Bemærk venligst: LaRouche PAC vil opdatere dagens lederartikel senere på dagen, midt i det strategiske billede, der hastigt udvikler sig (https://larouchepac.com) .  

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 6. april, 2017 – Begivenhederne i dag og i de kommende dage – topmødet mellem præsidenterne Trump og Xi, der finder sted i skrivende stund, efterfulgt af udenrigsminister Tillersons besøg i Moskva om mindre end en uge for at mødes med præsident Putin – inkarnerer det potentiale, som vi har arbejdet for i mange år. Menneskeheden har nu fået mulighed for at gå ind i en ny epoke, der er fuldstændig ulig noget som helst, der tidligere er set. Den mest strålende, højlyse dag, sammenlignet med det 20. og, foreløbigt, det 21. århundredes mørke.

Det, der nu kræves af os som aldrig før, er, at vi koncentrerer os om vores enestående mål, og udelukker alt andet. Der er så mange derude, der er fast besluttet på at distrahere os – men vi står over for at skulle igennem nogle afgørende momenter, hvor ethvert koncentrationssvigt kunne ødelægge hele vores indsats, næsten omgående.

Vi må nu lære lektien fra dem af os, der med succes har mobiliseret i New Yorks undergrundsbane, gennem togenes øredøvende brøl og hysteriske menneskers skrigeri, fast besluttet på at distrahere og sabotere os. Det er den samme lektie, som udgjordes af det integrerede, præcisionsuddannede team af astronauter og Mission Control på Jorden, der gennemførte den første, bemandede landing på Månen i 1969, med computeralarmerne, der lød, og med brændsel tilbage til blot få sekunder.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche illustrerede præcis denne egenskab i sit interview i går med Sputnik News, hvor hun forbløffede sin interviewer. 

Midt i tarveligheden og løgnene i dagens New York Times, havde Kinas officielle nyhedsagentur Xinhua en helsides annonce, der sandsynligvis var avisens eneste, reelle nyhed, under overskriften, »Første Xi-Trump møde af afgørende betydning på enhver måde«. På samme måde skilte Lyndon LaRouches ven Jacques Cheminade sig ud, i forhold til ti andre, mislykkede franske præsidentkandidater, på fransk nationalt Tv i går aftes.

Foto: Præsident Trump og den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping mødes i Florida, 6. april, 2017.

… jeg mener, at, siden Kina i 2013 lagde politikken med den Nye Silkevej, eller Bælt & Vej-initiativet, som det nu kaldes, på bordet, og har været i gang med at bygge denne Nye Silkevej, med en idé om, at også USA skulle tilslutte sig den, skulle det slet ikke forbavse mig, hvis noget i denne retning blev diskuteret, til manges store overraskelse.

5. april, 2017 – Dette er et udskrift af et interview, Sputnik førte med Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag, mht. det forestående topmøde mellem præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Donald Trump:

Spørgsmål: Hvad vil tonen i mødet være?

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror, det vil være venskabeligt. De vestlige medier, der som regel ikke har ret, forsøger at reducere hele dette spørgsmål til en eller anden geopolitisk konflikt, men jeg mener, at begge parter har forberedt dette møde meget grundigt. Jeg mener, at, da udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson i sidste måned var i Beijing for at forberede mødet, sagde han, at de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer under Trump-administrationen ville blive en meget positiv relation, der bygger på nul konfrontation, nul konflikt, gensidig respekt og altid i søgen efter en »win-win«-løsning. Dette var nøjagtig den formulering, som Xi Jinping brugte i 2012, da han opfordrede til opbygningen af en ny type af relationer mellem store nationer, mellem Kina og USA.

Det blev dengang afvist af præsident Obama. Men det faktum, at Tillerson nu bruger nøjagtig den samme formulering, er et meget positivt signal. Og jeg mener, at, siden Kina i 2013 lagde politikken med den Nye Silkevej, eller Bælt & Vej-initiativet, som det nu kaldes, på bordet, og har været i gang med at bygge denne Nye Silkevej, med en idé om, at også USA skulle tilslutte sig den, skulle det slet ikke forbavse mig, hvis noget i denne retning blev diskuteret, til manges store overraskelse.

SP: Javel. Tidligere har Trump beskyldt Kina for at voldtage den amerikanske økonomi. Han kaldte landet for en valuta-manipulator og truede endda med at gennemføre høj told på kinesisk import; men, når dette er sagt, hvilken reaktion bør vi forvente fra den kinesiske leder? Hvilke standpunkter vil de indtage?

Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg tror ikke, Xi Jinping vil reagere på den tone, som kandidaten Trump havde under sin kampagne. Og jeg tror, hvis de frem på bordet lægger den idé, at Kina ville investere i USA’s infrastruktur – Trump har jo selv bebudet behovet for et $1 billion stort program til genopbygning af den amerikanske infrastruktur. Der var for nylig en konference i Hongkong, hvor kinesiske økonomer skønnede, at det virkelige behov var på $8 billion. Se, den måde, hvorpå man kan nedbringe underskuddet på handelsbalancen, er, hvis der kommer direkte kinesisk investering i infrastruktur, måske ikke lige med det samme, med indirekte; man kunne måske få en infrastrukturbank, hvor Kina kunne indsætte sine investeringer, eller en lignende løsning.

Men jeg er overbevist om, at de absolut vil komme ud af dette topmøde med resultater, der er til fordel for begge lande.

SP: Det er interessant, at De taler om en positiv løsning på handelsunderskuddet, som De netop nævnte, med Kina, der muligvis kunne skabe en særlig investeringsbank; men er der noget andet, som Trump kunne gøre for på en eller anden måde at nedbringe dette handelsunderskud? Eller findes der en måde, hvorpå præsident Trump kunne forbedre relationerne mellem landene og forbedre handlen mellem landene?

Zepp-LaRouche: Trump har på det seneste flere gange nævnt, at han ønsker at vende tilbage til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System, som er Alexander Hamiltons, Lincolns og Henry Clays system, og det er i realiteten det system, der gjorde USA stort i kølvandet på Uafhængighedskrigen. Det var et yderst protektionistisk system. Alexander Hamilton skabte USA ved at skabe en Nationalbank, et statsligt kreditsystem, og f.eks. påpegede den tyske økonom Friedrich List forskellen mellem det Amerikanske Økonomiske System og det Britiske Økonomiske System, hvilket vil sige, at det Amerikanske System, som blev skabt af Hamilton, grundlæggende set siger, at den eneste kilde til rigdom er arbejdskraftens kreativitet og produktivitet; i sammenligning med det Britiske System, der siger, at man må opkøbe billigt og sælge dyrt, have kontrol over handelen og holde udgifterne til arbejdskraften så lave som muligt.

Hvis man rent faktisk ser på det, Kina har gjort med det kinesiske økonomiske mirakel i de seneste 30 år, så er det meget tættere på Alexander Hamiltons filosofi, end det ville være på systemet med globalisering og såkaldt »frihandel«. For jeg mener ikke, at det kinesiske frihandelssystem er helt det samme frihandelssystem, som briterne og amerikanerne under Obama- og Bush-administrationerne tænkte på.

Hvis Trump derfor siger, OK, globalisering førte til en outsourcing af produktive jobs, og jeg ønsker at genskabe den amerikanske økonomi, ja, så er det måden, hvorpå handelsunderskuddet nedbringes, for grunden til, at der er et handelsunderskud, er, at mange produkter i løbet af de seneste 16 år under Bush- og Obama-administrationerne i stigende grad blev mindre konkurrencedygtige, som i bilindustrien, f.eks. Grunden til, at der importeres flere biler fra Japan, Korea og Tyskland, end den anden vej rundt, er, at disse biler er bedre end de amerikanske biler.

Det, som Amerika må gøre, hvad præsident Trump må gøre – og jeg tror, det er, hvad han har til hensigt at gøre – er at genopbygge den amerikanske økonomi på det højeste, produktive niveau. Infrastrukturen er blot forstadiet, men så er der andre områder, som kernefission, men i særdeleshed kernefusionsteknologi, samarbejde om rummet med andre lande, så der er mange områder, hvor man kan foretage ’frøspring’ ind i de mest produktive områder af økonomien, og jeg mener, det er, hvad Trump har til hensigt at gøre.

SP: Det er interessant, at De nævner dette, og jeg synes virkelig om, at De nævner dette spørgsmål. Det må vi desværre tage på et andet tidspunkt. Bortset fra disse spørgsmål, vi har diskuteret, er der så andre spørgsmål, som vil komme på bordet mellem den kinesiske leder og USA’s præsident?

Zepp-LaRouche: Spørgsmålet om Nordkorea vil selvfølgelig stå højt på dagsordenen i betragtning af Nordkoreas nylige prøveaffyringer af missiler. Men her må man forstå, at Nordkorea ikke gør dette, fordi de planlægger en aggression mod Sydkorea eller Japan, eller USA. De gør dette som en reaktion mod deployeringen af THAAD-missiler, som både Kina og Rusland har sagt, udgør sikkerhedstrusler imod deres egen nationale sikkerhed; og, Nordkorea reagerer på de meget store [militære] øvelser, som omfatter USA, Japan og Sydkorea, og som finder sted i øjeblikket.

Måden at reducere dette på – det ville være mit gæt, at de vil indgå en aftale om at genforeslå sekspartsforhandlingerne, for at forsøge at finde en løsning, eller måske endda fempartsforhandlinger, for at forsøge at gennemarbejde en reel løsning, som kunne tilbydes Nordkorea. Men det er min overbevisning, at den eneste måde, hvorpå denne konflikt kan løses for altid, er at forlænge den Nye Silkevej ind i Korea, få en forening af Syd- og Nordkorea, og dernæst sammen udvikle, Nordkorea, selvfølgelig med at tage Nordkoreas suverænitet i betragtning; men jeg mener ideen om at overvinde de forfærdelige, økonomiske vanskeligheder og bruge den højtuddannede arbejdskraft, man har i Nordkorea! Folk er ikke klar over, at der faktisk er en højt udviklet arbejdskraft i Nordkorea.

Jeg mener, at den Nye Silkevej / Bælt & Vej-initiativet, selv på kort eller mellemlang sigt, er den ramme, inden for hvilken det nordkoreanske problem kan løses for altid.

SP: OK. Med dette spørgsmål vil jeg gerne takke Dem for at være med os i dag, Helga. Det var en fornøjelse at have Dem her, og jeg ser frem til at have Dem her i fremtiden.

Zepp-LaRouche: OK, mange tak.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 5. april, 2017 – Præsident Donald Trump vil torsdag og fredag holde møde med præsident Xi Jinping i Florida, og det er nu blevet meddelt, at udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson vil besøge Moskva i næste uge, 11.-12. april. Aldrig har potentialet for et historisk skifte i civilisationens orden – med en afslutning af imperiegeopolitik og begyndelsen til et nyt paradigme for fred gennem udvikling og hele menneskehedens forædling – været så stort, som det er i dette historiske øjeblik.

Det bør derfor ikke komme som en overraskelse, at Det britiske Imperium har lanceret desperate forholdsregler, med det formål at trække USA ind i en ny kolonikrig, ligesom de gjorde i tilfældene med Vietnam, Irak, Libyen – og nu Syrien. Hensigten er ikke kun den, at ødelægge endnu en sydvestasiatisk nation, men derimod at forhindre deres tidligere koloni, og nu opkomling, USA i at indgå i et partnerskab med Rusland og Kina og gøre en ende på den fundamentale imperieopdeling af verden i Øst og Vest, og således gøre en ende på den fundamentale forudsætning for Imperium.

Til dette formål skabtes en grusomhed i Syrien i denne uge, med kemiske våben, der blev udløst over byen Khan Sheikhoun, en Idlibprovins, enten af terrorister, eller, som russiske beviser indikerer, af et legitimt, syrisk luftangreb på et al-Qaeda våbenlager, som ved et uheld afslørede og ødelagde en kemisk våbenfabrik, som bruges af al-Qaedas syriske grene, og herved udløste et dødbringende, kemisk stof, der rapporteres at have dræbt dusinvis af mennesker, inklusive børn. Denne analyse af begivenhederne blev over for EIR bekræftet af et vidende, amerikansk militært efterretningsnetværk på jorden i Syrien.

