s the nature of knowledge, is just the impressions upon you through your sense perceptions; which Aristotle posed as an attack against Plato’s idea of recollection, that discovery is more of a process, it’s almost as if the mind is remembering something it had within it. That discovery doesn’t come from sense perceptions from the outside, but there’s a potential in the human mind to generate something for which the potential was already there in the mind itself.

But then you have the fact that what the human mind can do in that regard, actually enables mankind to come to a higher state of coherence with the universe as a whole. And this is what Kepler himself, I think, developed in a new, higher order way in his conception of harmonics, of harmony; that he himself explicitly sided on the side of Plato and Socrates in this understanding of the human mind. He said quite frankly, Aristotle shouldn’t be allowed in the Christian religion; because his views are evil, his views deny this creative capability of the human mind. Kepler himself recognized that Plato was much closer to the truth, and that you have this ability of the human mind itself, of its own potential, to generate new conceptions which are not deductions, which are not mathematical processes; but as a creative process of the human mind. And the amazing thing is that those productions of the human mind itself, of itself and from itself, are the substance of what allows mankind to move to a higher state of organization of the universe; a higher state of coherence with the universe. And that, for Kepler, was the highest sense of harmony, of harmonics. And that’s the current of understanding of real human creativity that Einstein was coming out of; and as Mr. LaRouche has said, was the last hold-out against the attacks against this true understanding of human creativity.

So, I think this is the highest challenge we have in this whole process; that we have to rebuild our nation, we have to move society forward. We have to do it premised most fundamentally on the recognition of human creativity per se as the real force, the real substance of mankind’s ability to exist in the universe. And if we don’t win that fight, then the evil legacy of Russell will just continue to reign. So, I think that’s a challenge that we all have before us.

OGDEN: Thank you, Ben. Now let me just say in conclusion, just to reiterate the point that Mr. LaRouche made in the remarks that I read in the beginning, and what Jeff went over; what’s preventing this vision from becoming an actuality, is the slavish capitulation and acquiescence of the majority of our elected leaders — Congress and otherwise — to Wall Street, and to the wishes and the demands and the frankly extortion that representatives of Wall Street hold as their power over Washington. Now when you examine that though, it’s a ridiculous proposition, because Wall Street is bankrupt; Wall Street has no power. We’re in the midst of a total meltdown of the entire Wall Street-based system. And the only solution for the future of anybody in this country is to take the Franklin Roosevelt precedent and say, “You’re bankrupt; we’re shutting you down.” That’s done through Glass-Steagall and the entire program that’s laid out in this pamphlet, as was just reviewed by Ben.

Now, the other point I’ll make is that Mr. LaRouche has emphasized that the pivot point, the leverage point around which we can move and transform the entire country, is what he’s called the so-called “Manhattan Project”. The highly focused activation over the last 12, 13, 14 months of our association’s activities in Manhattan and the broader Manhattan region. Now one thing about this that many of you may be aware of, is that in addition to the regular Saturday afternoon discussions that Mr. LaRouche holds with a live audience in Manhattan, also this weekend, there will be a series of concerts which are going to be presented by the Schiller Institute Community Chorus of Manhattan, as well as co-sponsored by the Foundation for the Revival of Classical Culture; which will be presenting a large excerpt of Handel’s Messiah. The entire Part I, and much of Part II and Part III. The performance of this piece — which includes participation from a large array of activists and other volunteers from the New York area, as well as professional soloists and a very highly skilled orchestra — is that this performance will take place at the natural, scientific so-called “Verdi tuning” of A=432. And this is a very significant aspect of what Mr. LaRouche’s association’s intervention into a revival of true Classical culture in the United States and worldwide, is built around. So, one of the performances will be at a church tomorrow afternoon, Saturday afternoon in Brooklyn near the Park Slope area; and the other performance will take place early on Sunday afternoon in downtown Manhattan. So, if you are in the area, and you have not yet gotten the details about that, please make sure that you contact our representatives in the New York region.

So, with all of that said, I thank everybody for joining us here today. I especially thank Jeff and Ben for the presentations that they’ve made here; and I would implore you to keep your eyes glued on the LaRouche PAC website, as the updates on a regular basis over the next coming days and hours. So, thank you very much for joining us here tonight; please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.




LPAC Fredags-Webcast 6. november 2015:
Obama beordrer mediecensur af Drone-papirer –
Læger uden Grænser udgiver egen rapport om Kunduz –
Obamas krigsprovokationer mod Rusland og Kina tilsigter 3. Verdenskrig. O.m.a.

Dette webcast: Obama beordrer mediecensur af dækning af afsløringer af Drone-papirerne. Seneste afsløringer om bombning af LuG’s hospital i Kunduz – LuG udgiver egen rapport. Hundrede tusinder af flygtninge pga. Obamas ulovlige krige i Sydvestasien og Nordafrika. Faren for global udslettelse i 3. Verdenskrig vokser, pga. Obamas krigsprovokationer mod Rusland og Kina. O.m.a. Engelsk udskrift.

TRANSCRIPT:

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s November 6, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching our weekly broadcast here from larouchepac.com of our international Friday night webcast. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, as well as Megan Beets of the LaRouche PAC Science and Research Team.

Now, the three of us did have a chance to meet with Helga and Lyndon LaRouche just a few hours ago; so that has definitely informed the content of the broadcast that you’ll hear tonight. What you will hear tonight is a thorough exposition of the continually building case for immediate legal action to be taken against the murderous policies of the Barack Obama Presidency. The case against him continues to snowball. You’ll hear about the media censorship that was ordered directly from the Obama White House to eliminate any coverage in the leading newspapers of record of the United States, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, of the damning story that was broken by Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill in The Intercept of the so-called “Drone Papers”; which exposes the lurid details of Obama’s weekly kill sessions, which have routinely resulted in innumerable innocent civilian deaths. You’ll hear about the most recent revelations in the case of the bombardment of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan; in which it is now being revealed that doctors and other medical personnel who were fleeing the hospital, fleeing the bombardment of this medical facility, were systematically gunned down by US military gunships. [This is] further building the case that this is indeed an intentional targetting of a medical facility, and amounts to nothing less than a war crime. You’ll hear about the hundreds of thousands of refugees who have been fleeing the illegal wars that have been perpetrated by the Obama administration in the Middle East and northern Africa, resulting in the massive social displacement of entire portions of these populations as well as widespread death and destruction, as Obama continues to lend his support to the overthrow, by radical jihadists, of sitting sovereign governments in this region. You’ll hear about the shocking statistics of the rise in the death rates, rising dramatically throughout the United States; particularly among the former skilled, industrial and manufacturing labor force, who were sacrificed at the altar of the bail-out of the bankrupt Wall Street banks by first the Bush and now the Obama administrations. One of the leading causes of this increase in death rates across the United States, and especially in this formerly productive sector of the American labor force, is an unbelievable surge in deaths from heroin and related drug overdoses; not only among the inner city minority populations, but also now among suburban middle and upper class white populations, surpassing automobile and firearms rates of mortality and now reaching an epidemic level as characterized by the Centers of Disease Control.

And finally, you’ll hear about the continuing mounting danger of global extinction warfare as the Obama administration continues to attempt to provoke World War III confrontations with both Russia and China. Now, this final item was the explicit discussion at a landmark event that occurred earlier this past Wednesday on Capitol Hill; which I personally had the opportunity to attend and to be an eyewitness to. This extraordinary event was set up as an informal hearing by Representative John Conyers, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee and the dean of the House of Representatives — the longest serving member of Congress on the House side. Also in attendance were a number of other Congressmen, including Representatives Barbara Lee, Alan Grayson, Charlie Rangell, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Congressman Walter Jones among others. The distinguished members of the panel at this informal hearing were all founders of the recently re-established American Committee for East-West Accord, including: former US Ambassador Jack Matlock, who was ambassador to the Soviet Union under President Ronald Reagan; NYU Professor Steven Cohen; and John Pepper, a leading businessman and former CEO of Proctor & Gamble. The subject of this hearing was none other than the fact that the Obama policies are on the verge of provoking a thermonuclear confrontation with Russia; a subject which was explicitly presented in those terms, and the fact that without a drastic change in US-Russian relations which must be induced, there is no way that this World War III confrontation can be avoided.

The invitation to this event, which was published by the Committee on East-West Accord and was circulated by the office of Congressman John Conyers, read in part as follows: “The Ukrainian crisis represents a low in US-Russia relations not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union. And the recent Russian involvement in the Syrian situation is now making the danger even worse. American and Russian jets flying bombing missions in close proximity to one another, raises the possibility of a military accident between two nuclear-armed powers. As the New York Times warned, the complicated and shifting landscape of alliances leaves us ‘edging closer to an all-out proxy war between the United States and Russia.’ The majority of Americans never lived through the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 or the darkest days of the Cold War. They have led lives without the looming specter of nuclear war, but the areas of conflict between our nations are growing. The conflict in Ukraine, the expansion of NATO, Russia’s involvement in Syria, and other lesser issues are driving a new wedge between the US and Russia. While most would agree that conflict between the United States and Russia benefits no one, the likelihood of such a conflict, as well as the serious consequences that it would bring, is not being discussed on Capitol Hill.”

In the interest of fostering more robust debate on US-Russia relations, Representative Conyers has convened an informal hearing featuring four eminent American experts on this subject, and those four members were the members that I named: the members of the board of the recently re-established American Committee for East-West Accord.

Now each member of this panel, and a number of the Congressmen, each in their own way referred to the darkest days of the Cold War, which they all remembered as members of the senior statesmen of this country. John Conyers being the dean of the House of Representatives, Jack Matlock being a former ambassador and a close collaborator of President Ronald Reagan — they referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis. They recalled the experience of duck and cover, hiding under one’s desk, nuclear air raid drills, underground bomb shelters, nuclear bunkers, and stated that although the situation at that time seemed bad, the situation today is as bad, or worse; and that unless the direct provocations against Russia are halted, there is very real possibility which exists of open nuclear warfare breaking out, and exterminating the human race.

Ambassador Matlock echoed much of what he had stated previously during previous appearances in Washington, D.C., but also especially during his recent appearance on the same dais as President Vladimir Putin at the Valdai discussion club in Sochi, Russia two weeks ago. Matlock elaborated the 20-year process of broken promises and outright lies and deceptions that resulted in the Eastward expansion of NATO all the way up to Russia’s borders, which has an immediate and calculated threat to Russia’s domestic security, worse than, in fact, as Matlock pointed out, the Berlin crisis of 1961. The fact that Berlin was not directly on Russia’s borders, but now you have the immediate proximity of Ukraine, and other countries right on the borders of Russian territory.

Steven Cohen underscored Matlock’s remarks and warned point-blank, in no uncertain terms, that the placement of one more base on Russia’s borders, or the incorporation of one more country in Eastern Europe into the NATO security alliance, military alliance, would mean war between the U.S. and Russia, and everything that entails. He pointed out that Michael McFaul’s blog has shifted from what he called “Mickey Mouse democracy promotion” to now, all-out strident calls for outright warfare and regime change provocations. Cohen emphasized that the danger of war today is far worse than at any time during the Cold War, mostly because of this cross-partisan 100% close-to-consensus when it comes to the demonization of Putin, and Russia, and the lack of any substantial pushback from among the corridors of power in Washington, against this narrative, especially from within Congress — although this was something which, he noted, was changing with this historic event, changing in front of the eyes of all those who attended this event, over a packed audience, standing room only, with this hearing that was sponsored by John Conyers and other members of Congress: the first open discussion of this kind in a forum such as this by anyone on Capitol Hill.

And finally, John Pepper made a very impassioned call for a completely new paradigm in U.S.-Russia relations, one which is founded on a concept of common security, and a creation of a mutual common security architecture, against what he identified as the real enemies, as opposed to the made-up enemies: the real enemies of both the United States and of Russia. Number one: international terrorism, and ISIS, in specific. And number two: what he identified as the greatest enemy of all mankind, which is thermonuclear warfare itself. He stated, the true enemy that we must guard ourselves against is the enemy of nuclear annihilation, and I think we can all find common cause in that.

So, as I said, this was really an extraordinary event, especially when you juxtapose it to another event which was happening literally simultaneously on Capitol Hill, just a few doors down from this hearing room. And this was a hearing featuring none other than Victoria Nuland herself, and that counterposition was pointed out very clearly by numerous participants in this event, both members of the panel, and members of the audience, as representative of the two stark choices that are facing the American people right now: Obama’s World War III and thermonuclear annihilation, or a new international policy of cooperation and partnership with Russia, as well as with China. Which means the immediate end of the murderous and deadly policies of the Obama administration.

So, with that said, I’d like to ask Jeff Steinberg to come to the podium for the next segment of tonight’s broadcast, to elaborate a little bit more on what I’ve just covered.

JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. There was obviously some important things that were said during that John Conyers event on Wednesday afternoon up on Capitol Hill, but I think it’s critical to recognize that there was one thing that was not said, and that was that the only viable solution is the removal of President Obama through either impeachment, or invoking of the 25th Amendment, or some combination of actions, as happened with Richard Nixon, to force his immediate resignation.

The fact of the matter is that you had prominent American diplomats, prominent American scholars, leading members of Congress, standing there, and saying to the American people that the President of the United States is pushing the world towards thermonuclear annihilation, and yet nobody took it to the logical conclusion, which is that we’ve got to get this guy out of office.

Now in our discussion earlier today with Lyn and Helga LaRouche, Mr. LaRouche really was reflecting on where we stand, in terms of the dangers represented to, really, the survival of the entire trans-Atlantic region. Because that’s really what’s on the table right now. Assuming we even avoid the immediate threat of thermonuclear war and annihilation, the simple fact is that if the current trendlines continue, without a reversal, in a very short period of time the entire trans-Atlantic region will be doomed, will be finished, will not resemble anything like what Europe and the United States historically represented, particularly the United States.

Parts of South America may very well survive, because they’re already aligning themselves with the Asia-Pacific region, and with Eurasia more broadly, where countries like China, India, Russia are doing relatively well compared to the complete breakdown process that’s inflicted the entire trans-Atlantic region.

Now the problem of not directly addressing the clear and obvious solution to the this crisis, namely the constitutional removal of President Obama from office, is in fact indicative of a much deeper problem, a problem that very few people other than people like Mr. LaRouche think about constantly. The bottom line is that since the very beginning of the 20th Century, since the intervention by Lord Bertrand Russell and others around him to destroy Classical science, and to replace it with mathematics and with the disease of pragmatism, since that process began at the beginning of the 20th Century, we’ve been on a steady downward trajectory — culturally, economically, philosophically, morally. We’ve been, throughout the trans-Atlantic region, in a slow but now intensifying complete collapse of society, and when you broach the issue of a President who has committed atrocities, such as his drone kill policy. All you need to do, is go back on the LaRouche PAC website, and review the last three Friday evening webcasts. You’ll have all of the details you need to know about that.

The fact that there has not been a move to remove this president from office, is because the disease of pragmatism has infected our political institutions to such a great degree, and has infected our general population to an even greater degree, that the only measure that can prevent the possible annihilation of mankind, is considered to be “unpractical, it’s not pragmatic, there’s no guarantee that this process will succeed.” So, we’ve been on this long trajectory downward. It’s very much like the principle of how you boil a frog. If you put a pot of water on the stove, and get that water boiling to a full boil, and try to throw the frog in the boiling water, the frog’s going to jump right out. He’ll run away and you’ll never find him. If you put the frog in a pot of warm water, comfortably warm water, and have a low flame, then, gradually, that water will reach a boiling point, and the frog won’t notice it, because the incremental changes are gradual. That’s why you’ve got to look back and consider where we are as a trans-Atlantic civilization today, and ask yourself, from that standpoint: can we survive by continuing to cling to pragmatism and avoid taking the necessary urgent measures that can save us from otherwise certain doom?

The drone policy, as Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our discussion today: it’s emblematic of Obama. He’s a mass killer. He boasted to White House staff, back in 2011, that he was really good at killing. Coming into the office of the Presidency, he had no idea how good he was at targeting people to be killed by others. But that’s the character of it; that’s what the “Drone Papers,” like the “Pentagon Papers” earlier, brought down [president] Richard Nixon. The “Drone Papers,” alone, are more than sufficient to bring down President Obama. But it has not yet happened, because a few phone calls from the White House to the New York Times, to the Washington Post, got the word out: this story is taboo; it’s not practical to tell the truth about this mass murderer, because we might get cut off from access to the White House. So, you’ve got this phenomenon.

You have the new reports that Matt just mentioned, that, at the bombing of the Doctors Without Borders [msf] hospital in Kunduz [afghanistan], more and more evidence is coming out that it was a pre-meditated assault on an international medical facility under the lamest of excuses, and that as doctors and nurses and patients were fleeing, they were being shot, on the grounds that anybody who was there was automatically, de facto, Taliban and fair game for another mass kill.

But there’s many, many more things to consider. You have the conditions of life of the American people, which have been destroyed, systematically, boiling-frog style, over a period of, really, the last 40 years, or you could say even the period going back to the death of [president] Franklin Roosevelt in April of 1945. It’s been a largely downward trajectory ever since then, and that is merely a slice of the process that began right at the turn of the 20th Century, with Bertrand Russell’s invasion and assault against science. If you look back at the sweep of the 19th Century, you had some of the greatest accomplishments in culture and in science — in real, physical science. You had [bernhard] Riemann, you had the great classical composers — Beethoven, Brahms. You had the work of Friedrich Schiller, branching over from the 1700s into the 1800s. You had a renaissance underway, particularly in Europe, particularly in Germany, during the end of the 19th Century, covering the whole sweep of that Century. And suddenly, it came it came to a screeching halt, with the British top-down intervention, personified by Bertrand Russell. And we’ve been on a cultural downslide ever since. If you destroy the culture, you destroy the moral fabric of a society.

So, where are we now? Earlier today, as I’m sure many of you are aware, a series of propagandistic lies were put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, saying that 271,000 jobs were created last month in the United States, and that the unemployment rate is now officially down to 5%. Five percent unemployment is considered to be tantamount to full employment.

Well, those figures are an absolute lie, and I think if any of you think about it, any of you watching this broadcast now, think about whether your conditions of life are better or worse than they were at the start of the Obama presidency, or, even more so, at the end of the Clinton presidency, when Bush and Cheney came in. If you say, “My conditions are better, my prospects for my children and grandchildren are better,” then you are in an extremely small minority. The simple reality is that half of the 271,000 jobs claimed to have been created, are purely fictitious. They’re the result of a mathematical slight-of-hand trick, projecting, on average, death and life rates and starts of new businesses and bankruptcies. But there’s nothing normal about the current economy. So, forget that number! If you take the fact that 94 million working-age Americans, qualified to be in the labor force, are not counted as part of the labor force, because they are either chronically unemployed or have never been able to find a job, then if you add those 94 million people, working-age people, in, you find that the actual unemployment rate in the United States, is 23%! That number is on a par with the worst, darkest, days of the Great Depression in the 1930s, before Roosevelt put people back to work.

We have statistics that have come out. A study came out just this past week from Harvard University, indicating that for the first time in a long time, there are more and more Americans dying during their middle-age — their 40s and 50s. And this is due to a combination of job loss, of lack of access to adequate medical care, addiction to drugs and alcohol — again, a reflection of a process of chronic unemployment or under-employment. In rural United States, according to a report in the New York Times earlier this week, the rate of suicides is rising astronomically.

In a few moments, Megan will give you a detailed readout on the fact that we’re in the midst of a heroin epidemic in the United States, and it’s mostly afflicting middle class and upper middle class households all over the country. You have all of the signs there, as if anyone out there needed to be reminded or told about the actual collapse of the conditions of life.

So, this has occurred during the period of the Bush-Cheney administration and during the period of Obama. There’s nothing that we can do right now, in particular, about Bush and Cheney, from the standpoint they’re out of office. They should have been impeached for a whole range of reasons, and they were not impeached. Yet President Obama is the current President. And he stands guilty of crimes that even go beyond the scope of what Bush and Cheney did. The drone killing policy is a policy of mass murder. In effect, you should be thinking about President Obama from the standpoint of somebody who is a bigger mass murderer than Charles Manson. How would you feel about having Charles Manson in the White House? Well, guess what? Maybe you do. So, the question is, and this is addressed to the outstanding individual who did appear at that Congressional forum, and it’s also addressed to you, the American people. When are you going to shed the disease of pragmatism and face the reality of the situation that you are now living through? This is not something you watch on television, or read about in the newspapers or on your personal computer. This is the life that you are being subjected to; and there’s no reason for it.

The trans-Atlantic region is dead; the US economy is dead. The European economy is even more dead in many areas than the US economy is. Yet, Asia is not thriving because of the impact of the trans-Atlantic crisis; but Asia is doing vastly better. There’s growth going on. China, India, even Russia; there’s growth going on in the entire region. There’s a perspective of optimism, about space exploration, about extending the high-speed links from the Asia-Pacific coast on to the Atlantic coast of Europe. The United States and Europe are living as if on a different planet with a different mindset; and that can and must be broken. And one of the first steps that must be taken is that there’s got to be a genuine outpouring that says that this President’s got to go. That Wall Street has got to be shut down; because one of the greatest crimes that President Obama has committed has been to be a lackey of Wall Street and the City of London. To put their interests above those of the American people.

So, it’s time to wake up to your own condition and do something about it, and as I say, there are leading political figures who are scared to death that we are on the cusp of thermonuclear war; they’re now talking about it more openly. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not insignificant that leading American diplomats and members of Congress talked about the fact that we’re on the edge of thermonuclear war at a public forum on Capitol Hill. But how many of you even knew about that before you heard this broadcast tonight? I can assure you, you did not read it on the front page of the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal; you didn’t hear about it on the six o’clock news. So, it’s time to wake up; and those people, who are in responsible leading positions, have got to stop being pragmatic and pulling their punches. And they’ve got to join us and join Mr. LaRouche in saying “We’ve got an immediate mission. We’ve got to bring down this Presidency, and we’ve got to bring down Wall Street.” If you don’t do that, then you’re not serious about stopping thermonuclear war, and you’re not serious about turning around the collapse of the entire trans-Atlantic region.

So, that’s the issue on the table. And it was a wonderful event on Wednesday, but this missing ingredient is deadly if it’s not actually picked up.

MEGAN BEETS: So, on the topic of Obama being very good at killing, let’s take a closer look at what’s been done to the working population of the United States over the course of the Bush and Obama Presidencies. As Jeff mentioned, on November 4, the Drug Enforcement Administration released their 2015 National Drug Threat Assessment Report, which paints a similar report released by the CDC in August; a staggering picture of the drug use and drug overdose increases in the United States, which has risen to epidemic levels under the regimes of Bush and Obama. The document reports that drug-related deaths, as Matthew mentioned in the opening, drug-related deaths have risen to become the leading cause of injury death in the United States. More than firearms; more than car accidents. And in 2013 alone, the United States lost 46,470 people to drug overdoses; 46,000 people. That’s more than 120 per day. Now among drugs, controlled prescription drugs — mainly opioids and heroin — account for the largest type of drug by far; and the slight decline of the use of prescription drugs is being steadily replaced by the use of heroin, as people shift over to what’s a much more deadly drug. But what’s also much cheaper and much, much more widely available.

Now, to illustrate that a little bit, in 2013 there were 169,000 new users of heroin; many of them very young. Between 2013 and 2014, the rate of current heroin use — in other words, people who have used heroin in the past 30 days — rose by 51%. Between 2007 and 2013 — or in other words, during the course of Obama’s Presidency — the addiction to heroin rose 150%; and the deaths by overdose of heroin more than tripled.

Now the primary area where this increase of death has occurred, is in the Midwest; the formerly industrial centers that LaRouche took the spear point to save over the course of 2005 and the following years, when under the Bush-Cheney administration the auto industry and related machine tool sectors were gutted and crushed. Now it’s the Midwest, followed closely by New England and the New York/New Jersey area; all of these the formerly productive industrial centers of the country which have suffered in every way under Bush and Obama. Now the increase, as you might guess, for the most part is not concentrated in the inner cities; although I will mention that in the city of Baltimore, one in ten people is a heroin user. It’s not centered among the poorest people in the country; it’s centered in the middle class, the working class. For example, families with an income of $50,000 or more, for families of that income rate, heroin addiction has risen by 60% in the last 4 years. These are working class, upper class families and their children.

But this picture of the epidemic use of drugs is just part of a broader picture. Death is on the rise under President Obama. A study was released just a few weeks ago in September, which is this week receiving wide coverage, which states that since 1999, over the course of the four terms of Bush and Obama, the death rate among middle-aged white Americans in the age range of 45-54 has risen dramatically; in an unprecedented way. 10 % overall, and 20 % among the poorer, less educated strata. This increase of the death rate of middle-aged people is not a natural shift in demographics; it’s not due to some overall change in disease mortality rates. In fact, for comparison, in comparable industrialized countries around the world, the mortality rate for exactly this class of people has fallen by 25 % to 30 %. So, this is purely the result of a conscious policy in the United States by Bush and Obama.