Briterne, franskmændene og amerikanerne, desværre, udstedte omgående en resolution i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd, som erklærede, at den syriske regering havde det fulde ansvar og krævede en ny række nye krav og sanktioner. Som sædvanlig blev der ikke fremlagt nogen beviser. Man bør erindre sig, at, i 2013, blev skylden for et angreb med kemiske våben på Ghouta, en forstad til Damaskus, der var besat af oprørsstyrker, omgående lagt på præsident Assad og blev af Obama brugt til at forberede et fuldt optrappet angreb for »regimeskifte« mod Syrien, som ville have efterladt Syrien i den samme, ødelagte tilstand som Irak og Libyen, under krigsførende terroristfraktioners kontrol. Udelukkende kun, fordi daværende formand for de amerikanske generalstabschefer, general Martin Dempsey, intervenerede for at stoppe det, undgik verden endnu en krig, der meget vel kunne have ført til en global krig med Rusland. På samme tid trådte Putin til for at arrangere ødelæggelsen af Syriens kemiske våbenlagre, hvilket blev opnået. Det blev sluttelig demonstreret, af FN’s Organisation for Forhindring af Kemiske Våben, at al-Qaeda- og ISIS-styrkerne virkelig har kemiske våben og midlerne til at producere dem, og at de virkelig har brugt dem.

Skulle det lykkes briterne at trække præsident Trump ind i en krig i dag, på trods af Trumps gentagne løfter om, at der ikke kommer flere krige for regimeskifte, og at USA vil arbejde sammen med Rusland om at adressere den faktiske fare – nemlig terrorisme – så hersker der ingen tvivl om, at det hurtigt ville føre til Tredje Verdenskrig, og en termonuklear krig tilligemed.

Under mødet i dag i FN’s Sikkerhedsråd nedlagde både Rusland og Kina, denne gang støttet af Bolivia, ikke alene veto mod den sindssyge resolution fra USA/UK/Frankrig, men adresserede direkte den britiske ambassadør til FN som en løgner og en krigsmager. På typisk britisk vis havde ambassadøren, fordi Rusland og Kina havde vetoet tidligere bestræbelser på at lancere en krig mod Assads Syrien, givet dem skylden for at være årsag til, at disse nye, kemiske angreb havde fundet sted, idet han løj og sagde, at det var indlysende, at denne nye grusomhed blev udført af Assad.

»Deres udtalelser kan ikke tolereres«, sagde den kinesiske ambassadør. »De må holde op med at misbruge FN’s Sikkerhedsråd og afholde Dem fra sådanne handlinger.« Den russiske repræsentant anklagede briterne for at »introducere provokationer, hinsides diplomatiske normer. I ønsker, at FN’s Sikkerhedsråd skal låne legitimitet til jeres illegitime planer«.

Vil Tony Blairs/George Bush’ løgne, der i 2003 lancerede det evige Helvede i Mellemøsten med deres illegale krig mod Irak, blive gentaget i dag? Vil det enorme potentiale for fred og udvikling gennem globalt samarbejde med den Nye Silkevej blive dræbt af endnu en britisk grusomhed, med amerikansk dobbeltspil i »perfide Albions« ondskab?[1]

Vi står ved et afgørende vendepunkt i historien. Det er præcist alle bevidste menneskers vilje til at handle i dette beslutningens øjeblik, som vil afgøre, om vi får krig eller fred, ødelæggelse eller udvikling, civilisation eller en ny Mørk Tidsalder.

Foto: Syriens præsident Assad møder Ruslands præsident Putin i Moskva, oktober, 2015. (Photo: Kremlin.ru)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. april, 2017 – Civilisationens skæbne kunne meget vel blive afgjort i denne uge, med præsident Trump, der står fast imod den »farvede revolution«, der føres imod USA fra Det britiske Imperiums og deres håndlangere i den mislykkede Obama-administrations side, og som samtidig er i færd med at forberede et historisk topmøde med den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping, hvor han officielt kunne, og må, tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej.

Den britiske imperieopdeling af verden i krigsførende blokke – af hvilke ingen er vigtigere for deres modbydelige Imperiums overlevelse end »Øst vs. Vest« – ville kollapse under et Trump-partnerskab med Kina for at samarbejde om udviklingen af verdens nationer gennem Kinas Ét Bælt, én Vej, og gennem et partnerskab med Rusland for at overvinde terroristsvøben, en skabelse af London og deres saudiske monarkiske allierede.

I kølvandet på terrorbombningen af en Metrostation i Skt. Petersborg i mandags, ringede Trump til præsident Vladimir Putin og tilbød »den amerikanske regerings fulde støtte til responsen på angrebet, og med at bringe de ansvarlige til retsligt ansvar«, iflg. Det Hvide Hus. »Både præsident Trump og præsident Putin var enige i, at terrorisme må endegyldigt og hurtigt besejres«, lød udskriftet.

Torsdag og fredag vil præsidenten mødes med Xi Jinping på sin ejendom i Florida. Det rapporteres, at begge parter har planlagt topmødet omhyggeligt – begge parter ønsker et succesrigt møde, og begge parter har til hensigt at gøre en ende på den geopolitiske nulsums-fremgangsmåde over for globalt diplomati og erstatte det med win-win-samarbejde for at adressere menneskehedens fælles mål. Som udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson under sit besøg i sidste måned for at arrangere denne uges topmøde sagde til kineserne, så ville de amerikansk-kinesiske relationer under Trump-administrationen blive »en meget positiv relation, der bygger på nul konfrontation, nul konflikt, gensidig respekt og altid i søgen efter win-win-løsninger«. Dette reflekterede direkte Xi Jinpings opfordring fra 2012 til at opbygge »en ny slags relationer mellem store lande« mellem Kina og USA, baseret på »nul konflikt, nul konfrontation, gensidig respekt og win-win-samarbejde«, et forslag, der blev blankt afvist af præsident Obama, som i stedet gik frem med forberedelser til en militær konfrontation med Kina.

Bestræbelserne fra briternes/Obamas/mediernes side på at give Rusland skylden for Hillary Clintons fejlslagne valgkampagne, og på at anklage Trump for at være et godtroende fjols for russerne, bliver i stigende grad latterliggjort, alt imens Obamas og hans korrupte efterretningsteams forbrydelser ikke længere kan skjules. Den tidligere vicedirektør for USA’s Centralkommandos Efterretningstjeneste, oberst James Waurishuk, sagde, i sin respons til afsløringen af Obamas nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver, Susan Rices rolle i at bruge efterretningssamfundet til at udspionere Trump-kampagnen: »Vi står og ser på en potentiel, forfatningsmæssig krise ud fra standpunktet om, at vi brugte en ekstremt stærk kapacitet, der er tiltænkt at bruges til at sikre og beskytte landet, og vi brugte det til politiske formål, på vegne af den siddende præsident. Det skaber en ny præcedens.«

Trump adresserede også Byggesektorens Fagforenings kongresmedlemmers konference i Washington, D.C., i dag, og inspirerede dem til at tage ansvar for de »engang så fremgangsrige byer, der nu skæmmes af tomme parceller, og engang så fremgangsrige industribyer, der nu ligger hen som rustbyer og er i totalt forfald«. Han fortsatte: »Jeg har her for mig i dag, her i denne sal, de mænd og kvinder, der, hvis de får muligheden, kan transformere disse lokalsamfund. I er borgere, der kan genopbygge vore byer, genoplive vore industrier og forny vort elskede land, og jeg ved, I ikke vil helme, før jobbet er gjort.«

Det britiske Imperium er i færd med at brase sammen, men, med en følelse af total desperation, udsender de deres styrker for at bekæmpe Amerikas Forenede Stater, for at bevare deres »del og hersk«-magt over verden på vegne af deres bankerotte finansimperium. Hvis USA, Kina og Rusland sluttede sig sammen, på vegne af hele menneskeheden, ville det betyde enden på Imperiet, måske for altid.

De ideer, der i løbet af de seneste halvtreds år er blevet introduceret og udbredt af den bevægelse, som Lyndon LaRouche har grundlagt – for fred gennem udvikling, for en genoprettelse af det Amerikanske System for en kreditinvesteringsøkonomi, for en ende på den kulturelle sump med »sex, narko, rock and roll« til fordel for en ny renæssance for klassisk kultur og videnskab – er nu meget tæt på at realiseres. Vi kan ikke svigte historien på dette storslåede tidspunkt.

Foto: Præsident Trump taler for den Nationale Byggesektors Fagforeningskonference i Washington, 4. april, 2017.                  

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 3. april, 2017 – Hvorfor har Londonavisen Financial Times lanceret så fjendtlig en provokation i sit ’interview’ af præsident Trump – hvor de insisterer, at det centrale spørgsmål under hans topmøde med Kinas præsident bliver krigstrusler mod Nordkorea?

Hvilke muligheder i dette topmøde er det, City of London så rasende ønsker at afspore?

Dette topmøde 6.-7. april i Mar-a-Lago har potentialet til at genantænde gnisten til netop det ’Amerikanske System’, som motor for økonomisk fremskridt i USA, som Trump så lidenskabeligt har påkaldt i sine seneste taler. Med fokus på handel har præsident Trump brug for den substans og form for investering i genoplivelsen af varefremstilling, landbrug og produktiv beskæftigelse i Amerika – og de billioner i infrastrukturinvesteringer, han har sagt, må foretages. Dette kan præsident Xi tilbyde, og mange eksperter i Kina mener, han vil tilbyde det, hvis topmødet ikke bliver saboteret.

Kina og de andre BRIKS-nationer har brug for, at de store magter USA og Tyskland samarbejder med Bælt & Vej-initiativet (»Nye Silkevej«) med store infrastrukturprojekter og landbroer. Og de har frem for alt brug for at bringe denne »win-win« økonomiske genopbygning ind i de sydvestasiatiske og afrikanske områder, der er ødelagt af de endeløse krige, påført dem af Tony Blair, George W. Bush og Barack Obama. Sammen med Ruslands præsident Putin har de brug for hjælp til at udrydde terrorisme og stabilisere Sydvestasien.

Dette er den førende, økonomiske dynamik i dag. Præsident Xi vil sandsynligvis give præsident Trump en personlig invitation til at deltage i det internationale Forum for Bælt & Vej-initiativet i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj. Hvis topmødet på Mar-a-Lago bliver en succes, vil et nyt paradigme for økonomisk og videnskabeligt fremskridt, og for fred blandt nationer, tage et spring fremad.

Som den kinesisk-amerikanske leder George Koo i dag påpeger i Asia Times, så bygger Kinas førende jernbaneproducent allerede i dag nye broer i Amerika, under budgettet og foran tidsplanen, og de køber amerikansk. De har vundet priser for deres byggeri af en bro i New York City ved navn Alexander Hamilton – grundlæggeren af det »Amerikanske System«, som Trump ønsker at genoplive.

London forfølger naturligvis sine egne handelsfordele med Kinas hastigt voksende økonomi; men Financial Times gjorde det klart, at London ønsker at se det amerikansk-kinesiske topmøde gå ned i flammerne af krig over Nordkorea, handelskrig, eller begge dele. Det var ligeledes britisk efterretning, der var ophavsmand til den eskalerende kampagne à la McCarthy-isme, for at skandalisere og ødelægge Trump-administrationen over en hvilken som helst kontakt med Putins Rusland.

Lyndon LaRouches bevægelse i USA, og Schiller Instituttet, har i årtier ført en kampagne for en tilbagevenden til det »Amerikanske Økonomiske System«, og er blevet angrebet og retsforfulgt af den samme »deep state«, bestående af briterne, NATO og USA, der nu jager Trump – i visse tilfælde af denne magts selv samme agenter. Det Amerikanske System er LaRouches Fire Love for at redde nationen: Glass-Steagall, statslig kredit, moderne infrastruktur i stor skala, genoplivelse af rumforskning og fusionsteknologi.

En appel, der promoverer disse Fire Love over for præsident Trump, samler nu tusinder af underskrifter på larouchepac.com sitet.

Xi-Trump-topmødet vil, hvis det bliver en succes, være et skridt på denne vej.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump vil være vært for Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i Florida, 6. april, 2017. 

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 2. april, 2017 – Når vore modstanderes scenarie – »russerne gjorde det« – er offer for nådesløs latterliggørelse foran et massivt publikum, er tiden inde til at indse, at kampen om USA’s fremtid endnu ikke er afgjort – den er snarere ved at blive afgjort, netop i dette øjeblik. Afgørelsen svinger frem og tilbage over afgrunden.

Den dristige og modige, men samtidig kompetente og klarhjernede vurdering af de aktuelle forhold i verden, lyder, at verdenshistorien står og vipper frem og tilbage i disse aktuelle uger. Vi har nået et punkt, hvor afgørelsen må træffes, og denne afgørelse kunne falde ud til både den ene og anden side.

På modstandernes side finder vi de kræfter og institutioner, der myrdede John Kennedy for over halvtreds år siden. Men ånden i John Kennedys tradition, som var den patriotiske ånd i traditionen efter Franklin Roosevelt og Alexander Hamilton før ham, døde aldrig. Netop, som de, der har verdslig visdom, mindst ventede det, dukkede ånden efter John Kennedy atter op som en eksistentiel trussel mod Det britiske Imperium, i form af præsident Ronald Reagans samarbejde med Lyndon LaRouches »Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ«, 23. marts, 1983. Det britiske Imperium forsøgte at dræbe Reagan; de troede, de kunne holde LaRouche fængslet, til han døde i fængsel. Det mislykkedes.

Jo, det lykkedes dem måske nok at trampe gnisterne ned for en tid, men nu blusser ilden op, højere end før. Nu kan Lyndon LaRouches politiske forslag få succes på kort sigt. Det britiske Imperiums blodige genfærd, og den historiske blindgyde, som hele det oldgamle imperiesystem udgør, kan meget hurtigt blive afskaffet. USA kan gå sammen med Kina og Rusland i det storslåede projekt for den Eurasiske Landbro, som LaRouche-parret var de første til at foreslå. Vi kan videreføre John Kennedys og Krafft Ehrickes opdagelsesrejse ud i Solsystemet, og hinsides dette.

Glem ikke, at jeres børnebørn vil udspørge jer længe og intenst om, hvor I var i 2017, og præcis, hvad I gjorde.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump ser ud ad det Røde Værelses vindue, på Det Hvide Hus’ sydlige søjleterrasse.

Jeg er også sikker på, at, hvis Krafft Ehricke havde været her i dag, eller havde levet i vor tid, så ville han have været utrolig optimistisk med hensyn til, at hans vision, som i hans levetid ofte blev bekæmpet – ikke kun hans livs vision, men fortsættelsen af rumfart i det hele taget mødte utrolig meget opposition og modarbejdelse – at han ville erkende, at vi i dag virkelig har den strategiske konstellation, som bringer realiseringen af hans vision inden for rækkevidde. Det er allerede, i forbindelse med en tale om det kinesiske rumfartsprogram, blevet sagt, at »frøspringet« nu virkelig kommer, for kineserne har en vision om at udvinde helium-3 på Månens bagside til den fremtidige fusionsøkonomi på Jorden. Det bliver endda også diskuteret af ESA, men jeg mener, at Kina på verdensplan uddanner flest forskere og videnskabsfolk inden for rumfart, og derfor er jeg optimistisk over, at denne »leap-frogging«, altså frøspring, vil fortsætte.

… Men i Europa har vi et politisk lederskab, som man kunne sige ligesom sidder fast i en tidslomme. I denne tidslomme går resten af verden fremad, og de sidder fast i denne tidslomme, denne glasklokke, som de bliver ved med at støde hovedet imod. Og derfor spiller vores organisation, Schiller Instituttet og vore allierede organisationer i Europa, en nøglerolle som lederskab for at bringe Europa ind i dette nye paradigme.

Næstformand Michelle Rasmussen havde følgende indlæg og spørgsmål på LaRouche PAC’s borgermøde på Manhattan, New York, lørdag, 1. april:

Jeg er Michelle Rasmussen, og jeg arbejder for Schiller Instituttet i Danmark og er her på besøg. Jeg vil gerne give et øjebliksbillede af, hvordan tingene ser ud fra Europa, for det er ligesom folk i Europa står på usikker grund: På den ene side har man, mod øst, det nye paradigme, der anføres af Kina med Rusland og de andre centraleurasiske lande, der er involveret i Bælt & Vej-politikken. Og på den anden side, mod vest, har man potentialet for, at USA rent faktisk ændrer sin politik. Mod øst har vi en konkret transformation. Mod vest ville jeg sige, at der mest er et potentiale for en transformation, med tale om det Amerikanske System, infrastruktur, Glass-Steagall, med ideen om at få et nyt forhold til Rusland; samt de meget spændende udsigter med topmødet mellem Xi Jinping og præsident Trump; Trumps NASA-tale, osv.

Men i Europa har vi et politisk lederskab, som man kunne sige ligesom sidder fast i en tidslomme. I denne tidslomme går resten af verden fremad, og de sidder fast i denne tidslomme, denne glasklokke, som de bliver ved med at støde hovedet imod. Og derfor spiller vores organisation, Schiller Instituttet og vore allierede organisationer i Europa, en nøglerolle som lederskab for at bringe Europa ind i dette nye paradigme. For vi har en lille organisation i nogle af landene, og vores politik har altid været, at vi ikke nødvendigvis forventer, at de europæiske lande vil vise vejen, men at vi måtte så frøene for LaRouche-programmets politik for den dag, hvor USA tager skridt til det. Så måtte vi have sået frøene, så de europæiske lande kunne komme med.

Det er, hvad vi gør. Vi har, f.eks., ganske kort, i Italien haft omkring 12 forskellige lovforslag for Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling i løbet af de seneste tre år. Alle partierne, undtagen det førende parti, er for Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling, og for blot to uger siden begyndte man omsider at drøfte det i parlamentsudvalget.

I Frankrig har vi en enorm chance i de næste fire uger, med Jacques Cheminades kampagne, der er i færd med at opbygge en national bevægelse. De har kontaktet 30.000 borgmestre for at skaffe 500, der ville støtte Jacques. Han vil få massiv lejlighed til at komme i medierne. Hans program vil blive uddelt til hver eneste husstand i Frankrig. Dette sker inden for de næste fire uger.

I Tyskland har vi netop haft en vellykket Krafft Ehricke-konference om udforskning af rummet. I Berlin har vi en valgkampagne.

I Sverige er Glass-Steagall netop blevet diskuteret i det svenske parlament, for en eller to uger siden; forslaget blev nedstemt, men det blev diskuteret. Og vore folk i Sverige lavede en indsats for at forsøge at standse krigen mod Yemen, og vi har Hussein, vores leder i Sverige, der arbejder med den arabiske version af vores Verdenslandbro-rapport.

Og i Danmark, som I hørte for et par uger siden, havde vi et vidunderligt gennembrud med koncerten for en dialog mellem kulturer, hvor folk hang oppe under loftet, så mange mennesker kom; og den vidunderlige udveksling af traditionel musik fra hele verden, inkl. fra Rusland og Kina, og også med europæisk opera og klassisk musik.

I parentes bemærket, så blev Alexander Hamilton født i Vestindien; han blev født på en britisk ø og voksede op på Sankt Croix, som var en dansk ø. Den danske statsminister, der netop har mødt Trump, besøgte i denne uge Jomfruøerne, fordi det er 100 år siden, danskerne solgte Jomfruøerne til USA. Alexander Hamilton voksede op på Skt. Croix [USVI], der dengang var en dansk koloni, og det har en vigtig indflydelse i amerikansk historie, for Alexander Hamilton var ikke fra nogen delstat! Alle de andre kæmpede for deres egen del, vores stat først, vores stat først. Men Alexander Hamilton stod over dette, han opererede ud fra standpunktet om principperne for frihed, og hans bestræbelser på at etablere en centralregering har forbindelse til dette: han var ikke bundet til en bestemt delstat. Det var blot en parentes.

Men, hvordan ser I virkningen af dette skifte i USA’s politik på resten af verden, der endnu ikke er i det nye paradigme?

Diane Sare: Jeg tror, det bliver meget ulige fordelt, for steder synes at have en masse fraktioner, som vi ser det i Tyskland, hvor der er folk, der virkelig gerne vil arbejde sammen med Rusland, især industrifirmaer osv. – og så er der Merkel. Så jeg tror, det bliver et chok, hvis vi får USA til at skifte politik, det bliver et virkeligt chok. Og jeg tror, det vil styrke folk, der ved, hvad der er rigtigt. Som ikke ønsker krig, som mener, de bør orientere sig mod Rusland, som ikke har haft mod til at sige det. Jeg tænker – da jeg var i Sverige sidste efterår, talte vi om, at hjernevasken imod Rusland var spektakulær! Man tror, det er slemt her, og det er slemt her, men jeg havde en nær ven, der boede på Gotland, denne ø mellem Sverige og de baltiske lande, og hun var fuldstændig overbevist om, at der er russiske spioner overalt på øen! Og det svenske militær må opruste for at forberede sig på en russisk invasion.

Jeg mener, at et skifte i USA sluttelig kunne give en masse optimisme. Men det bliver interessant; jeg tror, det bliver meget ulige fordelt, og jeg tror, det vil forårsage nogle uventede resultater.

https://larouchepac.com/20170401/manhtattan-town-hall-event-diane-sare

Michelle start på 46 min.

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

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

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

Udskrift af webcast, engelsk:

DEFEAT THE DEEP STATE TO ENSURE THE NEW PARADIGM!

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

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

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

        ROSS:  You're speaking of the DNC?

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

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

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

        ROSS :  Yeah.  It puts the ranking and ranking.

        MCGOVERN:  Yeah, you got it!

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

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

        ROSS: Twice a day.

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

        ROSS [laughing]: Well put.

        MCGOVERN: I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        JONES:  Thank you for having me.

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

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 30. marts, 2017 – Lige siden den 4. marts, da præsident Trump korrekt sagde, at han var blevet »aflyttet« (overvåget) af Barack Obama, har der været et voksende anfald af frygt blandt nogle af vore senatorer og andre. De foregiver måske noget andet, men man kan læse virkeligheden i deres ansigter: de er rædselsslagne. Under dagens farceagtige høring i Senatets Efterretningskomite, om angivelige russiske, »aktive forholdsregler« imod USA, så vi senatorer, der svedte af frygt, i en grad, hvor de var totalt døve over for virkeligheden, pligt og fornuft. De havde fået at vide, at de skulle indbringe nogle vidner, som i størst mulig grad havde bidt på Ruslands-maddingen, som de kunne finde, til denne høring – men senatorerne overgik selv, i deres rædsel, ofte deres egne vidners frygtmagere.

Vær ikke en tåbe: Dette er ikke et spørgsmål og Demokrater versus Republikanere. Det er meget mere end dette, og af langt større betydning for vort land. Hvis man ser på disse senatorers ansigter, ser man to ord: »hemmelige filer«. Hvilket er præcis det, præsident Trump talte om den 4. marts, og ikke tilfældigt. Hver og én af dem ved, at deres mest personlige misgerninger findes i en fil, elektronisk. Ét enkelt fejltrin, én forkert bevægelse, og sådan, så vil deres hustruer eller ægtemænd, og deres vælgere, være overrasket over at finde deres småsynder på aftennyhederne. Dette er, hvad vi simpelt hen plejede at kalde »FBI-filer«; FBI har altid specialiseret sig i afpresning. Husk, hvad de gjorde mod Martin Luther King, for gentagent at forsøge at drive ham til selvmord.

Det er ikke kun FBI – det er hele den nuværende form af det britiske imperieapparat i USA, som Barbara Boyd dissekerer det i EIR’s udgave af 31. marts.[1] Men det er desuagtet FBI, med deres svulmende filer for afpresning mod alle og enhver.

Den 20. marts aflagde FBI-direktør Comey forklaring om, at han var i færd med at foretage en undersøgelse af USA’s præsident. Hvem Helvede tror han, han er? Det er ganske enkelt forræderi.

Der er ting, vi endnu ikke ved; der er stadig ting, der skal frem om denne ondskab, men så meget er sikkert: Vore valgte repræsentanter – uanset parti – er ofre for FBI’s afpresning. Hvordan vil de respondere? Og, mere præcist, og mere omgående – hvordan vil DU respondere? Som amerikaner og patriot, ligesom Martin Luther King, jr.? Eller … som den beklagelsesværdige kujon, New York-senatoren Chuck Schumer, der sidste januar, den 3., instruerede et landsdækkende fjernsynspublikum om, at Donald Trump var »virkelig dum« for at have kritiseret USA’s efterretningstjenester, fordi de har »hundrede og sytten måder at hævne sig på dig«.

En uge fra i dag, den 6. april, vil Kinas præsident Xi Jinping komme her til et todages topmøde med præsident Trump. Sammen med præsident Xi kommer hele den Eurasiske Landbros eurasiske udviklingsplan for verden, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har kæmpet for i årtier. Hvilket Amerika vil Kinas præsident finde her? Martin Luther Kings Amerika? Eller de af frygt svedende kujoners Amerika?

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. marts, 2017 – Britisk Efterretning er drivkraften bag den fortsatte optrapning af en ekstraordinær kampagne fra efterretningstjenester, der har streng kontrol over de store medier, for at drive præsident Trump ud af embedet på en fantasianklage om, at han skulle være kontrolleret af Putins Rusland.