The leading cause is not disease. The leading causes are signs of the complete degeneration and despair among the American population: drug abuse; alcohol abuse. And in fact, the authors of the report note particularly, heroin and other opioid overdoses; suicide. And as Jeff referenced, in rural areas of the United States, the suicide rates since 2004 have risen by 20%.

So here you have an overview of the stark reality of the Obama death policy, so clearly seen in the attack on the hospital in Afghanistan, turned against the American people. When presented with some of these figures the other day, LaRouche responded with this: He said, “Why didn’t we, as a nation, respond years back, and take action to stop this from happening? How did people get set up to accept the economic policies of destruction of science, of industry, along with endless bail-outs of Wall Street? How were we induced to submit to do this to ourselves?” So, I’d like to ask Jeff to come to the podium to respond and elaborate.

STEINBERG: I think it goes back to what I said earlier. Slowly, the level of culture, the level of real science that had permeated our culture even here in the United States in the 19th Century has been under steady and constant assault; largely coming from the British, particularly reflected in people like Lord Bertram Russell, who wrote books professing to be about science. He wrote a book in 1951, The Impact of Science on Society; he didn’t talk about science. He talked about methods of destruction of young minds by turning the education system into a system that basically drives people into accepting their subservience to be trained, to be submissive, to be non-inquisitive. And again, the disease that Russell imposed from the beginning of the 20th Century, was the disease of replacing physical science with mathematics. Everything comes down to a formula; everything comes down to a probability. If it’s not highly probable, then it’s not practical, and therefore, don’t go there.

So, you’ve had an assault on education, both from the kindergarten level on up, all the way to the major universities professing to be the great halls of advanced education. You’ve had a culture that has been destructive in the most unbelievable and egregious way. And the net effect is that even compared to the early 1970s, people have lost a certain sense of fight. They’d rather watch reality television. Our leaders have accepted the idea that there are boundary conditions on what they can even dare think about.

Last week on this broadcast, we talked about former Senator Mike Gravel, who, as a lowly first-term Senator from Alaska, had the audacity to put the Pentagon Papers in the Congressional record. That act in 1971 led to the demise of President Nixon, and contributed mightily to the end of the Vietnam War. So, there are glimmers of recognition among some of our elder statesmen that things used to be different. And so, we’ve got an enormous challenge on our hands right now. Do we continue to tolerate, even knowing that the President of the United States is sitting down every Tuesday afternoon with a small group of White House advisors and basically ordering the murder of individual citizens from nations all over the world, some of them American citizens, without any kind of oversight, and without any accountability for his actions?

As Megan just said, he’s presided over an invasion of drugs, whether it’s over the counter, prescription or black-market illegal drugs; we have 94 million citizens of working age who are not working in the real economy. Clearly not every one of those people is sleeping under a bridge somewhere. How many of them are directly involved in the black market economy that’s shoving heroin at a record rate into the arms of American citizens? It’s all of a package.

And again, as I said earlier, and as Mr. LaRouche emphasized in our discussion this afternoon, Obama’s got to go, and the book of evidence is absolutely there. It’s comprehensive, it’s irrefutable. Some of the crimes that he is documented to be guilty of are crimes that go beyond simply the question of impeachment. They may wind up being the basis for criminal prosecution, because the immunity afforded to elected officials does not extend to outright criminal action.

So, we’ve got Wall Street, that’s a parasite sitting on top of and destroying the U.S. economy. There are straightforward measures that could be taken to eliminate Wall Street, starting with the idea of simply re-instating Glass-Steagall. There are many things that could be done. We could issue credit to rebuild our infrastructure. We could be adopting the model of Franklin Roosevelt from when he first came into office, setting up training programs for young people to give them the necessary skills and to also give them the sense of optimism that they’ve got a constructive role to play in society, and that they’ve got a bright future ahead of them.

All of these things could be done. They’re all right there. If you go to the LaRouche PAC website, you will see there’s a massive amount of material spelling out chapter and verse exactly what kinds of measures can and must be taken to turn this situation around. But ultimately it starts with a very subjective question: Are you prepared to fight for your own vital interests? Are you prepared to hold elected officials to a constitutional standard, and to hold them accountable if they fail to live up to it? These are the issues. These are the questions that are really right now staring us in the face, because we don’t have much time left. We don’t have a great deal of time to solve these problems, to tackle these issues, and the question is, are you prepared to give up your pragmatism, to turn off your television, and to do something constructive for your country, for your family, and for your future generations?

That’s really the issue and that’s the question that should be the burning issue on everybody’s mind at this moment.

MATT OGDEN: Now, our final question for this evening is our institutional question, which reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the Russian-operated Airbus A321M crashed last Saturday shortly after taking off from the Red Sea resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, on its way to St. Petersburg, killing all 224 people on board. There are strong but unconfirmed reports that the plane had been downed by a bomb, a claim contested by both Egypt and Russia. British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, however, said that Britain had weighed the whole information picture, including the Islamic State’s claim of responsibility after the crash, and had concluded that there is a significant possibility. If these reports are substantiated through examination of the plane wreckage, what actions do you suggest the Russian government should take against the perpetrators of this tragic crime?

STEINBERG: First of all, I think the actions taken by the British Foreign Secretary were obnoxious and egregious. The British have no role whatsoever in this investigation. If they had communications intercepts suggesting that terrorists were planning such an attack, then the obvious question is why didn’t they inform the Egyptian and Russian authorities, if they knew this was happening? The fact of the matter is that the British basically staged an ambush for Egyptian President el-Sisi, because it was upon his arrival in London for a long-scheduled state visit that Hammond made these comments, and basically announced at the same time that British Airways was suspending flights into Egypt.

So, you’ve got a British game being played here, and an Obama game, because an unnamed Obama Administration official immediately came out and told Reuters that the U.S. is in agreement with the British in terms of jumping the gun, and drawing these hasty and perhaps completely false conclusions.

Now, what Mr. LaRouche said is, first of all, you’ve got to let the Russians conduct the investigation. The Russians are perfectly capable of conducting a thorough and honest and comprehensive forensic investigation to determine what happened. And because of the nature of the area where the crash occurred, namely, in the Sinai desert, all of the remains of the plane have been recovered. The black boxes have been recovered, with a little bit of damage to one of them. All of the bodies by and large have been recovered. And therefore, because you’re dealing with people who have competence, and who have a vested interest in finding out what really happened, Mr. LaRouche emphasized, let the Russians do their job. Don’t jam them. Don’t try to speed it up. Patiently wait for the investigation to be concluded.

And I should say that the head of the Russian FSB, their intelligence service, Alexander Bortnikov, issued a statement today. I’ll just read it—it’s brief—but it goes very much to the point that Mr. LaRouche just made. Bortnikov said, and it was publicized on Channel 1 TV in Russia today:

“We need to obtain absolutely objective and verified data on the reasons for the crash of the plane. This is necessary for purposes of investigating the cause of this disaster, and for informing the public. This work must be done in the most meticulous fashion, taking as much time as may be required, and I want to state that until we determine the actual causes of what happened, I think it is appropriate to halt Russian civil aviation flights to Egypt. This chiefly involves tourism. At the same time, we find it necessary to cooperate actively with the Egyptian authorities in joint work on the investigation of the causes of this disaster. Now, Russia 1 then quoted the official spokesman for President Putin, Mr. Peskov, who said the President concurred with Bortnikov’s recommendations; and he added “Halting the flights does not yet mean that the version that it was an act of terrorism is being viewed as the main one in the investigation of this air disaster. Experts continue to exclude nothing, including the possibility of a bomb explosion onboard the plane.” So, this is the beginnings of an investigation into a serious tragedy; 224 people were killed in it. And it’s not known yet; we don’t have the results of that forensic investigation.

Now as the question of what the Russians should do, I think the answer is, pretty obviously, that they’re already doing it. The Russians, as of September 30, are carrying out a systematic, targeted campaign against the terrorist networks that are operating inside Syria. They are, at the same time, aggressively pursuing a diplomatic track to try to bring an end to this 5-year horror inside Syria; and that will obviously have major implications for the situation next door in Iraq, in Lebanon, in other parts of the entire Middle East region. So, in effect, Putin already made a command decision and launched the flanking operation against the Islamic State and allied jihadist groups and their sponsors in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. So, it would be a mistake to veer off what is already an extremely effective and ongoing flanking operation. If it turns out — and again, it’s premature to make any judgement on this — but if does turn out that the Islamic State or some affiliate or spin-off was involved in planting a bomb on that plane, then that’s another story; and you’ve got to carry it several steps further. What was the infrastructure through which that operation was conducted, if it proves to have been a bomb rather than a mechanical failure? Now, if you’re talking about the Islamic State, if you’re talking about Nusra, if you’re talking about al-Qaeda, then ultimately, face it; you’re talking about operations that were allowed to grow and allowed to fester as a result of the policies of the Bush and now Obama Presidencies, and the Blair and Cameron governments in Britain.

So, ultimately, all roads lead back to what we’ve been discussing throughout the entire evening broadcast tonight; namely, as the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency [dia], General Mike Flynn, told al-Jazeera, and has subsequently repeated in interviews with American and Russian media; the President, the administration were warned that the actions that the US was taking in places like Benghazi, was fueling the growth of jihadist organizations. And it was not an oversight, or that the warnings were ignored, as General Flynn said, it was in pursuit of the ongoing current policy that they made a willful decision to keep doing what they were doing, having been fully informed that this was fueling the growth of not just al-Qaeda. But back in 2012, DIA was already looking at the prospects of the creation of a jihadist caliphate in the area on the territory of parts of Iraq and Syria.

So, in other words, the head of the DIA has said openly and publicly President Obama willfully pursued a policy that created ISIS. So, let me ask you, if — and we’re not there yet by any means — but if it turns out that this was a bomb; if it turns out that the Islamic State was involved in it, then let’s go higher up the political and logistical chain of command. Are we not talking about the consequences of Bush and Obama administration policies and certainly the policies of the parallel British government? So, that’s another dimension of what I want you to think about this evening. And I hope that you’ve been disturbed enough by what we’ve discussed tonight that you’ll lose a bit of sleep and think about what’s required to end the tyranny of pragmatism. To end the tyranny of basically “go along to get along”; and what it will take to actually solve these crises before they bring the entire trans-Atlantic region down, or may ultimately lead to thermonuclear annihilation.

OGDEN: So, as I said at the outset of this broadcast, the evidence has continued to accumulate. The case against Obama has now begun to snowball; the avalanche is ready to begin. It is now incumbent on those who are in responsible positions of leadership to take the legal and Constitutional actions which must be taken to protect the American people and to protect the people of the entire world from the deadly consequences of the continuation of the policies of the Obama Presidency.

So with that said, we want to thank you for joining us here tonight. Please, stay tuned to larouchepac.com, and please circulate this video and the discussion that Mr. LaRouche continues to have with activists in Manhattan and with people across the entire nation in his weekly Fireside Chats, as widely as you possibly can.

Thank you for joining us, and good night.

 




Leder, 27. oktober 2015:
Ruslands og Kinas verdenslederskab er
afgørende nu, hvor Det britiske Imperium
står for fald

En nyligt deklassificeret rapport fra 1990, der blev udfærdiget af Præsidentens Efterretnings-Råd (eng.: PFIAB) viste, at truslen om en atomkrig i 1983, ud fra et sovjetisk perspektiv, var blevet drastisk undervurderet af den amerikanske efterretningstjeneste, hvilket skabte en meget reel fare for atomkrig på daværende tidspunkt. Lyndon LaRouche henviste til denne rapport som værende en afgørende markør for det amerikanske lederskabs forfald efter dette tidspunkt, baseret på LaRouches eget kendskab til den situation, som rapporten omhandler – selv om der ikke blev henvist til disse kendsgerninger i selve PFIAB-rapporten.

Kendsgerningen er, at daværende præsident Ronald Reagan den 23. marts 1983 havde vedtaget det forslag, som LaRouche havde udarbejdet, om et fælles udviklingsprojekt mellem USA og Sovjetunionen om at bygge et rumbaseret, anti-missilsystem, baseret på nye, videnskabelige principper (partikelstråle- og laserstrålesystemer), som ville have gjort en ende på den ekstreme fare, der hidrørte fra politikken med »Gensidigt Garanteret Ødelæggelse« (Mutually Assured Destruction, MAD), en politik, der er baseret på at fastholde verden opdelt i Øst og Vest, og hvor begge sider retter massive arsenaler af atomvåben, der kan udløses ved mindste varsel, mod hinanden.

Mordforsøget på Ronald Reagan, der blev udført af en bekendt af Bush-familien kort tid efter Reagans indsættelse, havde nær afsluttet dette historiske samarbejde mellem Reagan og LaRouche, men Reagan overlevede og annoncerede programmet under navnet Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ). Men britiske interesser i både USSR og USA saboterede indsatsen – en proces, der reflekteres i PFIAB’s indrømmelse af efterretningsfiaskoen fra 1983 vedr. truslen om atomkrig.

Siden denne sabotage af SDI og Reagans erstatning med den forræderiske Bush-familie i tre embedsperioder og Obama i to perioder, har der i USA været et udtalt forfald ned i økonomisk og strategisk vanvid, der har muliggjort Wall Streets og City of Londons bankinteressers dominans over regeringen, og som har lanceret den ene krig efter den anden i kolonialistisk stil over hele planeten og drevet den vestlige verden ud i kaos, som det nu reflekteres i flygtningekatastrofen i Sydvestasien og Europa.

SE »den fulde historie om SDI« 

Med skabelsen af BRIKS og dettes nye finansinstitutioner, der er helliget international infrastrukturudvikling, samt præsident Putins fremragende flankeoperation i Syrien, er verden nu i en position, hvor Det britiske Imperium langt om længe kan blive stedt til hvile. Obama, og Hillary Clinton (der underkastede sig Obamas ondskab), er blevet afsløret som støtter af terrorisme med det formål at opnå »regimeskift« over for nationer, der nægter at underkaste sig, og som beskyttere af de morderiske finansfyrster på Wall Street ved at afvise den nødvendige genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, der skal underkaste Wall Street en konkursbehandling.

De interventioner, som talsfolk fra LaRouchePAC i løbet af de seneste uger på Manhattan og andre steder i hele USA har gennemført, har fået repræsentanter fra Imperiet til at søge dækning med den voksende bevidsthed om sandheden af deres forbrydelser, der er blevet offentligt udtalt og har ødelagt deres evne til at hjernevaske og tvinge godtroende amerikanere. Tiden er inde til at lukke Wall Street ned, fjerne Obama og til, at solen endeligt må gå ned over Det britiske Imperium.

Se: En kort gennemgang af historien om LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, fra LPAC (Jeff Steinberg)

 

 

 

 




LPAC Fredags-webcast 23. oktober 2015: Benghazi-høring med Hillary Clinton.
Implikationernene af ‘Dronepapirerne’. v/Jeffrey Steinberg m.fl.

Jeffrey Steinberg og Matthew Ogden gennemgår intrigerne bag torsdagens Benghazi-høring med Hillary Clinton og den fortsatte uenighed og implikationerne af offentliggørelsen af Intercepts »Dronepapirer«. … American Civil Liberty Union har krævet officielle Kongresundersøgelser, især af de utallige civile, der er blevet dræbt som en del af dette program – dette målrettede dræberprogram – der alle er klassificeret under fjendtlig kæmperstatus til trods for det faktum, at der ikke engang er nogen, der kender identiteten af det store flertal af disse mennesker, der blev dræbt.   

Jeffrey Steinberg and Matthew Ogden reviewed the machinations behind Thursday’s Benghazi hearing with Hillary Clinton and the continued fall out and implications of the publication of the Intercept’s “The Drone Papers.”

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 23, 2015. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to welcome you to our weekly broadcast here of the LaRouche PAC Friday night webcast. I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from Executive Intelligence Review, and we’re here to deliver the message that Mr. LaRouche had to deliver when we met with him earlier this morning; only a matter of hours ago. Now, last week, for those of you who watched this broadcast, we discussed in depth the content of the so-called “Drone Papers,” which were published by Glenn Greenwald’s publication, The Intercept, along with Jeremy Scahill last week. And based on documents that were leaked or were provided to The Intercept by a whistleblower, a second Edward Snowden, from within the drone program itself. The content of those papers is horrifying, to say the least; but the implications of the release of the Drone Papers are continuing to resonate. And the effect is continuing to grow; especially as pertains to Barack Obama, who has presided over this policy during the extent of his entire Presidency. The ACLU has called for official Congressional investigations, especially into the innumerable number of civilians that have been killed as a part of this program — this targeted killing program — who are all classified under enemy combatant status, despite the fact nobody even knows the identities of the vast majority of these people who were killed. And there’s also a press release that has been published and released by former Senator Mike Gravel and also former Democratic Presidential candidate from the 2008 Presidential primaries. This press release was published on the LaRouche PAC website, as well as Executive Intelligence Review, and is available. And again, Senator Gravel takes this directly to the point; that this is the murderous policy of the current President, President Barack Obama.

Now, this is what the subject of our institutional question is for this week; and we’re going to begin by reading the text of that question, and then I’m going to ask Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, plus a little bit more additional background. So, the question reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, some officials within the Obama administration believe that the drone program is key to fighting the war against global terrorism. Others believe that the program is a clear violation of the US Constitution, and of international law. Please give us your assessment of the legal issues involved in the drone issue.”

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. As Matt said, we had a very extensive discussion with both Lyndon and Helga LaRouche earlier today; and I’ll get into some of the more legal issues that are on the table here, but I first want to just read you some things that are not quite verbatim quotes, but very clearly reflect the major thrust of Mr. LaRouche’s response to this question.

First, he said, were it not for the recent actions of Russian President Vladimir Putin, humanity as a whole may already have been lost. And this is clearly reflected in the British and Obama policies that came very close to triggering global conflagration, whether over the Ukraine situation or Syria. On the specific issues of the drone policy, what Mr. LaRouche said is if Obama is allowed to run loose, even on a reduced basis, it poses a grave danger to mankind. He gets by with murder; he’s a satanic figure, and he’s already been allowed to complete two terms in office. And furthermore, he is still killing people. The United States, under first Bush and now Obama, has become an unsafe nation with no competent leadership. Obama must be kicked out of office quickly, and Wall Street has to be shut down. If Wall Street is shut down, we can save the USA; but so long as Wall Street maintains its grip over the US economy, we’re doomed.

And Mr. LaRouche made direct reference to the personal aspects of President Obama, which he’s been identifying and actively discussing since the very early months of the Obama Presidency; precisely since April 11, 2009, when he delivered an international webcast and warned that the President had the personality of Emperor Nero. Someone, who had a severe narcissist disorder, and that this would pose a grave danger to the country and the world, if it went unchecked. Now, I think we briefly discussed last week, the fact that we know that one of the defining influences on President Obama during his early formative years when he was a preteen, was his stepfather in Indonesia; who himself was a real killer. He was brought back from graduate studies in Hawaii to participate in the Suharto coup and the mass bloodletting that followed. And there was household brutality, both directed against Obama’s mother and against young Barack Obama personally. These things have deep and enduring, scarring impact; and so much of the personality of the stepfather rubbed off on Obama. And we’re seeing the consequences of that in this drone policy.

I call all of your attention to the fact that in 2012, two reporters — I believe from Time magazine — published a book-length account of the 2012 Presidential elections. The book was published in 2013. And what they recounted was a conversation that President Obama had with some senior White House aides; it was after one particular incident in his long line of drone killings, where Anwar al-Awlaki — a US citizen — was killed in Yemen in a drone strike. Now, one could debate al-Awlaki’s role as a figure within al-Qaeda, and there are many things that could be said, but are not relevant to the topic here. The point is that an American citizen, by order of President Obama, was murdered in cold blood by a drone attack signed off on by the President; but as an American citizen, al-Awlaki was deprived of any due process. Now, mass murderers are subject to due process, to fair trials; but in this case, because he was on Obama’s kill list, despite the fact that he was an American citizen, he was murdered. Several weeks later, his 16-year old son was murdered, along with yet another American citizen, in drone attacks in Yemen. And, while the administration claimed that the murder of the son was not intended, but was a consequence of targeting others, it remains the fact that at least three now — I’m sure many more — American citizens have been murdered overseas by President Obama.

So, in this incident that’s recounted in the book by these two Time magazine reporters, Obama is quoted telling one of his close aides — boasting in fact — that it “Turns out I’m really a quite good, effective, killer. I never thought that I was going to emerge as a great killer, but here I am.” In the ensuing two years since the book was published, to my knowledge there have been no attempts by the White House to deny the accuracy of those quotes. They’ve attempted to explain it away, and complain instead about the fact that there are too many leaks coming out of the inner circle, but nobody has outright said that that was not Obama’s statement, those were not his words. So, you’re dealing with somebody, who clearly has the pathology of a killer.

Now, a week and a half ago, the German Bundestag, soon after the release of the “Drone Papers,” held hearings in which they brought two American former drone pilots to testify, and those hearings were serious and substantial. And, yet, here we are, two weeks after the release of the “Drone Papers,” and there’s not been a public hearing; there has not been a word to speak of, from any members of Congress. We know that there’s pressure from ourselves, from groups like the ACLU, for some kind of congressional hearings, but the fact of the matter is, that the dis-functionality of the two political parties, and the dis-functionality of Congress as the result of that, has meant that President Obama has literally been able to get away with murder, and continues to do so, right up to this moment.

So, the fact of the matter is, that the drone program, as we’ve now been given a very in-depth window into it, through the House Intelligence Committee’s review of the Executive Branch procedures — of the various Obama guidelines on how to manage the drone program — we know that none of these things have actually worked; that this is a reckless, “Murder, Inc.” operation, that violates a 1975 ban, signed by President Gerald Ford, against assassination. And the fact that these assassinations are simply referred to as “targeted killings,” does nothing to mitigate the fact that President Obama has been guilty of mass-murder. And there’s an entire structure of government that is complicit in that process. And the guilt spreads beyond the U.S. borders, and becomes clearly another clear bit of evidence that President Obama has been, from the very outset and remains to this moment, a British agent. Mr. LaRouche pointed to the specific role of Valerie Jarrett as one of the key British agents within the Obama inner circle. But let’s look a bit further at the testimony that was delivered before the German Bundestag. What one of the two drone pilots testified, was that there’s an entire international network that has all been involved in working up the targeting information, and feeding in key data to facilitate the mass-murder operations that are carried out under this drone program. In particular, there is a working intelligence-sharing alliance, known as “Five Eyes.” These are the national intelligence services, the technical intelligence services, of the United States — in this case, the National Security Agency — the services of Canada, Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. In other words, four countries: Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which are not just simply members of the British Commonwealth, but are countries where Queen Elizabeth II is the Sovereign; where in each case, those countries are run by a privy council that is appointed by, and reports directly back to the British Monarchy, in this case Queen Elizabeth.

So, you have the United States and the British Monarchy participating as a single, seamless entity, in gathering the targeting data that has been used in this mass drone killing program which began right at the very outset of the Obama Presidency.

And, again, what we heard in the Bundestag testimony, and we’re yet to see a moment of congressional hearings on this, up to this moment, is that those five agencies, with other assistance — the German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) was involved in this program as well. They’ve developed the technique to use the GPS functions on cell phones to track down the exact locations of where a particular cell phone is, at any given moment, and in fact, the drone kill program targets cell phones, which have been “associated” with people on the kill list. But the ability to verify that the person holding that cell phone, at the moment, that the drone strike takes place, is the actual target, is something that doesn’t function. There’s very little evidence that there has been much consideration about whether or not they’re even going after the right targets.

So, in effect, we’re dealing with an even more out-of-control drone program, where all of the guidelines that were established by President Obama and the administration, at the very beginning, for how to conduct the drone warfare, fully implemented, it would not make any difference, from the standpoint that these are war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and represent instances of mass murder. The fact of the matter is, that even those limited guidelines — for example, if an individual can be captured and interrogated, rather than killed, that’s preferable — well, throw that out the window right away. There’s never been any effort, once you’re on the kill list, you are a target, and, within a 60-day period, if feasible, you will be gone after, and you will be dead, or perhaps someone else at that moment carrying your cell phone, will be dead.

So, the program is absolutely unconstitutional, is a clear violation of the UN Charter, and is not only illegal and should be the basis for President Obama’s immediate removal from office, but let’s go one step further. There should be no presidential immunity from criminal prosecution, whether in U.S. Federal Court, or in The Hague, for these heinous crimes. Now, the bankruptcy of the U.S. governing institutions, the failure of Congress to instantly take up this issue, the failure of the federal courts to act against this drone program in a decisive way, has meant that the prospect of justice under this situation right now in the United States, is gravely impeded.

So, what do we find out? In Germany, Somali family members and Yemeni family members of individuals killed in the drone warfare have filed lawsuits against both the German and American governments. There’s no attempt to get at justice in the U.S. court system, because of how badly the whole structure’s been corrupted since George W. Bush, and even more so under Obama. So, the situation is that families seeking justice are going to the federal courts in Germany, in Cologne, and are filing against the German and U.S. governments. The German government is clearly complicit in this. The Ramstein Air Force base is one of the major hubs of the U.S. drone operations, and it’s being done with the complicity and cooperation of the German government.