I USA og Europa kæmper to narrativer mod hinanden, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets stifter, opsummerede her til morgen. Den første narrativ er, at Putin stjal det amerikanske valg, at Trump er illegitim og må fjernes. Den modsatte narrativ er, at »deep state« – »staten i staten« – efterretningskræfterne i London, NATO, NSA og CIA udfører et angreb mod præsident Trump i et forsøg på at tvinge ham til at træde tilbage eller blive stillet for en rigsret.

Én af disse narrativer bliver den fremherskende inden for de kommende uger; og, for den Amerikanske Forfatningsmæssige Republiks skyld, og for den internationale freds skyld, må vi hellere sørge for, at det er Trump-præsidentskabet, der overlever, og det bliver de Fem Øjnes efterretningstjenesters »deep state«, der afsløres i sine kriminelle handlinger.

Valget af Trump var ikke et simpelt resultat i et nationalt valg. Det var en del af en verdensomspændende bølge af vælgere, der afviser »globaliseringens« og frihandelens økonomiske fiasko, som er centreret omkring City of Londons politikker; og de afviser konstante amerikanske krige for regimeskifte og provokationer for krig med Rusland og Kina. Det er en bølge, som London, Bruxelles og NATO raser for at stoppe gennem dæmonisering af Rusland og Kina. Desuden er Trump blevet den første præsident i et århundrede, der holder taler om »det Amerikanske Økonomiske System« – det system, der gik til modstand mod og bekæmpede det britiske frihandelssystem, fra Alexander Hamilton og hele vejen til præsident Franklin Roosevelt.

Britisk efterretning lancerede »Trump-Rusland-skandalen« sidste år, med MI6-agenter, der udførte »politisk oppositionsresearch« i det amerikanske valg. Denne oprindelige, britiske skabelse, FBI – som aldrig var god til at fange forbrydere, men dygtige til at skaffe sig af med uønskede politiske ledere og samfundsledere – betalte for deres beskidte arbejde, og forsøger i øjeblikket at torpedere den ubelejlige formand for Husets Efterretningskomite, Devin Nunes fra Californien, der har opdaget en bombe af en afsløring af efterretningssamfundets »deep state«.

Præsident Trump skal afholde et topmøde med Kinas præsident Xi inden for 10 dage om økonomisk udvikling og handel; dernæst ønsker han at gå videre til et tilsvarende møde med præsident Putin, ligesom han allerede har mødt Japans præsident Abe, om de samme spørgsmål. Britisk efterretning er fast besluttet på, at præsidenten skal tvinges ud nu, før han kan realisere disse møder.

Hvis det lykkes for efterretningstjenester og pressen og Demokrater, som de har pisket til en hob i McCarthy-stil, og de bringer denne præsident til fald, så vil ikke kun den Amerikanske Republik befinde sig i alvorlig fare for et kup, grundlæggende set. Truslen om Tredje Verdenskrig med Rusland og Kina være tilbage på niveauet for Bush’ krigskatastrofer og Obamas direkte krigsprovokationer imod de eurasiske magter.

Meget afhænger nu af Trumps, og Nunes’, faste beslutning om at kæmpe. Det afhænger af Lyndon LaRouches bevægelse – der selv blev udset og angrebet af disse netværk, af de samme grunde, i 1980’erne, og overlevede og blev fremherskende – for at gennemtvinge den politik, der faktisk repræsenterer det Amerikanske System i dag.

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump og vicepræsident Mike Pence møder modtagere af Æresmedaljen, 24. marts, 2017. Medaljen er den højeste æresbevisning for mod over for fjendtlige styrker, skabt af en lov, der blev underskrevet af Abraham Lincoln.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 28. marts, 2017 – Der er et enormt grundlag for optimisme i USA, som det så levende blev demonstreret af præsident Trumps smukke krav om at vende tilbage til rummet i sin ugentlige tale, den 25. marts.

Men, hver gang, amerikanerne vender sig om, oppiskes der en ny, beskidt operation, der nærer den britiske »farvede revolution« imod Trump-administrationen!

Hvad skal man gøre? Hvis der er tvivl, så gå efter FBI!

Lyndon LaRouche sagde i dag, da han blev briefet om de seneste nyheder om griseriet, »FBI er noget skidt. Det er åbenlyst; argumenter er overflødige.« Selv om FBI sandsynligvis har fået sin kapacitet reduceret, »er det stadig en skidt faktor«.

Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI, er en ond, forræderisk organisation, der i mere end 70 år har opereret på vegne af Wall Street-financierer og Det britiske Imperium. Trump-præsidentskabet blev valgt af de amerikanske vælgere for at knuse dette imperium. For at sikre, at denne bestræbelse vil lykkes, at den Amerikanske Republik og dens Økonomiske System i Hamiltons tradition vil blomstre, må FBI’s nationale Gestapo knuses.

Det, som amerikanerne står overfor, er en endeløs strøm af konstruerede »skandaler«, der er fabrikeret over den simple formel: 1) kom med anklager imod Trump og hans kolleger, over forbindelser til Rusland; 2) fremfør, at Rusland er den onde fjende. Modus operandi er inkarneret i en hovedoverskrift i går aftes på CNN, én af floklederne, og som erklærede, »De mørke stormskyer, der trækker op over Rusland, hænger nu over Trump-kredsen«.

Den seneste beskyldning i dette forskruede sludder er mod Trumps svigersøn, Jared Kushner, for at have mødt den russiske ambassadør til USA Sergei Kislyak to gange under overgangsperioden til Trumps indsættelse, og for at have mødtes med en repræsentant for den russiske, statsejede udviklingsbank, Vnesheconombank. Det er meningen, man skal tænke, at dette er forkasteligt. Kushner tilsluttede sig omgående den voksende rækker af personer, der forlanger at aflægge forklaring for Kongressen for at gøre rent bord. Han meldte sig endda frivilligt til at træde for Senatets Efterretningskomites høring torsdag, der i øvrigt ser ud til at blive et cirkus, over spørgsmålet, »Disinformation: En begynderlærebog om russiske, aktive fremgangsmåder og kampagner for at øve indflydelse«.

Men flokken for farvet revolution udser sig nu ledere af selve Efterretningskomiteen som deres målskiver. Dagens planlagte møde bag lukkede døre i Husets Efterretningskomite kunne ikke gennemføres, fordi vidnerne, FBI-direktør James Comey og NSA-direktør Michael Rogers, sagde, de havde et problem med deres mødekalender.

I går kom formand for Husets Efterretningskomite, Devin Nunes (R-CA), under voldsomt angreb. Han blev bedt om enten at træde tilbage eller blive erstattet i sin stilling af en bande, der inkluderede Demokraterne, senator Charles Schumer (NY) og kongresmedlem Nancy Pelosi (CA), og mange Republikanere. Blandt de heksejagt-anklager, slynget mod Nunes, er tabersagen, at han sidste tirsdag arrangerede det, så han kunne læse hemmeligstemplede efterretningsdokumenter; og at han dernæst briefede præsidenten den næste dag. Kendsgerningen er, at Nunes gør sit arbejde. Han forfølger sporet for, hvordan efterretningsfolk afslørede – »fjernede masken for hans sande karakter« – pens. generalløjtnant Michael Flynn, der blev udsat for udspionering under processen med amerikansk overvågning af udenlandske personer. Nunes’ anklagere siger, det ’ikke er fair’ af Nunes at forfølge dette.

Nunes fortsætter imidlertid sine bestræbelser i denne uge og anmoder om, at de selv samme efterretningsdokumenter gøres tilgængelige for hans fæller i Kongressen, så de kan læse dem. EIR har af en uafhængig kilde fået at vide, at en person, der var til stede ved NSA/efterretningsmødet, hvor det blev besluttet at begå den illegale afsløring af Flynn, faktisk lækkede forbrydelsen, dvs., var ’whistleblower’.

På Senatets side går Charles Grassley (R-IA) direkte efter bæstets hjerte – FBI og briterne. Som formand for Senatets Efterretningskomite afslørede Grassley i går indholdet af sit brev af 24. marts til skidt-til-hyre-organisationen, Fusion GPS. Det er firmaet med base i Washington, D.C., der indgik en underentreprise med et britisk efterretningsfirma om at producere skidt imod Trump. Fusion indgik en kontrakt med det London-baserede Orbis Erhvervsefterretning, som er oprettet (i 2009) af to såkaldte eks-MI-6-agenter, Christopher Steele og Christopher Burrows (der begge er gået under jorden). De producerede det »upålidelige dossier« i 2016 om Trump.

Grassley har inden 7. april krævet alle detaljerne om, hvordan Fusion var involveret med Orbis, Steele og FBI, og før dette, hvordan Fusion arbejdede for Hillary Clinton-demokrater, og før dette, arbejdede for anti-Trump-republikanere. Dette viser britisk og FBI-indblanding i de amerikanske valg, for nu at slå hovedet på sømmet.

Grassleys brev går efter FBI’s involvering og siger, »Når politisk research fra oppositionen bliver grundlaget for lovens håndhævelse og efterretningsindsatser, så rejser det vægtige spørgsmål om lovhåndhævelsens og efterretningers politiske uafhængighed … «

Vi har en præsident i USA, og det er udgangspunktet for handling. Gå efter FBI! Sæt forbryderne i fængsel!

Foto: J. Edgar Hoover FBI-bygningen i Washington, D.C.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 27. marts, 2017 – Otteogfyrre timer efter præsident Donald Trumps ugentlige tale, der inspirerer Amerika til at genoprette vor nations tabte dedikation til at udvide menneskets viden om Universet og om selve livet, er denne historiske videoudsendelse fortsat næsten ikke blevet rapporteret i de amerikanske medier. Det er ikke engang blevet nævnt i New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times eller på de store Tv- og radiostationer. I stedet er medierne fulde af historier om, at Trump er en »fiasko«, fordi en (dybt fejlbehæftet) sundhedslov blev nedstemt, og af hysteri à la McCarthy-isme om Rusland, der stjæler det amerikanske valg, og af selv tilbagevendende henvisninger til »lugten af forræderi, der hænger over Trump-administrationen«.

På ét niveau er dette simpelthen nonsens. Men det sker også samtidig med, at en masse undergravende, »farvede revolutioner«, som den, der gennemføres mod Trump-administrationen, viser sig i hele Europa – i Balkanlandene, i Belarus (med direkte støtte fra de neonazistiske brigader i Ukraine), og, hvad der er vigtigst, i Rusland, hvor den med Soros forbundne Alexei Navalny har aktiveret et par tusinde demonstranter for at fremprovokere et par arrestationer, der skal gøres til avisoverskrifter i hele verden.

Og, hvad der er lige så vigtigt, så har præsident Trumps nylige vedtagelse af en politik for en tilbagevenden til det »Amerikanske System«, noget, der næsten udelukkende identificeres med Lyndon LaRouche, fået samme behandling af mainstream-medierne. Den faste skribent, der går under navnet Virgil på Breitbart-websitet, som tidligere blev ledet af Trumps chefstrateg, Steve Bannon, har udgivet to stærke rapporter, den ene om Trumps besøg i Michigan i denne måned [»Donald Trump, Rosie the Riveter, and the Revival of American Economic Nationalism« (Donald Trump, nitte-arbejderen Rosie og genoplivningen af amerikansk, økonomisk nationalisme)], og den anden om Trumps krav om at genindføre det Amerikanske System [»Trump Connects to the Taproot of American Economic Nationalism with Henry Clay’s `American System’« (Donald Trump skaber forbindelse til roden af amerikansk økonomisk nationalisme med Henry Clays ‘Amerikanske System’)].

Virgil bemærker, at disse taler af præsidenten »uden for enhver tvivl rejser den vigtigste, økonomisk-politiske idé i amerikansk historie«, og dog »var der ingen omtale af det i Politico, og heller ikke i hverken Washington Post, New York Times eller CNN«.

Løgnene, der udbredes som kendsgerninger af sofisterne på disse britiskkontrollerede og Wall Street-kontrollerede medier, er frastødende og ødelæggende, men ikke nær så ødelæggende som bestræbelserne på at forholde de amerikanske (og andre) masser, at den igangværende økonomiske og moralske transformation af vores nation i det hele taget finder sted. Forestil jer, at Jack Kennedys krav om, at mennesket skulle tage til Månen, »ikke, fordi der et let, men fordi det er svært«, blev udelukket i de amerikanske medier. Denne særlige ’behandling’ er velkendt af Lyndon LaRouche, hvis udviklende rolle i begge disse videnskabelige og økonomiske innovationer er åbenlys for alle, der kender ham, men som er blevet systematisk forholdt størstedelen af det amerikanske folk i 50 år, som en bevidst, åbent erklæret politik fra de såkaldte mainstream-mediers side.