How far does it go? When we looked at the Bush administration’s illegal renditions and torture program, it took a long time to get to the bottom of it, and find out how many countries were complicit and were cooperating in this crime against humanity and war crime. So we’re dealing here with a matter of a bankruptcy and a failure of institutions to live up to their Constitutional responsibilities. And that’s where you, the American people, have an enormous amount of responsibility. The evidence against President Obama and the chain of command that he sits on top of in this drone mass-murder program is cut and dry. It’s been known for a long time, but now with the release of this hundred-plus page House Intelligence Committee review of the program, which contains previously-unpublicized details, the book of evidence is there. This President should be immediately removed from office. The crimes that are evidenced in this documentation alone go vastly beyond the crimes of Richard Nixon, that resulted in his forced resignation. Nixon was facing impeachment, was facing the activation of the 25th Amendment at the time that he wisely decided to resign. We’re in a situation, that is far more advanced and far more grave now, than we faced under Nixon back in the early 1970s. So it’s up to you to make sure that our institutions of government begin to function, and if we can achieve that, then this President will be removed from office, and the dangers associated with his continuing on the job, including the danger of thermonuclear war, will at last be removed.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. Let me just follow up what we’ve begun to discuss here. As I’m sure most of you are aware of, the hearing of the Benghazi Select Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives took place yesterday, at which Hillary Clinton was called as a witness. This has certainly been a central focus of attention for a number of months now, leading up into this hearing. However, after literally hours upon hours of questioning of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hardly any of the Congressmen, in either party, managed to get at the true issues. There were significant questions that were raised, certainly. However, even those who did raise those questions, for the most part failed to pursue their lines of questioning to the necessary and actually relevant conclusions.

First of all, why does Hillary Clinton continue to insist on covering up for Obama’s role in directly ordering her, on the night of the Benghazi attacks, to lie about the events that occurred that night — even though it’s been proven multiple times that she knew exactly what was really going on, that there was clearly, this was clearly a pre-meditated attack against a U.S. Government compound on the anniversary of September 11th, carried out by jihadist militants, as opposed to the made-up story that was then echoed several days later by Susan Rice, of a spontaneous demonstration in response to a video denigrating the Prophet Mohammed. Why does Hillary continue to cover up for the fact that Obama directly ordered her to lie?

And secondly and maybe even more significantly in a broad sense, where did the policy that led to the events that night in Benghazi even come from? As former Chairman of the House Permanent — or the House Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Peter Hoekstra, identifies correctly, in a book which he just released earlier this month, titled Architects of Disaster — The Destruction of Libya, the entire thing ultimately is Obama’s fault, in the continuing takeover of Libya, Iraq, and now parts of Syria, by these terrorist groups — ISIS and related — including those who attacked the compound that night in Benghazi, September 11, 2012, this is all a direct consequence of the decision that was made by Obama to invade Libya, to overthrow a sitting sovereign government, and to kill former President Muammar Qaddafi in cold blood. And, as Congressman Hoekstra makes the point, Qaddafi was our ally in the war on radical jihadist terrorism — very reminiscent of the policy now being carried out by Obama against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, today, exactly the same scenario. Makes you wonder where Obama’s true allegiances lie.

Now, as I said, the majority of the members of Congress who had the opportunity to question Hillary Clinton during the Benghazi hearing yesterday completely failed to address these two crucial points. But, virtually simultaneously with the hearing taking place on Capitol Hill yesterday, in Russia, in Sochi, Russian President Vladimir Putin was addressing a gathering of the Valdai international discussion club in Sochi, and he did address precisely these issues, in very direct terms, denouncing Obama’s policy in Libya and in Syria, of supporting and arming the very terrorists that we’re supposed to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow yet another sitting president, the government of Assad. And in addition, President Putin addressed the even broader question of the generally imperialistic outlook now being typified by Barack Obama, which is leading mankind right now to the very real danger of total self-destruction through global nuclear war.

What Putin started his speech by focusing on, was the question of the history of the fundamental notions of war and peace themselves. He said it’s a proper subject for a Russian president to address, since Leo Tolstoy wrote a book called War and Peace. But he said that for centuries, the concept of peace had been based on the notion of the balance of power, for better or for worse. But now, in a world of nuclear arms, and thermonuclear arms, he said, the traditional ideas of peace from this standpoint can no longer function. We need a new concept, a new paradigm, a post-war, at least, vision. He said any major war today would not bring victory to either party, but would only end in the guarantee of mutual total destruction. The only thing that’s protected humanity from this terrible fate, he said, over the last 70 years, are the principles of international law that were established under the framework of the United Nations following the Second World War, as well as the general sobriety and self-control of those leaders who have found themselves operating on a global stage, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis with President John F. Kennedy. However, he said, now we’ve reached a point where some powers are pursuing a model of unilateral domination of the planet, and the danger that a military situation may get out of control, and just such a mutually-destructive nuclear war be unleashed, has now become all too real. And the emergence of the doctrine of what he called the disarming first strike — be it nuclear or even non-nuclear — has further skewed this postwar balance of power and the system of international law, which has protected mankind since the end of World War II, and has further increased the possibility of the outbreak of a devastating global conflict. And he said, there are those who possess the illusion that there exists the possibility of victory in such a world conflict, without the irreversible, unacceptable consequences that would follow such a nuclear war. So for this reason, he said, you’ve seen a general weakening of the underlying psychological aversion to the idea of war itself, which has gripped previous generations; and the very perception of war has been changed, turned into an almost media entertainment. As if, he said, nobody actually dies in a conflict; as if people do not suffer and cities and entire states are not destroyed. But this is the reality of war.

It’s very significant, as I think Mr. LaRouche has pointed out previously, for President Putin, whose family died and suffered in the siege of Leningrad, the realities of what war means are much more real than what are generally held by those such as the American generation of an Obama or some sort. But I just want to read one quote from what President Putin had to say, just to bring this to the point of what necessarily needs to be addressed when we look at the background of what has brought us to this point. This is a quote; he said, “Why is it that the efforts of say our American partners and their allies in their struggle against the so-called ‘Islamic State’, has not produced any tangible results? Obviously, it’s not for lack of military equipment or capability. It goes without saying that the United States has a huge potential; the biggest military potential in the world. However, it is impossible to play a double game; to declare war on terrorists, and simultaneously try to use some of those same terrorists to arrange the pieces on the chessboard in the Middle East according to what you perceive as your own interests. It is impossible,” he said, “to combat terrorism in general, if some terrorists are used as a battering ram to overthrow the regimes, that are not to one’s liking. You cannot get rid of those terrorists. It is only an illusion that you can come in and get rid of them later; clean up the mess. To take the power away from them, or reach some sort of negotiated agreement with them. And the situation in Libya,” he said, “is the best example of this.”

So, as I said, this really goes directly to the point here. If you’re serious about fighting to eliminate the danger of global terrorism, then perhaps you should stop arming and supporting the very same terrorists who you claim to be fighting against in the interest of using them to overthrow sovereign governments that are not to your liking. And to me this seems to be a somewhat more reasonable approach than running a drone program that ends up just killing a majority of innocent civilians; or perhaps releasing the 28 pages, documenting the role of the Saudis in supporting the 9/11 hijackers would be a good place to start as well.

But while Putin has made it clear that Obama’s policies in Libya were not exactly what they expected when they supported the UN resolution, this disastrous consequence that has taken place as a result of that invasion and that regime-change operation, is definitely not a mistake that Putin is going to let happen again in the case of Syria. And thus, we see the crucial and decisive actions that have been taken in the recent weeks in what’s being characterized by some as President Putin’s third Chechen war; because of the extent of the overlap and the interconnection between those whom Putin successfully fought against in Chechnya in 1999, and those who he is now fighting in Syria today, among the Islamic State and otherwise.

So, Jeff, I know that Mr. LaRouche has put significant emphasis on the importance of this historical view of the current situation during our discussion with him earlier today. And this is the type of background which he — Mr. LaRouche — has a very unique view of, due to his experience and his personal role that he played as a central figure that he played throughout much of this history. So, while many people have a tendency, including in the US Congress itself, to exhibit a very short-sighted and shallow insight into these types of questions — including even the questions concerning the current Benghazi investigation — maybe you could give a little bit of a deeper background and insight into what the true questions are that are at hand; along the lines of what President Putin was indicating in his speech.

STEINBERG: You’ve got to start from the standpoint of understanding the British factor, the British problem, and how that has impacted on the sweep of recent history. And it requires getting away from the idea that history is a string of successive events; these are processes, these are dynamics, and there are certain cardinal events that fundamentally alter the direction of history. And these are the things that people really have to grapple with to be able to really sort out and made sense of the deep, profound crisis that we’re going through right now. I think you’ve got to start from the fact — and this was a major subject of our discussion with Lyn and Helga LaRouche earlier today. You’ve got to start with at least a modicum of a sweep of recent history.

The fact is, that the last time that we had a viable and effective Presidency was with Ronald Reagan. And there were many caveats that have to be identified in terms of the Reagan Presidency. There was intention on the part of Reagan and on the part of an inner circle of close advisors and collaborators going into the 1980 Presidency — the elections and then Reagan’s inauguration in January 1981 — to fundamentally change the direction of US policy. We had been through a turbulent period of the 1970s; the watergating of Nixon, the end of Vietnam, the emergence of a Trilateral Commission government that brought us to the brink of nuclear war in the 1970s. The policy of that government and of the Council on Foreign Relations to being a process of controlled disintegration of the U.S. and world economy.

All of these had already taken place; and this was the backdrop to the beginning of a critical collaboration between Mr. LaRouche and President Reagan. There was a convergence of thinking and commitment to restore the American tradition; and to do it by presenting Presidential leadership. And it was in that context that on a number of leading issues, the leading one in particular being the LaRouche-Reagan collaboration on what came to be known as the Strategic Defense Initiative [sdi]. That was a shaping directionality for a sweeping change in the US Presidency and particularly in the major US global relations. There was a very real prospect with the LaRouche-Reagan-Edward Teller and other collaboration around the idea of a joint Strategic Defense Initiative between the United States and the Soviet Union, with allied countries from both blocs involved, to bring an end to the threat of thermonuclear war. Reagan doggedly pursued that, even in spite of the fact that within his first 100 days in office, there was a serious assassination attempt against him. And of course, many of you may recall that that assassin, John Hinckley, came from a family that was intimately associated with the Bush family. So, right from the outset, within that first 100 days, Ronald Reagan was gravely wounded; he survived and, in fact, did continue in the Presidency. And the high water mark of that was the SDI policy. Reagan had also intended to make a dramatic break with Wall Street that was symbolized by the fact that he and some of his Kitchen Cabinet advisors were in depth involved in discussion with Mr. LaRouche over firing Paul Volcker and fundamentally changing the whole nature of the Federal Reserve System. And this became an issue that was a matter of outright warfare between Wall Street and London on the one side, and the Reagan inner circle on the other. The Reagan assassination attempt greatly weakened the Reagan Presidency and paved the way for George HW Bush to emerge as more and more of a dominant figure in the Reagan Presidency. They were never able to dissuade Reagan from pursuing the Strategic Defense Initiative that he had worked out with LaRouche; but nevertheless, Reagan was weakened, and many things that were promised at the outset of the Reagan Presidency were never able to materialize because of British interference. And that included the fact that British agent Yuri Andropov came into power in the Soviet Union and put the kibosh on the SDI collaboration. The entire effort against Wall Street and against the policies of the Fed, were basically shut down at the point that Reagan was shot, and had to go through a prolonged period of recuperation. So, you had a real Presidency with Reagan, despite the Bush factor, and despite the consequences of the assassination attempt. And there was a period of four years or so where on a number of policy issues, there was a Reagan-LaRouche cooperation; many of the details of which are frankly yet to come out in public.

We had the Bush 41 Presidency that was a disaster. LaRouche was railroaded into Federal prison; and for all practical purposes was expected to die in Federal prison. And that would have very likely happened had Bush been elected to a second term in office. What happened, however, was that Bush was defeated for re-election; and Bill Clinton came in. And there was a level of collaboration once again with the Presidency; there was potential with the Clinton Presidency to revive some of the core ideas that had been running through the Reagan Presidency, and reflected back earlier on the successful Presidencies of John Kennedy and before that, obviously, Franklin Roosevelt. But, Clinton ran up against a buzz saw. The British launched literally warfare against the Clinton Presidency; they manipulated the First Lady to be a factor that further disrupted. You had the factor of Al Gore as Vice President; which was as bad a choice as George Herbert Walker Bush was for Ronald Reagan. So, in effect, the Clinton Presidency never lived fully up to its potential; and towards its concluding year, at the point that Clinton was about to make a significant move against the preponderant system of London offshore global finance, he was gone after. He was set up; his Presidency was destroyed. He went through House impeachment, and at the end of the day, Clinton made the gravest mistake of his political career, by signing the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall.