Men denne evne til at udøve mind kontrol over befolkningen via medierne, er ved at blive brudt. En præsident, der taler direkte til befolkningen, og som nægter at bøje sig for myten om, at »den offentlige mening«, som den defineres af medierne, må tilbedes, har nu indtaget embedet. Det er langt fra klart, om han vil lykkes, men potentialet er stort, hvis befolkningen lever op til lejligheden. Lyndon LaRouche er i hvert fald af den overbevisning, at Trump ved, hvad han taler om.

Lyndon LaRouche har altid hævdet, at »den offentlige mening« og »at være praktisk« (pragmatisk) er menneskehedens, og i særdeleshed kreativitetens, største fjender. I denne tid med revolutionære forandringer, i traditionen efter Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln og Franklin Roosevelt, er det nye paradigme fuldt ud opnåeligt. Verden vender sig mod Kinas Nye Silkevejsproces, som markerer afslutningen af »nulsums-geopolitik« under Det britiske Imperium, der har domineret moderne historie siden mindst 1900. Ideen om en global renæssance – inden for videnskab, kunst og politisk økonomi – er den nødvendige og passende mission, der nu er forelagt os alle.

Foto: USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson møder Kinas præsident Xi Jinping i Beijing, Kina, den 19. marts, 2017. [State Department photo/Public Domain] 

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 26. marts, 2017 – Lørdag, den 25. marts, udsendte præsident Donald Trump en stærk og inspirerende, fem minutter lang video som sin ugentlige tale, hvor han bebuder sin plan om at føre nationen tilbage til rummet, efter Obamas syv års ødelæggelse af NASA og nationens rumprogram. Trump lod sig inspirere af Hubble-teleskopet, der i 1995 skuer ud i tomrummet, for blot at opdage, at der er endnu tusinder, eller millioner – eller flere – nye galakser at opdage. Som Trump sagde: »Denne opdagelse var fuldstændig utrolig. Men det uforglemmelige syn tilfredsstillede ikke vores dybe hunger efter viden. Denne hunger voksede til stadighed, og endnu mere, og mindede os om, hvor meget, vi ikke ved om rummet; ja faktisk, hvor meget, vi ikke ved om livet.«

Alle borgere på Jorden må få lejlighed til at se denne video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=ZGt6lkLApuo

Det er måske ikke et tilfælde, at Schiller Instituttet og Fusion Energy Forum, stiftet af Lyndon og Helga LaRouche, på samme tid afholdt konferencer i München, Tyskland, og i Houston, Texas, for at ære den store, tysk-amerikanske rumforsker og visionære person, Krafft Ehricke, der blev født for 100 år siden, den 24. marts, 1917. Alt imens flere fremlæggelser i München diskuterede Ehrickes ekstraordinære liv og karakter, og hans tætte relation til hr. og fr. LaRouche, så viste en fremlæggelse af en schweizisk astronaut, professor Claude Nicollier, der havde besøgt Hubble-teleskopet under sine fire missioner i rummet, flere spektakulære Hubble-fotografier af galakser, som teleskopet havde opdaget.

Blot få minutter senere, da Trump-videoen blev sendt til konferencen umiddelbart efter videoen blev udsendt af Det Hvide Hus, blev publikum slået af målløshed og inspireret af at se mange af de samme, smukke billeder af vort univers, som de netop havde set under den schweiziske astronauts fremlæggelse.

Med ganske få undtagelser har mainstreammedierne i USA, der er fikseret på at ødelægge den amerikanske præsident, baseret på britiske imperieløgne om, hvor farlig Rusland er for verden, totalt ignoreret denne historiske videopræsentation. Ikke siden John F. Kennedys program for at tage til Månen, og siden Ronald Reagans program for et samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland om skabelse af et strategisk forsvar i rummet, imod atomvåben, har en præsident således inspireret nationen – og dog vil de fleste mennesker ikke engang høre det, med mindre vi påtager os, som vores ansvar, at sørge for det.

Ligesom Ronald Reagans program for SDI, ’Strategic Defense Initiative’ (Strategisk Forsvarsinitiativ[1]), var direkte inspireret af Lyndon LaRouche, så ser vi nu præsident Trump bevæge sig imod vedtagelse af en politik, der er blevet initieret og forsvaret af LaRouche – og i de fleste tilfælde, udelukkende af LaRouche – i løbet af de seneste 50 år. Tag LaRouches video fra 1987, »Woman on Mars« (Kvinden på Mars); hans brochure, ’War on Drugs’ (Krig mod narkotika), fra 1980’erne; hans program for det Amerikanske System, for en genindførelse af Alexander Hamiltons (økonomiske) opdagelser; hans fremgangsmåde med Store Projekter for global udvikling; hans politik for de Fire Magter, for en forening af USA, Kina, Rusland og Indien; hans bog, »There are No Limits to Growth« (Der er ingen grænser for vækst), fra 1983 – alt dette reflekteres i stigende grad i de politikker, som Donald Trump vedtager.

Vil de lykkes?

Det vil være afhængigt af menneskehedens evne på globalt plan – og ikke kun amerikanernes – til at hæve sig op på et højere eksistensniveau – ’værens-niveau’ – til det, Helga Zepp-LaRouche kalder menneskehedens »modne alderstrin«, baseret på den menneskelige arts harmoni gennem skabende samarbejde for at fremme vores tilstand af viden, og af kultur. Denne harmoni er den Europæiske Renæssances rod, som den blev inspireret af Nicolaus Cusanus – Nikolaus von Kues – af Brunnelleschi og andre; og som ligeledes er roden i Song-dynastiets Konfucianske Renæssance, inspireret af Zhu Xi, såvel som den nye Konfucianske Renæssance i dag, inspireret af Kinas præsident, Xi Jinping.

Vi oplever for tiden en revolution i civilisationen. Som Lyndon LaRouche altid har hævdet, så, når dette øjeblik kommer, vil tiden ikke være til heppekor, eller til at følge flokken. Det er en tid for lederskab og personligt ansvar for menneskeheden som helhed.

Den tid er nu kommet.   

Foto: Screenshot fra præsident Trumps ugentlige tale, den 25. marts, 2017, om NASA Authorization Bill, med Hubble-teleskopets, og dets efterfølger, James Webb-teleskopets utrolige successer.  

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 25. marts, 2017 – Det følgende er invitationen til konferencen for at mindes hundredeåret for den visionære rumfartspioner Krafft Ehrickes fødsel, den 24. marts, 1917, afholdt den 25. marts i München, Tyskland. Endags-konferencen blev sponsoreret af Fusion Energy Forum, Schiller Instituttet og Sammenslutningen for Rumforskningens Fremme. Hovedtalen blev holdt af Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

Den 24. marts, 2017, ville rumfartspioneren dr. Krafft Ehricke være blevet 100 år. For at ære hans livsværk og udbrede hans skønne ideer om menneskehedens fremtid i universet, vil Fusion Energy Forum, Schiller Instituttet og Sammenslutningen til Rumforskningens Fremme sponsorere en international konference i München med fremtrædende deltagere, om de fremtidige perspektiver for rumrejser, videnskab og teknologi. Krafft Ehricke var kendt for sin maksime: »Man har sagt, ’Hvis Gud havde ønsket, mennesket skulle flyve, ville Han have givet mennesket vinger.’ I dag kan vi sige, ’Hvis Gud havde ønsket, at mennesket skulle blive en art, der rejser ud i rummet, ville Han have givet mennesket en Måne.’«

For Krafft Ehricke var koloniseringen af rummet den næste, naturlige fase i menneskehedens evolution. Han anså industrialiseringen af især Månen for at være et springbræt for menneskets ekskursioner ud i Solsystemet, og potentielt hinsides dette. Han var overbevist om, at det kun var gennem bemandet rumfart, at den menneskelige arts evolution ville nå frem til sin modne alder, og at den »udenjordiske forpligtelses store udfordring«, som han kaldte det, ville hæve mennesket op til sin sande bestemmelse.

Dr. Krafft Ehricke helligede hele sit liv til dette mål og bidrog signifikant til John F. Kennedys Apollo-program. Efter mordet på Kennedy blev hans, og mange rumfartsentusiasters, vision desværre ikke forfulgt. Amerika satte den første mand på Månen, men forfulgte ikke yderligere udforskning af Månen, med udsigt til at erobre vores Solsystem.

I dag har vi, takket være Kinas politik, endelig muligheden for at genoptage denne opgave. Kina planlægger yderligere missioner til Månen, inklusive den første landsætning af et rumfartøj på Månens bagside, og har yderligere planer for udvikling af Månens potentiale, såsom udvinding af helium-3 for at løse menneskehedens energispørgsmål på Jorden i kommende årtusinder, ved hjælp af fusionsenergi.

Her på Jorden er Kina i færd med at bygge sin infrastruktur på ligeså dynamisk vis. Hvert år føjes 2.000 km højhastighedsjernbane til det nationale jernbanenet, der allerede er vokset til 20.000 km og skal vokse til 50.000 km frem til 2030, hvor alle større byer i Kina vil være forbundet gennem højhastighedstog.

Det er ligeledes Kinas plan at sikre sin energiforsyning ved at udvikle kernekraft. Faktisk bygger Kina flere nye kernekraftværker end nogen anden i verden, hvilket står i skarp kontrast til Tysklands energipolitik, hvor kernekraft, efter planen, skal være helt udfaset frem til 2022. For at forhindre denne politik i at føre til en katastrofe som i 1930’erne, må vi vende den såkaldte »energi-overgang« omkring og bygge sikre, nye kernekraftværker, såsom den indbygget sikre højtemperaturreaktor, samtidig med en massiv forøgelse af finansiering til forskning i fusionskraft. Igen, i dette felt øger Kina, til forskel fra den vestlige verden, hvert år finansieringen til forskning i fusion.

Men Kina udvikler ikke kun sin hjemlige økonomi; det investerer også massivt i andre lande. I løbet af de seneste tre år har Kina, stort set upåagtet af de vestlige medier, udviklet en helt ny strategisk orientering med det Nye Silkevejsinitiativ, som omfatter samarbejde med flere end halvfjerds nationer og omfatter to tredjedele af Jordens befolkning, 75 % af energiresurserne og over 70 % af det globale BNP.

Forbes-magasinet skrev om den nye alliance: »Det er potentielt et opbrud, der kan ryste jorden og bryde paradigmer, og som, på en mere flydende måde, ville forbinde de økonomiske giganter Kina, Rusland, Iran, Indien og Europa i en løst sammensluttet, geo-økonomisk blok, der kunne ændre den globale magtbalance.«

Alliancen er mere end det. Kinas tilbud om »win-win«-samarbejde er inkluderende: dvs., det er et konkret perspektiv for at hæve sig over det geopolitiske niveau og virkeliggøre et nyt paradigme for menneskehedens fælles mål. Eller, som præsident Xi Jinping udtrykte det i sit nytårsbudskab, det er baseret på den overbevisning, at menneskeheden er et fællesskab for en fælles bestemmelse, der kan transformere vores planet til et fredeligt og fremgangsrigt sted.

For Tyskland og andre europæiske nationer tilbyder disse strategiske forandringer ekstraordinære muligheder, og samarbejde, frem for alt inden for områderne fusionskraft og rumforskning, åbner mulighed for konkret at sætte mange af Krafft Ehrickes visioner på dagsordenen. Denne konference vil således ikke alene ære hans bidrag til videnskabens historie, men søge at inspirere nutidens og fremtidens praksis.

Læs også: EIR-artikel: Krafft Ehricke og Lyndon LaRouche: »At løfte den menneskelige art ud af sin almindelige eksistens« 

Det måske største, mest altomfattende aksiom, der har forurenet menneskers evne til at tænke klart i nu et halvt århundrede, er, at der er »grænser for vækst«, en øvre grænse for den menneskelige befolkningstilvækst – hvilket vil sige, at der sluttelig er et loft over menneskets evne til at gøre fremskridt. Der er mange manifestationer af dette falskneri: troen på, at befolkningstilvækst er iboende ondt; at vi bør stræbe efter at reducere vores indvirkning på planeten; at menneskelig aktivitet udplyndrer Jordens resurser, og vores udvikling ødelægger miljøet; eller, at vi befinder os i en konkurrencetilstand med andre folkeslag om en fastlagt mængde resurser. Den fælles virkning af disse variationer over et tema er at gøre os små; vi tænker småt, vi handler småt og vi afviser den form for metoder, der ændrer historien, som »umulige«.