Now, what’s happened since that point, with the George W Bush Presidency for eight years, and then now with the Obama Presidency already for seven years, is that the British have been in the driver’s seat in the White House throughout that 15-year period. And so, what President Putin identified correctly in his Valdai speech, needs to be fleshed out much further. It’s got to be understood that there has been effectively a British-Wall Street takeover of the Executive branch of the US government. It’s come to be completely dominant over the Republican Party and over the Obama wing of the Democratic Party.

So, if you step back and realize that the entire history of the United States has been a struggle against the British Empire, then you get an idea from a much deeper historical appreciation of how this process, how this dynamic has played out and brought us to the point that we’ve reached right now. Now, there are other examples that come up throughout history; even the history of the shaping events that established the American republic, its character, and the war against the British. At the very beginning of the 18th Century, you had a giant of a figure; one of the key figures who revived the entire Renaissance tradition in Europe, namely Gottfried von Leibniz. Leibniz was a key player in European political affairs. His interests extended to an extensive understanding and appreciation of China and of the commonalities between Confucianism and Western Christianity. He was moving to establish control over Britain to dismantle the empire system that was beginning to come into existence at that time. And it was with the death of Leibniz — and there were people waiting breathlessly to confirm that indeed he was dead. But with his confirmed death about 20 years into the 18th Century, that’s when the British Empire took off. Leibniz had been instrumental as an adviser in the British court, to establishing some of the key players who shaped and framed the United States; some of the leading governors who were sent over as Royal Governors from England during the period of Leibniz’s influence in London. You had Spotswood in Virginia; you had Hunter in New York. These were leading international republican figures, who were part of the Leibniz networks. Franklin was a student of Leibniz’s writings, and traveled to Europe in the 1750s to obtain access to some otherwise difficult to obtain writings of Leibniz. But Leibniz’s death was one of those cardinal moments in history that framed events that moved forward from there; just as there was a concerted move coming from the worst elements of the European oligarchy to crush the influence of the Golden Renaissance.

So, these kinds of critical historical events, which are really reflective of long-term processes, are the big challenge to be understood. If you’re going to shape history and define a viable future for mankind, then it’s very helpful to know from an historical standpoint, who are your friends and who are your enemies. In January of 1981, in fact on the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, Executive Intelligence Review, Mr. LaRouche’s flagship publication, issued a warning forecasting that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan within his first 100 days in office. This was not based on some kind of footprints of would-be assassins; but it was based on an understanding that the Reagan election represented a potential break from British control over the US Presidency that had been a dominant factor since the assassination of John F Kennedy.

We knew that at critical moments, the British have assassinated American Presidents in order to prevent break-out of the United States as a proper republican leader of the world. You had it take place early on, not with a President, but with a giant of the American Constitutional republic, Alexander Hamilton; who was assassinated by an undisputed British agent, Aaron Burr. You had the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which doesn’t even need any further elaboration; it was a British assassination carried out by Confederate networks, but operating out of British intelligence centers, including Montreal, Canada. You had the assassination of President McKinley, who was reviving the Lincoln-Hamilton tradition at a critical moment; and was pushing back against British imperial operations. His assassination brought Teddy Roosevelt, the favorite nephew of one of the heads of the Confederate Secret Service — headquartered in London — into the Presidency. You had the assassination of Kennedy; a British assassination, for again, reasons that are too obvious to have to deal with in any detailed explanation here.

So, it was on the basis of that knowledge and understanding of the sweep of the US fight against the British Empire forces in the world, that drove us to issue a warning that there would be an attempt to assassinate President Reagan because of what he represented as a best hope for a return of the United States to its historic mission and its historic tradition and policy. We were, unfortunately, correct. It was about the 90th day of the Reagan Presidency that John Hinckley carried out the assassination attempt; and while Reagan survived it, it weakened the potentiality of the Reagan Presidency.

So, you’ve got to look at those kinds of historical processes and dynamics, and think through how these events play out. If you want to understand Benghazi, you can’t start on September 11th of 2012; you’ve got to go back to the fact that a British policy that was coordinated with rotten elements in France — the same elements that were directly involved in the attempts to assassinate President Charles de Gaulle a decade or two earlier — those elements, along with Obama. British directly, Anglo-French forces and Obama, decided to bring down Qaddafi and to unleash absolute Hell throughout North Africa and into the Middle East. Where were the weapons that fueled the Islamic State and the Nusra and other insurgencies in Syria coming from? They were coming from Benghazi; they were coming from the Libya that became an absolute Hell on Earth. An absolutely ungovernable area, because the British — with their French and Obama underlings — got rid of Qaddafi to unleash this process. To unleash a state of permanent warfare across the entire North African and Middle East and really the entire Islamic world.

So, if you don’t understand that British factor, it’s very difficult to understand why we are in the crisis that we’re in. If you understand that dynamic, and you understand that Obama — like Bush before him — was effectively a British agent; then you understand why it is an imperative that Obama is removed from office, and that the other major center of British influence in the United States — namely Wall Street, which is completely, irreversibly, unrepentantly bankrupt, has to be shut down. And that this is an urgent matter of life and death for the survival of our nation and for the world as a whole.

Putin understands the broad dynamics; he’s got to even further understand the real nature of the enemy. The enemy resides principally in London; and it’s the London controls and strings that are pulled in Washington, that are the major problem here in the United States. As LaRouche said in our discussion earlier, get rid of Wall Street; remove Obama from office. And that eliminates much of the British influence, the destructive influence, over the United States. Then we’ve got a shot at rebuilding the world and forging the kinds of alliances that are waiting for us: the BRICS alliance; the collaboration with Russia on bringing an end to this bloodshed and horror show throughout the Middle East and North Africa. The opportunities are all there, but step one is Obama must be removed. And now the book of evidence is there; it’s irrefutable, and Congress has to act. And secondly, Wall Street has to be shut down, cold; no compensation. Wall Street goes down; we put back Glass-Steagall, and learn the playbook of Franklin Roosevelt on how to rebuild an economy. If we can do those things, we’re in fine shape; the world is in fine shape. But if those actions aren’t taken right now, then we’re all in grave danger.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. And what I want to do to conclude tonight’s broadcast with, is to read something which I think sums up in very cogent terms what Jeff just concluded with. And this is the Presidential policy statement from Lyndon LaRouche that was issued on this website earlier this week. And what Mr. LaRouche says in this, which he issued following the Democratic debate, what he calls “A Brief Statement on the Nature of Our Current National Crisis; and the Proper Framework for Approaching This Vital Presidential Election” is the following; and I’m just going to read it verbatim, from the beginning of where he makes the points about what actions must be taken. He says:

“First, the defining issue for today is the fact that Wall Street is hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt, and there can be no serious improvement in the conditions of life for the vast majority of Americans until Wall Street is shut down altogether. The first and most immediate remedy for the bankruptcy of Wall Street is the reinstating of Glass-Steagall.

“The simple truth is that an honest appraisal of the disastrous collapse of real productivity in the US economy is that a large and growing majority of our fellow citizens are facing job loss, starvation, collapse of genuine health care services, the destruction of the educational system and an overall disintegration of basic infrastructure. This has accelerated under the Barack Obama Presidency, but it began before that, particularly during the George W. Bush terms in office.

“Any attempt to dodge this fundamental truth during the now ongoing presidential campaigns, by appealing to ‘issues’ or populist slogans, dooms the United States to total destruction in the very short term period ahead.

“Wall Street must be shut down totally. The entire Wall Street system is bankrupt. It must be ended. Then, we must do what Franklin Roosevelt did to overcome the Great Depression. Today, we face an even greater challenge, due, in part, to the decades of collapse of the productive powers of labor in this nation. Shut down Wall Street now, reinstate Glass-Steagall as a means of reconstituting viable commercial banking, and then begin a program of Federal credit to revive the productive economy, through capital investment in infrastructure and other vital programs. We must begin to reverse the collapse of our industrial economy, and we must train a new generation of young people to develop the skills to function in a modern, technology-intensive growing economy.

“This is what the 2016 presidential candidates must address. Any attempt to divert from this essential agenda is tantamount to surrendering to Wall Street and those who would see the United States disintegrate altogether.

“A segment of the American people, horrified by the clown show of last week, is demanding nothing less. Any candidate who fails to meet this standard does not belong in the race. This is not a popularity contest or a test of who can best pander to the worst pragmatic impulses of a beaten-down and terrified public. This is an election that will determine whether or not the United States still has the moral fitness to survive.

“I hear the American people crying out for a future minus the scourge of Wall Street. They deserve nothing less.”

And with that, I would like to thank everybody for watching our broadcast here tonight, and bring a conclusion to this webcast. Thank you very much. Thank you, Jeff, for joining me in the studio. And please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

 




LPAC Fredags-webcast, 16. oktober 2015:
De lækkede ‘Dronepapirer’:
Brug chancen til at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør,
hvis vi skal redde USA.
v/Jeffrey Steinberg

Som hr. LaRouche understregede, har vi nu en chance for at katalysere et presserende nødvendigt oprør, der kommer internt fra det Demokratiske Parti og de amerikanske borgere generelt imod alt, hvad Obama og hans team står for. Det er den presserende nødvendige handling, der må udføres, hvis vi skal redde USA; og hvis vi skal opbygge et virkeligt kvalificeret præsidentskab til at erstatte Barack Obama i det Hvide Hus, som De forenede Staters præsidentskab. Engelsk udskrift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 16, 2015:

Take the Opportunity of Catalyzing an Urgently Needed Revolt

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it’s October 16, 2015. You’re watching our weekly Friday night live webcast from larouchepac.com. And we are broadcasting live tonight, at our usual time; 8pm Eastern, 5pm Pacific. And we thank you for tuning in. My name is Matthew Ogden, and I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review magazine. And the two of us had the opportunity to meet with Mr. LaRouche earlier today; and had a very important and necessary conversation that we intend to convey the essence of to you. He had a very concise message; and our aim tonight is to get that across to our viewership.

So, we’re looking at the opportunity right now, as Mr.LaRouche emphasized, of catalyzing an urgently needed revolt from within the Democratic Party and the American citizenry generally, against everything that Obama and his team stand for. And this is the urgent, necessary action that must be taken, if we are going to save the United States; and if we’re going to build a truly qualified Presidency to take the place of Barack Obama in the White House as the Presidency of this United States. Over the course of this week, the evidence against Obama has only continued to pile up. This is very clear evidence; and we intend to present this evidence in summary form to you tonight. This will include, but will be exclusively, significantly number one: The release by Glen Greenwald and by Jeremy Scahill in their publication, {The Intercept}, of what they’re calling “The Drone Papers”; a reference obviously to the famous “Pentagon Papers” of the 1970s, which incidentally were read into the Congressional Record by former Senator Mike Gravel, who has appeared on several forums with representatives of the LaRouche Movement nationally, recently. Number two, you have the continued fall-out from the savage, deadly, murderous bombing of the Doctors Without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, under the orders and the command of Barack Obama; which the MSF organization is referring to explicitly as a war crime. And number three, in this context, we have the announcement by Obama just yesterday that he is extending the US perpetual-war military deployment in Afghanistan even further. And I know that Jeff will get into all three of these points more in depth tonight.

But first, what Mr. LaRouche wanted to begin tonight’s broadcast with, is the significance of what’s being referred to as the “insurrection” that has erupted from within a certain layer of the Democratic Party leadership — the Democratic National Committee — which came to a head around this CNN debate that was held in Sin City; Las Vegas, earlier this week on Tuesday. This insurrection is being led by none other than Tulsi Gabbard, a Congresswoman from Hawaii, who is one of the five vice chairs of the Democratic National Committee [DNC]. Our viewers might recall that Tulsi Gabbard made herself an outright, outspoken enemy of the Obama White House about two weeks ago, by very prominently denouncing Obama’s World War III policy in Syria on national television; stating that 1) the overthrow of President Assad would be a grave mistake, akin to the overthrow of both Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi. This is significant from Tulsi Gabbard, who is herself an Iraq War combat veteran. She called for the direct cooperation with President Putin of Russia in military operations in defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. This was in the image of Franklin Roosevelt’s cooperation with Russia during World War II to defeat Hitler and the Nazis; which is by the way an echo of exactly what President Putin himself called for in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly.
And this isn’t the only policy which Tulsi Gabbard has openly disagreed with Obama on; she’s also a major and outspoken supporter of the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. And this is a point that Mr. LaRouche stressed was very significant and must be emphasized.
So, it just so happens that Congresswoman Gabbard is at the center of the rebellion within the leadership of the DNC against the chairwoman of the DNC, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who is an ally of Obama. So, according to an article in Bloomberg today, which is titled “Insurrection Erupts at the Democratic National Committee”, this has, in fact, been brewing for quite some time; but it boiled over this week when Gabbard was dis-invited by Debbie Wasserman Schultz from attending the Democratic Party debate in Las Vegas, because she had openly criticized the policy of limiting the number of these Democratic debates to only six.