(Titelbillede: Krafft Ehricke opfandt Måne-glidelanderen som et alternativ til motordrevet nedstigning til måneoverfladen, og som ville bruge 90 % mindre drivmiddel ved at benytte sig af Månens sandede og glasagtige jord til at sagtne fartøjets fart. Maleri af Chris Sloan.)

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Så kan vi gå i gang.

(Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift):   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 23. marts, 2017 – Det er nøjagtig 34 år siden, at en tidligere, amerikanske præsident handlede ud fra sin egen dybe, personlige overbevisning og gjorde Lyndon LaRouches Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ (Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI) til USA’s politik.

LaRouche respondere den næste dag ved at sige:

»Kun højtplacerede regeringsfolk, eller en privat borger, der har så intimt et kendskab til detaljerne i den internationale politiske og strategiske situation, og som jeg har det privilegium at være, kan begynde blot at forestille sig, hvilken omvæltende virkning, præsidentens fjernsynstransmitterede tale i går aftes vil få i hele verden. De ord, præsidenten talte i går aftes, har sluppet ånden ud af flasken, og den kan ikke igen kontrolleres. Det meste af verden vil snart kende, og aldrig glemme, denne politiske bebudelse. Med disse ord har præsidenten ændret den moderne histories gang.

I dag er jeg mere stolt over at være amerikanere, end jeg har været, siden den første bemandede Månelanding. For første gang i 20 år har en amerikansk præsident udført en offentlig handling, der vidner om storslået lederskab, for at skabe grundlaget for at give fornyet håb for menneskehedens fremtid til en plaget og demoraliseret verden. Præsident Ronald Reagan blev i går rørt af sand storhed i en amerikansk præsident; dette er et storhedens øjeblik, der aldrig må glemmes.«

Hvis I har studeret det, som I må gøre, ved I, at SDI ikke var nogen fidus, og heller ikke en militær taktik. Det var snarere omdrejningspunktet for et vendepunkt i hele verden for en renæssance for en ny verden – ligesom LaRouches »Fire Nye Love« af juni, 2014, med USA’s samtidige tilslutning til Den Nye Silkevej, er i dag. LaRouche og Reagan havde samlet den fane op, som Franklin Roosevelt havde båret så langt, han kunne – den samme fane, som John Kennedy senere var begyndt at hejse i den meget korte tid, han fik.

Ronald Reagan havde allerede været udsat for et forkrøblende, forebyggende mordforsøg, før han kom med sin SDI-bebudelse, og han blev dernæst, senere, udsat for mange pres imod SDI – men han opgav det aldrig, så længe han levede. For eksempel gentog han den 6. august, 1986:

»I SDI og andetsteds har vi sat teknologi, der næsten overgår vores forstand, til at arbejde og således øge vores produktivitet og udvide grænserne for, hvad der er menneskeligt muligt … Fremtiden ligger i bogstavelig forstand i vore hænder, og det er SDI, der hjælper os med at genvinde kontrollen over vores skæbne.«

Som en del af den operation, der forsøgte at slå præsident Reagan ihjel, blev også Lyndon LaRouche på falske anklager fængslet, og hans sammenslutning brudt i stykker, men LaRouche – såvel som hans ideer – overlevede ikke desto mindre – eller bedre endnu, hans kreative evne til at skabe nye, gyldige ideer, overlevede. De kunne ikke, ville ikke lade sig dræbe. Fireogtredive år senere næsten på dagen, har en anden præsident taget LaRouches ideer op, selv om LaRouche, til forskel fra tilfældet med Ronald Reagan, aldrig har mødt selve manden.

Det, vi mener hermed, er det følgende. Præsident Donald Trump har offentligt forpligtet sig over for det Amerikanske System, ud fra sine egne, dybe overbevisninger. Det har han gjort med fuld, indre forpligtelse – som Lyndon LaRouche har set bevis for i sine undersøgelser af præsidentens offentlige udtalelser. Der kan ikke herske tvivl om, at præsidenten har anselig, dybtgående kendskab til det, han taler om. På den anden side mangler hans medarbejdere, især i deres bredere kredse, næsten med sikkerhed denne dybtgående viden.

Men, som medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee Michael Steger bemærkede i en e-mail i går til medarbejdere og andre – den sidste, amerikanske præsident, der offentligt erklærede det Amerikanske System, var William McKinley, lige i begyndelsen af den 20. århundrede. Dette var før de to, ødelæggende verdenskrige og den efterfølgende kolde krig (og hvis afslutning skulle blive fremskyndet af sovjetrussernes sluttelige afvisning af LaRouches SDI). Det var før Einstein, før atomkraft og før den praktiske erobring af rummet, med begyndelse i 1957.

Det, som det Amerikanske System vil sige i dag, er ikke længere det samme, som McKinley mente – endskønt i princippet det samme. I dag vil det sige Lyndon LaRouche. Han er manden, der har båret Alexander Hamiltons udødelige ideer frem til slutningen af det 20., og nu, til det 21. århundrede – og ikke blot som en akademisk disciplin, men i direkte handling, inklusive succesfulde kamphandlinger, som Hamilton selv gentagne gange gjorde.

At tale om det Amerikanske System i 2017 er at tale om Lyndon LaRouches arbejde. Alle, der har forhåbninger om at omsætte denne præsidents forpligtende engagement til succesfuld handling, er nødt til at studere Lyndon LaRouches arbejde og selv mestre hans ideer. Og dét nu.       

Foto: LaRouche taler med Ronald Reagan under et kandidatmøde i New Hampshire under præsidentvalgkampen i 1980.    

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 22. marts, 2017 – I sine taler mandag ved et møde i Kentucky og tirsdag for møder for det Republikanske Parti, understregede præsident Donald Trump, at han har til hensigt at lede landet til en tilbagevenden til det »Amerikanske Økonomiske System«. Efter meget kvalificerede iagttageres skøn »mente præsidenten det virkelig« begge gange – han ønsker at vende tilbage til den faktiske, økonomiske politik, der blev ført af Alexander Hamilton og George Hamilton, Henry Clay og Abraham Lincoln: det »Amerikanske System«.

Er Trump den præsident, der kan føre USA tilbage til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System? Det er stadig ikke afgjort og afhænger også af landet – af os, af jer. Bør vi vende tilbage til det? Absolut.

Med enkelte undtagelser ved de fleste amerikanere, og andre landes borgere, ikke længere, hvad det Amerikanske Økonomiske System var. Det blev defineret af Abraham Lincolns økonom Henry C. Carey, for eksempel, som det »Amerikanske System«, i direkte modsætning til det »Britiske System« med frihandel.

De samme briter, der, i løbet af det seneste år, har stået bag McCarthy-kampagnen for at miskreditere Donald Trump og drive ham ud af Det Hvide Hus.

»Få ram på Trump«-McCarthyismen er britisk, fordi Trump – efter årtiers katastrofal »globalisering« og afindustrialisering – ønsker at vende tilbage til det Amerikanske Økonomiske System. Og han erkender fordelene ved fred, ved at standse Bush’ og Obamas endeløse krige, og ved at samarbejde med Rusland og Kina for at stoppe det.

Et »dossier« fra britisk efterretning om Donald Trump, produceret for Hillary Clinton, var således begyndelsen på at forvandle det Demokratiske Partis lederskab til en McCarthy-hob, på jagt efter »russere«, der lurer bag hver søjle i Det Hvide Hus.

Det Amerikanske Økonomiske Systems grundpiller var:

1) beskyttelse og støtte af amerikansk produktion således, at USA kunne blive den storslåede, producerende nation, det blev;

2) en konstant promovering og opbygning af den mest moderne, nationale infrastruktur, af de samme grunde – de transkontinentale jernbaner, det nationale hovedvejssystem, Apollo-Måneprojektet; og

3) et kreditsystem, baseret på national (statslig) bankpraksis, som den store finansminister, Alexander Hamilton, havde opfundet.

I dag vil dette sige at lukke Wall Streets kæmpekasinoer ved at genindføre Glass/Steagall-loven; at etablere en nationalbank i traditionen efter Hamilton, til infrastruktur og varefremstilling; at investere billioner i ny infrastruktur af den højeste, teknologiske standard; at udvikle fusionskraft, vende tilbage til Månen og det dybe rum med menneskelig kolonisering og udvikling.

Dette er, hvad EIR’s stiftende redaktør, økonom i det Amerikanske Systems tradition, Lyndon LaRouche, for nylig har udviklet som »Fire Love« for at redde den amerikanske økonomi.

Det Amerikanske System betød også Monroe-doktrinen – at det unge USA ville gøre alt, der stod i dets magt, for at holde de britiske og franske finansimperier ude af de amerikanske kontinenter, så alle disse kontinenters nationer kunne udvikle deres økonomier og indgå gensidige handelsaftaler, til fælles fordel.

I dag vil det Amerikanske System sige at koble sig til Kinas Nye Silkevejsinitiativ, hvor 60 nationer er i færd med at indgå sådanne aftaler inden for et »win-win«-paradigme.

Schiller Instituttet og EIR er i færd med at opbygge en stor, international konference i næste måned i New York City for at bringe Trumps USA ind i dette nye paradigme, hvor det »Amerikanske System« kan blomstre.

Præsident Trumps forståelse af det Amerikanske System i dag er elementær, men alvorligt ment. Jo flere amerikanere, der ved, hvad det skulle betyde, og handler på det, desto bedre chancer er der for, at det Britiske Systems »globaliseringsæra« vil slutte under hans præsidentskab.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump modtager en NASA-flyverjakke tirsdag, den 21. marts, 2017, efter at have underskrevet ’NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017’ i det ovale værelse i Det Hvide Hus i Washington, D.C.  

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 21. marts, 2017 – Et internationalt medievanvid gik i gang i anledning af Repræsentanternes Hus’ høring i Efterretningskomiteen den 20. marts, over spørgsmålet, »Undersøgelse af russiske aktiviteter«, med en proklamation af – som det tyske Bildzeitung hovedoverskrifter i dag sagde – at »Trumpgate« er godt i gang, og at USA snart vil miste sit hoved. Tidligere tyske regeringspersoner citeredes for at komme med den iagttagelse, hvor ’historisk’ og ’unik’ og ’alvorlig’, situationen i USA er, med statshovedets troværdighed gået fløjten.

I virkeligheden var dette blot endnu et moment i den igangværende, beskidte operation i forsøget på at dumpe Trump og dæmonisere Rusland. Processen består i skræmmekampagner og løgne, som i går blev øget af en opvisning, der skulle imponere, fra et galleri af Demokrater, med en opførsel i traditionen efter Truman og McCarthyismen. Det, som den nuværende medie-hype rent faktisk viser, er ønsketænkningen på vegne af de kontrollerende interesser bag de falske nyheder, som er knyttet til det udåndende britiske system, der trues af den kendsgerning, at valget af Trump er en del af et betydningsfuldt skift til en helt ny verdensorden.

Den fortsatte mulighed for et sådant skift ses af flere af dagens begivenheder. Mandag nat talte præsident Trump i Kentucky for et møde i Louisville, hvor han stærkt fremhævede behovet for at vende tilbage til det »Amerikanske System«. Han nævnte berømte ledere, der er født i, eller knyttet til, Kentucky – Abraham Lincoln og Daniel Boone – og dvælede ved Henry Clay som en »stærk fortaler for amerikansk varefremstilling« og en tilhænger af udenrigshandel, som »må være fair, ligeværdig og gensidig«, sagde Trump. »Vores regering har alt for længe opgivet det Amerikanske System …« Han talte om genindustrialisering, genoprettelse af kulminearbejderjobs, og mere.

Og igen her til aften talte Trump, ved en Kongresmiddag, om historiske ledere og projekter for USA’s udvikling. Han sagde, at det Amerikanske System altid havde været de grundlæggende fædres hensigt. Senere, se på den transkontinentale jernbane. Han påpegede Republikanernes politiske program i 1896 (under McKinley) for protektionisme og gensidighed inden for handel.

Det Amerikanske System er præcis, hvad Lyndon LaRouche i fyrre år har været fortaler for og har argumenteret med, at det Amerikanske Systems praksis med dirigeret kredit til industri, videnskab og infrastruktur er blevet kasseret i USA, især siden Franklin Roosevelts død, og omgående må genindføres for at forhindre en økonomisk katastrofe.

I mellemtiden fortsætter fremstødet for den fremgangsmåde, der kan få dette til at ske – nemlig genindførelsen af Glass-Steagall. Mandag blev en resolution fremsat i North Carolinas generalforsamling (delstatskongres), som krævede, at USA’s Kongres vedtager Glass-Steagall og et »amerikansk, økonomisk genrejsningsprogram«, som det skitseres i Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love«. I går havde Fortune.com en artikel til støtte for Glass-Steagall, med overskriften, »Vil Donald Trump holde sit kampagneløfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall?«

Parallelt med indenrigspolitikken er der udenrigspolitiske initiativer i en ny retning. Trumps udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson skal nu, efter diskussioner i Kina med præsident Xi Jinping i sidste weekend – hvor et møde mellem Xi og Trump blev forberedt – til Rusland i april, iflg. rapporter fra Udenrigsministeriet til TASS i dag. Den indikerede tidsplan er, at Tillerson vil forblive i USA under det sandsynlige møde den 6.-7. april i Florida mellem præsidenterne Xi og Trump. (Tillerson springer over NATO-udenrigsministermødet, der finder sted samtidigt, den 5.-6. april, hvor under-udenrigsminister Tom Shannon vil deltage.) Så tager Tillerson til Italien, til mødet den 10.-11. april i Gruppe af Syv-udenrigsministermødet, og derfra videre til Moskva.

Disse initiativer, i sammenhæng med Bælt & Vej-initiativets fortsatte præstationer og forpligtelser på internationalt plan – der karakteriseres af ’Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde’ i Kina om mindre end to måneder – er i færd med at fjerne eksistensen af falsknerier af enhver art, der har pågået i årtier, og som blev promoveret af Romklubben, Verdensnaturfonden og det Kongelige Dit & Dat.

Den virkelige sandhed er, at menneskeheden kan vinde.  

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 20. marts, 2017 – Præsident Trump er i færd med at drive Det britiske Imperium og dets satrapper i USA og hele verden ind i en tilstand af ren panik. Han afviser den »særlige relation« mellem USA og briterne og identificerer åbent de britiske og amerikanske efterretningstjenesters forbrydelser – forbrydelser, der har været velkendt meget længe (især siden Snowden), men som misdæderne mente, verden kunne formås til at glemme.

Myten om »den frie verden versus gudløs kommunisme« er smuldret i takt med, at Trump åbnet fremmer venskab med Rusland og Kina. Løgnen om, at »verden er ved at brænde op under den industrialiserede verdens kulstofudledninger« er blevet smidt over i kategorien for eventyr for børn, i stil med Walt Disney-filmen »Chicken Little«. Libertarianismens myte om, at »frihed« betyder legaliserede, narkotiske stoffer og uhindret spekulation, er stadig i live, men konfronteres med de sidste krampetrækninger i takt med, at lovgivning for Glass-Steagall og krig mod narko nu er på bordet.

FBI-chef James Comey og NSA-chef Michael Rogers blev stillet for Repræsentanternes Hus’ Efterretningskomite, med den hensigt fra nogle kongresmedlemmers side at komme ind til sandheden bag løgnene og hysteriet imod både Rusland og præsidenten. I stedet sagde Comey, at han ikke kunne besvare sådanne spørgsmål, eftersom der i øjeblikket var undersøgelser i gang af både den angivelige russiske, undergravende virksomhed i præsidentvalgkampen og angivelig russisk, undergravende indflydelse over Trump og hans kampagne. Høringen udviklede sig til et freak-show, hvor flere Demokrater lød endnu mere sindssyge end Joe McCarthy-fanatikerne under Harry Trumans antikommunistiske heksejagter i 1950’erne.

Trump demonstrerede, at han ikke ville kues, ved at udsende to budskaber før åbningen af høringen:

* »James Clapper og andre erklærede, at der ikke findes beviser for, at Potus [President of the United States, – red.] intrigerede sammen med Rusland. Denne historie er FALSKE NYHEDER, og alle ved det!«

* »Demokraterne opfandt og promoverede den russiske historie som en undskyldning for at køre en frygtelig kampagne.«

Det, der mangler, og som er afgørende, er det, som Krafft Ehricke, geniet, hvis raketter bragte mennesket til Månen, kaldte den menneskelige races nødvendige modning. Hans koncept med den ’udenjordiske forpligtelse’ (Extraterrestrial Imperative), der siger, at mennesket ikke er en jordbo, og at der ikke er nogen grænser for vækst, satte en mission for menneskeheden for, at den skulle komme ud over stadiet med det barnagtige tidsfordrivs mudderkastning med krigsvåben, og til at opløfte den menneskelige ånd til stjernerne. Dette fordrer den nødvendige udvikling af alle verdens borgeres skabende evner.

I dag markerer LaRouche-organisationens lancering af »100-års jubilæumsugen for Krafft Ehrickes fødsel«. Arrangementer og videopræsentationer vil finde sted i hele USA og Europa i ugens løb, inklusive LaRouchePAC Policy Committee webcastet mandag (se https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV9fR_LeeEE). Denne særlige uge er ikke alene for at hædre Ehrickes liv og værk, men for at »udbrede hans skønne ideer om menneskehedens fremtid i universet«.

Ehricke er berømt for denne sætning: »Det er blevet sagt, ’Hvis Gud ønskede, at mennesket skulle flyve, ville Han have givet det vinger’. I dag kan vi sige, ’Hvis Gud ønskede, at mennesket skulle blive en rumrejsende art, ville Han have givet mennesket en Måne’.«

Men, tilføjede han, »teknologi er ikke løsningen på alle vore mangler. Dertil behøver vi at vokse, at modnes – men teknologi gør det nemmere«. Det var denne erkendelse af nødvendigheden af en kulturel transformation af det menneskelige samfund på Jorden, der tiltrak Ehricke til det nære venskab og samarbejde med Lyndon LaRouche og dennes bevægelse. Heri så Ehricke den nødvendige bestræbelse for at forbinde de forskellige civilisationer på vores planet, hver med deres forskellige filosofiske og kulturelle traditioner, for at gå sammen om den fælles bestræbelse på at opdage universets naturlige love og anvende dem til at opløfte arten som helhed.

Det nye paradigme, som Den Nye Silkevej repræsenterer, gør præcis dette og skaber et fællesskab af nationer med en fælles skæbne for fred gennem udvikling. Denne proces er nu hastigt ved at spredes i hele verden. Med Det britiske Imperiums magt stærkt svækket, men endnu ikke død, er det menneskehedens presserende opgave at bringe USA og Europa ud af dette rådnende ligs magt, for at skabe menneskehedens modne alder.

Foto: Solen går ned over Buckingham Palace.

Det er uden for enhver tvivl en af de vigtigste, strategiske udviklinger, at både præsidenten for FN’s Generalforsamling, Peter Thomson, og den nye FN-generalsekretær, Antonio Guterres, har annonceret FN’s fulde samarbejde med Kinas initiativ for Den Nye Silkevej. Guterres understregede: »Xi Jinpings vision er den eneste fremtid for menneskeheden på denne planet! FN vil samarbejde med Kina om at fremme fred og udvikling i verden, og målet er at virkeliggøre et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid.«

Det er ikke alene fuldstændig sandt, for Kinas koncept for Den Nye Silkevej har i løbet af de seneste tre et halvt år for længst udviklet sig til et unikt, strategisk initiativ, der går langt ud over oldtidens originale Silkevejs dimensioner og er blevet til en udviklingsstrategi for alle kontinenter på Jorden.

18. marts, 2017 – Mere ubehagelig kunne stemningen mellem forbundskansler Angela Merkel og den amerikanske præsident Donald Trump næppe have været under Merkels besøg i Det Hvide Hus. Ingen håndtryk for kameraerne, knap nogen øjenkontakt, og for det meste misfornøjede miner hos dem begge. Ikke alene er kemien mellem de to ikke god, men det er også åbenbart, at der i den aktuelle, transatlantiske geometri ikke kan findes nogen løsning på spændingerne. Ikke desto mindre er der en løsning i sigte, men den findes på et helt andet, højere plan: win-win-samarbejdet med Kina og Den Nye Silkevej, som både USA og Tyskland er blevet inviteret til at deltage i.

I betragtning af, at valget af Trump betød et nederlag for Hillary Clintons neoliberale, neokonservative politik, Clinton, som Trump kaldte ’Amerikas Angela Merkel’, og at Merkel blev anset for at være ’Obamas nærmeste allierede’, kunne man ikke forvente, at de to ville være på bølgelængde. New York Times havde således følgende titel på sin dækning, ’Merkel møder Trump, forsvareren versus udbryderen’. Da en korrespondent fra Die Welt, under en fælles pressekonference, forsøgte at provokere Trump ved at rejse spørgsmålet om anklagerne om, at britisk efterretningstjenestes GCHQ havde aflyttet ham for Obama-administrationen, vendte Trump sig mod Merkel og kommenterede humoristisk: ’så har vi i det mindste noget til fælles’. Det høstede Trump latter for, mens fr. Merkel knap kunne mønstre et smil.

Lignende uoverensstemmelser kom op til overfladen ved G20-finansministermødet i Baden-Baden, hvor de ikke kunne blive enige om formuleringer omkring »protektionisme« og »fair trade«.

Dynamikken, skabt af Kinas diplomatiske initiativer for at forberede Bælt & Vej-forummet den 14.-15. maj i Beijing, er langt mere lovende. Flere end 20 statschefer, over 100 ministerdelegationer, flere end 150 ledere af store organisationer og 1200 delegationer, bestående af videnskabsfolk, industrichefer og økonomer, har allerede givet tilsagn om deltagelse. Rådgiver til det kinesiske statsråd Yang Jiechi, der har ansvaret for forberedelserne til og koordineringen af konferencen, mødtes i slutningen af februar med præsident Trump og så godt som alle medlemmerne af Trump-teamet i Washington. Kort efter kom Trumps invitation til præsident Xi Jinping, til et todages arbejdstopmøde, der skal finde sted den 6.-7. april i Mar a Lago, Trumps ejendom i Florida. Til forskel fra den japanske premierminister Abes besøg, som Trump tidligere har inviteret til sin ejendom, vil det under mødet med den kinesiske præsident ikke komme til at handle om golf, men derimod om et omfattende, amerikansk-kinesisk samarbejde om økonomiske og strategiske spørgsmål.

Under en pressekonference den 10. marts med China Daily, på sidelinjen af den Nationale Folkekongres i Beijing, understregede Yang Jiechi, at det er en del af konferencens mål at konsolidere en »bred, international konsensus til Bælt & Vej-initiativet«. Det er, sagde han, Kinas idé, men det bliver ikke et solonummer fra Kinas side; en bedre sammenligning ville være en symfoni, der opføres af et orkester, bestående af alle deltagende lande.

Det er uden for enhver tvivl en af de vigtigste, strategiske udviklinger, at både præsidenten for FN’s Generalforsamling, Peter Thomson, og den nye FN-generalsekretær, Antonio Guterres, har annonceret FN’s fulde samarbejde med Kinas initiativ for Den Nye Silkevej. Guterres understregede: »Xi Jinpings vision er den eneste fremtid for menneskeheden på denne planet! FN vil samarbejde med Kina om at fremme fred og udvikling i verden, og målet er at virkeliggøre et fællesskab for menneskehedens fælles fremtid.«

Det er ikke alene fuldstændig sandt, for Kinas koncept for Den Nye Silkevej har i løbet af de seneste tre et halvt år for længst udviklet sig til et unikt, strategisk initiativ, der går langt ud over oldtidens originale Silkevejs dimensioner og er blevet til en udviklingsstrategi for alle kontinenter på Jorden.

Ingen kan bestride, at de mange hundrede projekter, der befinder sig på forskellige stadier af realisering, i forrygende tempo er i færd med at nærme sig det koncept, som vores forlag, EIR, allerede i 2014 foreslog i sin omfattende, 370 sider lange rapport, »Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen«. 

Med andre ord, så bliver Kina og flere end 70 nationer nu officielt støttet af FN i at virkeliggøre den Alliancefri Bevægelses gamle drøm om en ny, retfærdig, økonomisk verdensorden. Og det er ligeledes ubestrideligt, at ideerne og principperne nu gennemføres på internationalt plan, som Lyndon LaRouche i over 50 år har kæmpet for, som den tunesiske diplomat dr. Ahmed Kedidi for nylig fremførte i en bemærkelsesværdig artikel i Qatar-avisen Al-Sharq. 