Only four of them are before the significant primaries at the beginning of next year. And Gabbard also criticized the policy of punishing any of the candidates if they participated in any forums that were not sanctioned by the DNC. Now, what this is being called, and the adjectives that are being used in this Bloomberg article are “autocratic”, “dictatorial”, this policy by Debbie Wasserman Schultz. And there’s an open coup that’s brewing against her leadership of the Democratic National Committee. And I’m going to ask Jeff to get into is the implications of this.

I’d advise that people read some of the coverage that’s in this Bloomberg article. One very significant quote is by another one of the vice chairs, a man named RT Ryback; a former mayor of Minneapolis, who is allied with Tulsi Gabbard on this issue. He is outspoken, saying Wasserman Schultz is operating with dictatorial, autocratic power over the Democratic National Committee; her leadership must be questioned. And he’s almost at the point of saying she should be kicked out as the leader of the Party. Ironically, this is coming on the heels of the exact same treatment that was dished out to John Boehner on the Republican side.
So, what I’m going to introduce Jeff with, is just a quote from this article. And I think this sort of summarizes exactly what we have the responsibility to address here tonight. “Says one Democrat with close ties to the Democratic National Committee, ‘The next Chair is going to have to burn the place down and rebuild it.” So Jeff, how do we do that?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thanks, Matt. I think the critical thing to bear in mind here is that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is nothing other than a total clone and voice at the DNC for President Obama. Go back to the beginning of the Obama presidency. Initially, former Congressman and former Ohio Governor Ted Strickland had been called by the White House, and had been asked to be the Chairman of the DNC, and had been told, “Wait by your phone, because you’re going to get a call from the President very soon.” He waited, and waited, and waited, and then several days
later, read in the newspaper that Debbie Wasserman-Shultz had been named instead as the party chairman.

As we understand this, this was the direct result of an intervention by Valerie Jarrett, by Michelle Obama, and it was a foretaste of many things that would follow from them. So, what she is doing to the Democratic Party is all being done on the basis of orders coming directly from the White House. Tuesday’s debate in Las Vegas was a demeaning insult to the institution of the Presidency. That’s not to say that everything that the participants in the debate said was demeaning, but the whole way that the debate was organized by CNN, which has no qualifications whatsoever to actually be hosting a debate like this, was turned into some version of the Barnum and Bailey circus mixed with the
Gong show. Every candidate brought swarms of people, probably right off the floors of the casinos half drunk, and they were being encouraged to scream and razz and make all kinds of noise whenever their candidate had something to say. It was shameful, it was demeaning, and what Mr. LaRouche said is that this was organized by the British. This wasn’t even done directly by President Obama. This was the kind of stunt that’s meant to demean the office of the Presidency, and people who participated in this process were by and large victims of a set-up that should have never ever been allowed to happen.

Of course, this is the same CNN that bailed out Obama four years ago, when Mitt Romney was about to nail him on what had actually happened in the Sept. 11, 2012 attacks in Benghazi, but instead, you may recall Candy Crowley jumping in on behalf of Obama, and shutting down Mitt Romney mid-sentence. So what you have here is an assault against the appropriate decorum and respect for the Office of the Presidency, and even though there were a few comments by Martin O’Malley, on two occasions, openly calling for Glass-Steagall, the reality is that the entire event
was a shameless circus, and the best thing to do is to make sure that this is forgotten as soon as possible, and that there is never again this kind of insult to the Office of the Presidency by allowing this kind of clown show to occur.

And Mr. LaRouche, during his Thursday night Fireside Chat with supporters from around the country, emphasized that we’ve got to return the Presidency to a constitutional framework. We’ve got to have qualified candidates, and we’ve got to assemble not an individual, not some personality or popularity contest, but we’ve got to assemble a qualified team of people, a President, a Vice President, qualified people to fill out the cabinet, so that we can get away from the horror show of the last 15 years, where 8 years of Bush and Cheney, and now 7 years of Obama, have all but effectively destroyed the institution of the Presidency.

Now the reality is that we can’t wait. The reality is that Obama must be removed from office in the immediate days ahead, and this is not a matter of trying to scramble around to find some pretext in which to do that, because Matt just mentioned at the outset, that the Glen Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill new publication, the Intercept, has published an extraordinary 8-part series, based on newly-leaked government documents. These documents were prepared after Edward Snowden had already dumped his material, and had already left government, and probably already taking refuge in Russia. But what these documents show is that President Obama is guilty of mass murder. The entire drone program that has been the hallmark, the entirety, of the Obama administration’s counter-terrorism program, has been conducted outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution, outside of international law, and represents perhaps the single greatest incident of mass murder in the modern history of this planet.

Now, that may sound extreme, but I would urge all of you to not just read the 8-part series of articles, but to go to the links to the actual documents that reveal the true nature of this Obama administration, completely lawless mass murder campaign. One of the points that’s made right at the outset, in the opening article of this series, is that since 1975 — and you can go back to the history of the revelations about CIA crimes, the Church and Pike Committee investigations — during that period President Gerald Ford issued an Executive Order and laws were passed, making it explicitly illegal for the U.S. President to order assassinations. And of course, President Obama, since the very beginning of his term in office, has been regularly convening Tuesday meetings at the White House, where they’ve been specifically developing kill lists of targets to be gone after. And so, rather than use the appropriate and accurate term of assassinations, President Obama and his team choose the word “targetted killings,” but the concept is identical.
Now, we’ve talked on a number of occasions in recent weeks, on these webcasts on Friday night, about the fact that General Michael Flynn, who was the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and was fired by President Obama in the summer of 2014 for being a major obstacle to the kinds of illegal programs the Administration has been running since the beginning – General Flynn was interviewed by The Intercept to comment on the documents and to comment on his own first-hand knowledge of this assassination program. General Flynn had been the Director of Intelligence for the Joint Special Operations Command, for Central Command, and then became the head of the entire Defense Intelligence Agency. Here’s what he had to say about the Obama Administration’s program:

“The drone campaign right now really is only about killing. When you hear the phrase ‘capture or kill’, capture is actually a misnomer. In the drone strategy that we have, `capture’ is a lower case c. We don’t capture people any more. Our entire Middle East policy seems to be based on firing drones. That’s what this Administration decided to do in its counter-terrorism campaign. They are enamored by the ability of Special Operations and the CIA to find a guy in the middle of the desert, in some shitty little village (pardon my French), and drop a bomb on his head and kill him.”

Now to hear President Obama, you would think that the White House program has been surrounded by Constitutional lawyers who’ve been studying every step along the way, to make sure that everything involved in this program is legal. In a speech at the National Defense University several years ago, President Obama discussed the program, and again, quote: “The United States has taken lethal, targetted action against al-Qaeda and its associated forces, including with remotely piloted aircraft, commonly referred-to as drones. As was true in previous armed conflicts, this new technology raises profound questions about who is targetted, and why. About civilian casualties and the risk of creating new enemies. About the legality of such strikes under U.S. and international law. About accountability and morality. Drone strikes, he concluded, are effective and legal. Now, it happens that under pressure, particularly after news reports about his Tuesday kill-meetings at the White House, caused quite a stir, the White House issued a policy document. It’s in the public record, it didn’t have to be leaked out. It’s called “U.S. Policy Standards and Procedures for the Use of Force in Counter-Terrorism Operations Outside the United States and Areas of Active Hostilities.” I won’t bore you with the precise language of this document, but among the highlights, they say, “In every instance we prefer to capture rather than kill. We have precise standards for the use of lethal force, and these criteria include, but are not restricted to, near-certainty that the terrorist target is present, near-certainty that non-combatants will not be injured or killed, an assessment that capture is not feasible at any time of the operation, an assessment that the relevant government authorities in the country where action is contemplated cannot or will not address the threat to U.S. persons, and an assessment that no other reasonable alternatives exist to effectively address the threat to U.S. persons.” And they say, “There must be a legal basis for using lethal force, and secondly, that lethal force will only be used against a target that poses a continuing imminent threat to U.S. persons.”
Now, the fact of the matter is that these were strict rules for targetted killing that were promulgated by the Obama Administration, signed by the President himself, and as documented in The Intercept series, by commentaries by people like General Flynn, this policy has been violated in virtually every instance. So even by the criteria that his own Administration set forth, President Obama has been guilty of carrying out what can only be described as mass murder. Now, there are procedures for dealing with crimes of mass murder.
Number one, to the extent that the President is directly implicated in these actions, this is cause for immediate and obvious impeachment, and perhaps, because of the urgency and timeliness of this, it would be more appropriate to simply invoke the 25th Amendment. If you have somebody who has been living under the cloak of apparent civility and respectable position, but who turns out to be a mass murderer, then you’d have to conclude that that person was suffering from a form of socio-pathological insanity. That invokes the 25th Amendment immediately. And so, that’s the situation that we’re dealing with. What Mr. LaRouche said, is in this case, you would want to remove that person, President Obama, from office immediately, and then immediately commence with criminal proceedings for the mass-murders that he’s committed.

Now, among the documents that were leaked to the authors of this series of articles, is a document that was prepared by the House Select Committee on Intelligence, in April of 2012. It was called the Performance Audit of the Department of Defense Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR). And what this audit by the House Intelligence Committee concluded, is that the entire targetted-kill program was rife with violations, with failures to live up to any of the standards that would be appropriate under the Constitution, or even under the Obama Administration’s own guidelines, and that basically there was a mad rush to try to line up as much money as possible for these drone-kill programs, and therefore there were shortcuts, there was misrepresentation of the program, and in fact since the September 11 attacks, the Defense Department has spent $67 billion on putting together the ISR infrastructure that the Obama Administration has exclusively used for the drone killing-program.

Now, other comments on this. Again, from General Flynn. He said that the White House, for expedient reasons, abandoned its own guidelines. There were no attempts to capture. There were no attempts to work with local governments on setting up the circumstances to capture. There was no attempt to live up to the standard that to be a legitimate target for these assassinations, the individual had to oppose an immediate and imminent threat of terrorist attack against the United States. And what General Flynn said, quote, “We’ve tended to say, drop another bomb via a drone, and put out a headline that ‘We killed Abu Bag of Donuts’ and it makes us all feel good for 24 hours. And you know what? It doesn’t matter. It just made them a martyr. It just created a new reason to fight us ever harder.” Flynn went on to say that there was “way too much reliance on technical aspects of intelligence, like signals intelligence, or even just looking at somebody with unmanned aerial vehicles. He gave an example. “I could get on the telephone from somewhere in Somalia, and I know I know I’m a high-value target. And I say in some coded language, ‘The wedding is about to occur in the next 24 hours.'” Flynn said, “That could put all of Europe and the United States on a high-level alert, and it may just be total bullshit. SIGINT is an easy system to fool, and that is why it has to be validated by other INTs, namely like human intelligence. You have to ensure that the person is actually there, at that location, because what you really intercepted was the phone.”

And in fact, one of the things that was concluded in this in-depth House Intelligence Committee review of this drone-kill program was that in most instances, there was almost exclusively reliance on the tracking of cell phones, and so, very often, it was the cell phone that was the determinant of the location where the drone attack occurred. And in many instances, almost a majority of the instances, many innocent people who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time were killed, and immediately afterwards, even though these people were not known, they didn’t even know what their identities were when the drone-firing took place, they would immediately be classified as unknown enemy combatants. In other words, if you were there, you were de facto a terrorist, and it was de facto justified that you were a legitimate target for Obama’s assassinations.

Now, the documents also included a number of structural flow-charts. The point that the Pentagon and the CIA wanted to make, was that these programs did not involve a few people sitting around in a room, going through piles of what they themselves called “baseball cards” — photographs and biographical information on the people who were on the potential-target list. It was based on the data in these “baseball cards” that the President of the United States would sign the kill-order. And once the kill-order was signed — and by the way, it usually took on average 58 days from when an individual was identified by name to when he went through the process of investigation, surveillance, and his name landed on the President’s desk for a finding that this person should be killed. And then from that moment on, there was a 60-day time deadline for accomplishing the killing. I’m sure part of the reason for that is that every week there were more and more names being added, and the priorities were continuously shifting. But the fact of the matter is, that there was an elaborate chain of command through which this vetting process took place; chains of command within the military and the CIA. Then there was a chain of command which led up to what was called the Principals Committee, which are the leading members of the President’s Cabinet and heads of other agencies that have critical roles to play in this process. And then in every single instance, the ultimate decision was made and was signed off on by the President of the United States. So, in other words, every single person killed in this drone warfare program was authorized for assassination by President Obama.

Now, we know that there were a number of leading advisors, particularly John Brennan; who for the first four years of the Obama Presidency was the President’s Counter-terrorism Advisor right there at the White House — then he was made Director of the CIA. We know that David Petraeus, who was formerly a high-ranking military commander, brought over to the CIA, and who was found not only to have been engaging in an extramarital affair, but was caught passing massive amounts of classified documents to his mistress and biographer; and yet he only received a slap-on-the-wrist misdemeanor, and to this day is still a key advisor to President Obama. Petraeus propagated a series of orders, establishing the chain of command and the operational profile of at least the Joint Special Operations Command [JSOC] part of this kill program. But ultimately, everything landed on the desk of President Obama; and when he signed the kill order, the 60-day clock began to tick down, and that was when the operations in the field went into action.

We know, of course, that Anwar al-Awlaki — an American citizen — clearly someone who had an association with al-Qaeda, was put on the assassination list; and yet, as an American citizen, he was denied any of the Constitutional due process that all American citizens are entitled to. And so, al-Awlaki was killed in an American drone attack in Yemen; several weeks later, his 16-year old son and another American citizen were killed in another drone attack. The administration had to scramble to cover that up. And now there are at least some indications that Anwar al-Awlaki may have been targeted for cold-blooded murder; because he was an FBI informant, and in that capacity, knew certain secrets about how this whole process and program of targeting was working, and perhaps knew of certain government ties to al-Qaeda. We don’t know that, but there are court actions underway right now that may provide an even further light on the specific case of al-Awlaki. In Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, in Pakistan — those were the four major areas where this mass assassination was taking place; there were extensive drone bases, massive amounts of military equipment. But yet, in all of the instances, it would appear that more often than not, the criteria that the administration itself put forward were never in a single instance adhered to; and the collateral damage, the number of innocent people later, after the fact, posthumously declared enemy combatants was massive. We don’t even begin to have a total death toll, but for every individual on the Presidential-approved kill list, there were multiple numbers of people who were killed simply because they were in the immediate vicinity. And one aspect of the program evolved to the point that targeted assassination operations were conducted on the basis of activity profile, not even identification of specific individuals. In the case of Afghanistan, there were instances where drone-targetted operations were directed against weddings, simply because the drones detected a large number of young males holding up guns in the air and firing them into the air. Now that happens to be part of a fairly typical tribal wedding ceremony in Afghanistan; so we don’t know how many of these targeted assassinations were conducted on the basis of those kinds of activities.

Now, there was a report that was issued in 2014, that was done by General John Abizaid, who was the former head of the Central Command, and a lawyer from Georgetown named Rosa Brooks, who was a former attorney at the Department of Defense. And that report noted that there are “enormous uncertainties” in drone warfare, and that these uncertainties “are multiplied further when the United States relies on intelligence and other targeting information provided by a host nation government. How can we be sure we are not being drawn into a civil war; or being used to target the domestic political enemies of the host state leadership?” So, in other words, this program was completely out of control, off the charts; but was thoroughly embraced by President Obama from his first days in office – probably initially courtesy of people like John Brennan. But the fact of the matter is that a massive number of crimes have been committed. The official documents, including those classified documents leaked out to {The Intercept}, make it clear that there was an absolute, unambiguous chain of command. In other words, the way that law enforcement would map out the structures of a mafia organization that they were going to break up; and unambiguously, the godfather of this entire mass kill program was President Obama. And if that doesn’t constitute sufficient criteria for immediately launching impeachment proceedings or invoking of the 25th Amendment, then we’ve pretty much lost any sense of what our Constitutional republic is all about.

OGDEN: OK, I would like to just present the institutional question which we got in this week, which is very brief. It reads as follows: “Mr. LaRouche, the United States is to extend its military presence in Afghanistan beyond 2016. What is your opinion about the extension of our military presence in Afghanistan?”

STEINBERG: Well, I think first of all, you’ve got to consider the timing of this announcement. Regardless of whatever process there was, however long the deliberations were about making this decision, I find it extremely distasteful that the President chose to make this announcement just days after the United States had bombed the hospital of Doctors Without Borders in Kunduz. There are new developments just in the last 24 hours, indicating that some American or NATO either tanks or APCs — armed personnel carriers — had arrived on the site soon after the bombing had ended, and had basically plowed through the rubble. And at least in the eyes of Doctors Without Borders, this was an attempt to bury and conceal evidence of a major crime that was committed. We spoke last week about the fact that Doctors without Borders had issued a call under the Geneva Convention for a top-down investigation, and they basically say that the actions that were undertaken under the auspices of President Obama, constituted war crimes.

So I think if you step back, and think about the thrust of what we’ve presented here in the last half hour or so, about the nature of the drone program, and then situate the bombing of this Doctors Without Borders hospital within that overall framework, I think you’ll see that this situation is completely out of control, and lawless. In fact, one of the commentators who have been noting the horrors of this incident has pointed out that it may come down to the fact that President Obama’s only legacy is that he will have been the only Nobel Peace Prize award recipient to bomb another Nobel Peace Prize recipient — because Doctors Without Borders has also been far more legitimately granted that award.

Now, the fact of the matter is that the United States has been engaged in Afghanistan since 2001, since soon after the 9/11 attacks, and here we are, 14 years later, still debating the question of whether or not we’re on the verge of the Taliban taking the place over again. I think that that 14 year process, at an estimated cost to U.S. taxpayers of well over $2 trillion, ought to raise some serious questions about whether this policy is advisable to continue indefinitely into the future, even past the Obama Presidency. And one of the ways that the argument is being framed, for why the U.S. should remain and why NATO should remain, in Afghanistan, is the argument that there’s more training, there’s more assistance needed, but the implication is that there’s only a binary choice: either we stay, or we go, as if there were no other options on the table, which is emphatically not true.

There are some senior retired U.S. military officials, and others, who have recently proposed that there is a viable alternative, and that you have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which is a regional security arrangement which involves Russia, China, all of the countries of Central Asia, and as of their last meeting earlier this year, it also includes India and Pakistan. And it’s virtually a certainty, now that the P5+1 agreement has been ratified both here in the U.S. and by the Majlis in Iran, so that the sanctions will be lifted in the months ahead, that Iran will be the next member country given full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

Just look at that on a map. Every country surrounding Afghanistan is a member of the SCO, and again, within a very short period of time Iran, which borders on Afghanistan, will be included in that membership. Right now, they’re associate members, so in effect they’re already part of the deliberations.

What about having the SCO, which has a strong vested interest in the security and stability of the area, working out a coordination with the US and NATO for a hand-off of security responsibility, as well as economic development responsibility, to the SCO? China, which was one of the initial sponsors of the SCO, has a critical vested interest, because the entire One Belt, One Road policy that is the cornerstone of Xi Jinping’s international outreach, requires stability in exactly that area around Afghanistan. You have countries that are of the same ethnic background. You’ve got Tajiks and Uzbeks, and Iranians, Persians, who form a major part of the population of Afghanistan. You’ve got Pushtuns, who are also across the border in Pakistan. India has historically played an extraordinarily important and close role with the government in Kabul, and of course, Russia is gravely concerned about the security of Central Asia, as well as the Caucasus region of Russia.

So, it would be a sane and natural policy for the U.S., for NATO, to enter into discussions with the SCO, and propose an orderly transition, and develop a coherent strategy for bringing this whole 15 year crisis to an end. If you in fact go back to the original Brzezinski plans for conducting covert operations against the Soviets in Afghanistan, which preceded by six months the Soviets coming into Afghanistan, you see that this area has been affected by an even more than 30 years of war uninterrupted process. So there is an alternative. There’s a thoughtful, diplomatic, economic, security alternative, and one must wonder, if this option is not being considered, whether the real concern here is to keep Afghanistan safe for the opium trade, because 95 % of the world’s opium supply, at enormous profits, is coming out of Afghanistan.

OGDEN: Well, thank you very much, Jeff.

What we’ve now presented in the summary course of this webcast tonight, was what Mr. LaRouche asked for. It is high time for the Obama policy to go. The evidence has just been presented by Jeff and myself here on this broadcast tonight, and that evidence speaks for itself. However, the task still remains, as Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, that LaRouche PAC and responsible citizens across the United States, must also build a New Presidency, to lead the United States out of what is arguably the worst disaster that we’ve ever faced as a nation, after eight years of Bush and Cheney, and then eight more years of Obama.

It’s very clear, what Mr. LaRouche’s thoughts were about the Tuesday Democratic debate, and what Jeff said earlier about the CNN kind of clown show atmosphere that was created around that. But as people who listened to Mr. LaRouche’s fireside chat last night might have heard, he was also emphatic on keeping our vision clear as to what our responsibility as citizens is, not to just pick and choose among candidates, but to create what he calls a Presidency, and to conclude tonight’s webcast, I actually want to read what I found to be a very compelling section of Mr. LaRouche’s discussion on this question of the Presidency last night.

He said: “The point is that people usually think that we want a President. Now, according to our national law, we do get a President, one President. We also get a Vice President. But on the other hand, what we need is a team of citizens who are qualified to lead the formation and institution of a system of government under a Presidential system. In other words, you can’t just say, this is the President; now everyone’s going to listen to him. That’s not right. You have to have a President who is acceptable, who’s qualified to lead the nation, but no one person can control the United States as a nation efficiently. There has to be a team based on the kind of team that we had when we composed a Presidential system. It also means we depend in the way that we can deal with certain members of Congress, in the House of Representatives in general, and so forth.

“You have people who don’t always agree with each other, but we need that kind of office as a deliberation process, in order to have the kind of people of the United States find they have a core of agreement on goals and purposes which suit the requirements of the Presidency.

“Now the other part of that has a feature to it. When we create a Presidential system, we don’t create a President per se. We try, in the best features of our existence, in our history, our intention is always to introduce new concepts, more appropriate concepts, more brilliant, more fruitful than ever before. Maybe some people can come together as a team around that idea. They might be rivals, but our goal is to go to the higher level, the highest level of achievement, of the improvement of our system of government: to create a team of people who are qualified, and actively qualified, to conduct the business of our government as a whole. And that’s the way we have to look at it.”

So, lest we get too distracted by the personality contests, and all of the media hype that’s created by CNN and related organizations, I think it’s important to keep that idea is mind.

And that’s what Mr. LaRouche has devoted his entire career to, over the last 40 to 50 years of his public life. So we have the responsibility as leaders of the LaRouche PAC, and you have the responsibility as viewers of this broadcast here tonight, to cooperate with us in trying to bring that lofty and noble goal about.

I appreciate your attention to our broadcast tonight. I advise that you take the evidence that we’ve presented here, and let it speak for itself. Please share this as widely as you can. Get it around to your friends and neighbors, and continue to participate in all of the events that LaRouche PAC is hosting — from these Friday night broadcasts, to the Fireside chats with Mr. LaRouche, and the continuing activities in Manhattan, including the discussion that I know we will be engaged in again tomorrow, with Mr. LaRouche himself.

So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.




USA; Hele verden: LPAC’s landsdækkende aktionsuge: Vedtag Glass-Steagall nu.
LPAC-TV: The Takedown of Glass-Steagall

Over hele USA, men især i NYC, mobiliserer LPAC i højeste gear for en omgående vedtagelse af Glass-Steagall, før det uafvendelige Wall Street-krak indtræffer og kaster ikke blot USA, men hele verden ud i kaos. De kæmper ikke blot for USA ’lokalt’, men også for os her i Europa. Kontakt os og tag kampen op: Glass-Steagall, ikke kaos!

Schiller Instituttets Aktionscenter DK 

Følg med i LPAC’s afgørende kamp i USA her:

Lyndon LaRouches opråb til en fuldt optrappet indsats for at komme Wall St.’s krak i forkøbet med Glass-Steagall, 5. okt. 2015

 

Kend hele historien:

LPACTV: The Takedown of Glass-Steagall – Feature Film:

 

 

 




Video: EIR Pressekonference Live:
Skræmmekampagne om Klimaforandring
er befolkningsreduktion – ikke videnskab

Vær med på pressekonferencen der præsenterer udgivelsen af Executive Intelligence Review’s seneste specialrapport, »Skræmmekampagne om Klimaforandring er Befolkningsreduktion – ikke Videnskab«

tirsdag 22. september 2015, kl. 11:00 AM Eastern.

Denne rapport udgives på optakten til FN’s Generalforsamling i New York og Pave Frans’ besøg i USA, hvor begge disse begivenheders dagsorden for reduktion af verdens befolkning er i fuld gang. Denne rapport går lige til hjertet af svindelen med ’klimaforandring’: Befolkningsreduktion.   

GlobalWarming-cover-small