Selvfølgelig står betydelige og eksistentielle trusler i vejen for denne vision om en forenet menneskehed, som hidtil kun er blevet tænkt af filosoffer som Konfucius, Sri Aurobindo, Nicolaus Cusanus eller Leibniz. Akutte eksempler ses i den ekstremt farlige konflikt omkring de nordkoreanske raketprøveaffyringer som reaktion på deployeringen af THAAD-raketforsvarssystemet i Sydkorea og de amerikansk-sydkoreanske militærmanøvrer, såvel som også den kun indledningsvist løste krise i Mellemøsten og det øvrige Sydvestasien, eller krisen i Ukraine, der nu igen tilspidses. Og selvfølgelig vil denne krises pragmatikere og kulturpessimister med argumenter i Aristoteles’ ånd som bevis herfor anføre, at målet med en fælles fremtid for menneskeheden er en uopnåelig utopi.

Men den direkte modsatte tankegang er nødvendig. Hvis vi, i menneskehedens fremtidige, fælles interesse, med vores bevidste viljes medvirken, beslutter os for en vision om, hvor menneskeheden skal befinde sig om 10, 100 eller 1000 år, så kan man udtænke et højere fornuftsplan, på hvilket konflikterne på et lavere plan vil være ophævet. Kinas initiativ med Den Nye Silkevej, hvori alle nationer kan deltage i et win-win-samarbejde, udgår netop fra denne tilgang.

Det vil meget snart vise sig, at Trump kun kan opfylde sit løfte om at forny USA’s infrastruktur, hvis lande, der har stor ekspertise inden for dette felt, som Kina, Japan eller Tyskland, deltager i det.

Lige så klart er det, at en fortsat disintegration af Europa kun kan stoppes, hvis de europæiske nationer beslutter sig til at opbygge Balkan og Sydeuropa økonomisk sammen med Kina, inden for rammerne af Den Nye Silkevej. Konflikten omkring den Koreanske Halvø kan kun løses, hvis Nord- og Sydkorea vender tilbage til den fælles udviklingsstrategi, som den netop afsatte præsident Park, efter pres fra Obama-administrationen, havde afsluttet, hvilket kun er tænkeligt, hvis man ser de to koreanske nationer indlejret i Den Nye Silkevejs dynamik.

Og Europa ville måske igen kunne tale om et vestligt værdifællesskab, hvis det opgav det usigelige forsøg på at organisere afskyelige aftaler om opsamlingslejre, som i mellemtiden er blevet til fængsler, for flygtninge, og i stedet går med i en reel udviklingsstrategi for Sydvestasien og Afrika. Dette forudsætter imidlertid, at repræsentanterne for det arrogante, neoliberale, transatlantiske establishment kommer ned fra deres høje hest – eller i modsat fald erstattes af andre politiske kræfter.

Det kan synes urealistisk for mange af samtidens mennesker, men vi er nu kommet til det tidspunkt i universalhistorien, hvor man må benytte de bedste ideer, som menneskehedens store tænkere har frembragt. Et af de vigtigste koncepter af denne art er den tankegang, som Nicolaus Cusanus har udviklet med coincidentia oppositorum, modsætningernes sammenfald. Nicolaus var helt klar over – og har skrevet dette – at han hermed tænkte noget, som ingen før ham nogensinde havde tænkt. Men med denne videnskabelige metode lagde han ikke alene grunden til Den Westfalske Fred, men også til skabelsen af nye opdagelser inden for videnskaberne og den klassiske kunst.

Hvis vi i dag ønsker at løse menneskehedens problemer, må vi udgå fra netop denne Cusanus’ tilgang, der er beslægtet med konfuciansk tankegang, på hvilken Xi Jinpings vision bygger. Læsning af Nicolaus Cusanus’ De Docta Ignorantia (’Om lærd uvidenhed’) og det dertil hørende forsvarsskrift kan stærkt anbefales til fordybelse af denne tilgang. [1]    

[1] Se: »En dialog mellem kulturer – En hyldest til Nicolaus af Cusa«, tale af Helga Zepp-LaRouche i anledning af 600-året, i 2001, for Cusanus’ fødsel. 

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 19. marts, 2017 – Donald Trumps præsidentskab, bagvasket (og aflyttet) af hele det transatlantiske establishment, fra neoliberalt til neokonservativt, er i færd med at ryste det gamle paradigme med geopolitik, globalisering og »grøn« afindustrialisering. Det britiske establishments efterretningsvæsen og statsråd (Privy Council) reagerer med ekstrem giftighed på dette og centrerer fremstødet i både EU-eliten og Obama/Soros-netværkerne omkring hurtigt at bringe Trump til fald ved hvilke midler som helst; rigsretssag, tilbagetræden eller endda mord.

Men det nye paradigme – og den »nye industrielle revolution«, som præsidenten påberåbte sig i Detroit i sidste uge – er allerede på vej fra Den Nye Silkevej. Den tilbydes Trumps USA af Kina og de eurasiske magters store initiativ med byggeri af de store, nye infrastrukturprojekter for Jorden, og med rejser til Månen og gennem Solsystemet.

Som USA’s udenrigsminister Tillerson sagde under sit møde med Kinas præsident Xi i søndags, så støtter USA relationer, der er

»baseret på princippet om nul konflikt, nul konfrontation, gensidig respekt og win-win-samarbejde«.

Og som Xi svarede ham, relationer, der er »ansvarlige over for historien og fremtidige generationer«. Og Den Nye Silkevej tilbyder dette samme, nye paradigme til Tyskland og »Europa« – der nu er så chokeret og fjendtlig over, at Trumps administration afviser de britiske diktater om »frihandel«, miljøbeskyttelse og globalisering.

Det er af afgørende betydning, at der kommer en impuls for dette fra USA. Men for at det kan ske, er det nødvendigt med en politisk revolution i USA, mere, end præsident Trump kan yde, mens han bekæmper angreb fra briterne og Obama. Inden for de næste 30 dage vil Schiller Instituttet, med LaRouche-bevægelsens »Manhattan Projekt« som drivkraft, mobilisere for at bringe USA ind i det nye paradigme.

Der afholdes afgørende konferencer, som fokuserer på Schiller Instituttets konference i New York City 13.-14. april. Konferencen vil præsentere både en Dialog mellem Filosofier – den reelle ensartethed mellem konfucianisme og kristendom i særdeleshed – og de historiske, strategiske muligheder i perioden, der leder frem til »Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde« 14.-15. maj. New York-konferencen vil blive et vigtigt vendepunkt i denne proces.

Blandt deltagerne vil der være tre, fremtrædende, kinesiske autoriteter inden for Bælt & Vej-initiativet, eksperter inden for USA’s infrastruktur og politiske personer, ledere fra LaRouche-bevægelsen og repræsentanter for diplomatiet. Den kulturelle dialog vil blive understreget af en musikalsk aften.

Manhattan-projektet vil være spydhoved for et forenet, nationalt organiseringsfremstød for at katalysere den nødvendige dynamik gennem denne konference og tilknyttede aktiviteter, for at styrke potentialet for en konsolidering af det Nye Paradigme, der udgår fra Beijing.

Samtidig må Glass/Steagall-loven genindføres i Kongressen for at bryde Wall Streets spekulationskasinos greb om den stagnerende, amerikanske, industrielle økonomi. Lovforslaget har samlet 40 sponsorer siden 1. februar; nu må et gennembrud tvinge det til afstemning i salen. De aktuelle ændringer af NASA’s mission må bringes fra blot en »omprioritering« og til et nyt, forceret program for at vende tilbage til og udvikle Månen, som menneskets trædesten til Solsystemet og det fjernere rum. Præsidentens egne, $1 billion store infrastrukturinvesteringsplaner vil forlise uden skabelse af en statslig kreditinstitution til infrastruktur og varefremstilling, en nationalbank efter Hamiltons principper.

At støtte det nationale fremstød for LaRouches »Fire Love« er vejen til en politisk revolution for at bringe USA ind i det nye paradigme. Målet er at bære præsident Trump hele vejen til en central rolle i Beijing ’Bælt & Vej’-forummet, to måneder fra i dag.

Foto: USA’s udenrigsminister Rex Tillerson giver hånd til Kinas præsident Xi Jinping før deres bilaterale møde i Beijing, 19. marts, 2017.

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 18. marts, 2017 – Præsident Trumps afvisning af at bakke ud af sin anklage om, at Obama-administrationen står bag overvågningen og de illegale lækager af klassificerede aflytningsbånd, så vel som også hans afvisning af at benægte sandheden i dommer Napolitanos afsløringer om GCHQ’s medskyldighed i (eller, mere sandsynligt, direkte kontrol over) den farvede revolution imod den amerikanske regering, er ved at drive Det britiske Imperium ind i panikagtig selv-afsløring.

Den britiske presse løj vildt i fredags og sagde, at USA havde »undskyldt« for, at Det Hvide Hus’ pressetalsmand Sean Spicer havde citeret Napolitanos anklage mod GCHQ. Faktisk henvendte den britiske ambassadør til USA sig til Spicer under en reception, og premierminister Mays nationale sikkerhedsrådgiver ringede til general McMaster, men ingen af dem undskyldte. Selv sagde Trump, under sin pressekonference med Merkel, at Spicer blot havde rapporteret ordene, der kom fra »en begavet, juridisk ekspert«.

New York Times skriver hektisk, at den »særlige relation« hastigt forværres. »Teorien om en sammensværgelse er også en udfordring for det, der ofte kaldes for den særlige relation mellem USA og Storbritannien«, klynker de i dag. »Amerikanske efterretningstjenester nyder et tættere samarbejde med deres britiske modparter end nogen andre i verden. GCHQ var den første tjeneste til at advare den amerikanske regering om, at Rusland hackede det Demokratiske Partis e-mails under præsidentkampagnen.« Dét var – denne rundes første løgn. Times ruller også frem med en gruppe anglo-agenter fra Republikanernes, Demokraternes og de neokonservatives rækker, der vræler op om den alvorlige fare for den særlige relation.

En undersøgelse af Fox News, der ejes og køres af Det britiske Imperiums Rupert Murdoch, er særdeles afslørende i denne henseende. Alt imens den til et lavere niveau forsimplede, amerikanske befolkning skulle tro på, at »Fox har ret og CNN er venstreorienteret, og aldrig skal de tvende mødes«, så er de lige hysteriske, når spørgsmålet drejer sig om Trump, der angriber briterne.

Med hensyn til GCHQ fastslog tyskerne, da Snowden i 2014 afslørede, at Merkels mobiltelefon var blevet aflyttet af NSA, at det drejede sig om både NSA og GCHQ, og at de begge havde lytteposter på taget af deres ambassader i Berlin. Og ligeledes, at alle aflytninger gik til USA gennem en britisk forbindelse. Trumps vits om, at han og Merkel havde noget til fælles, går længere end til korrupt, amerikansk efterretning, og direkte til briterne.

Repræsentanternes Hus’ Efterretningskomite har indkaldt FBI-chef James Comey og NSA-chef Mike Rogers til at aflægge vidnesbyrd om dette mandag, den 20. marts. Desuden har senator Grassleys brev af 6. marts til Comey med krav om, at alle optegnelser af kontakter, betalinger, kontrakter osv. (inkl. Det Hvide Hus’ evt. rolle) med MI6-fupartisten Christopher Steele mht. dennes platte rapport om Trumps russiske forbindelser, ligeledes krævet, at svar skal være inde senest mandag.

Det bliver en interessant uge.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trumps første dag i Det Hvide Hus.

I dag vil vi afspille et meget specielt, eksklusivt interview under webcastet; med en forfatter inden for finansielle spørgsmål, Nomi Prins, der har forfattet flere bøger, inkl. All the President’s Bankers, og som er en meget stærk fortaler for Glass-Steagall.

Matthew Ogden: Det er i dag den 17. marts, 2017. … Med mig i studiet har jeg i dag min kollega Jason Ross, og via video Rachel Brown, fra Boston, Massachussetts – medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee. I dag vil vi afspille et meget specielt, eksklusivt interview under webcastet; med en forfatter inden for finansielle spørgsmål, Nomi Prins, der har forfattet flere bøger, inkl. All the President’s Bankers, og som er en meget stærk fortaler for Glass-Steagall.

Men før vi går over til dette, vil jeg henlede opmærksomheden på, at man på vores hjemmeside nu kan se vores helt nye, digitale version af LaRouchePAC’s brochure, med titlen »LaRouches Fire Love: De fysisk-økonomiske principper for USA’s økonomiske genrejsning; Amerikas fremtid på Den Nye Silkevej«.

Den er nu tilgængelig i digital form på LaRouchePAC’s webside, og vil snart være tilgængeligt som pdf; denne pdf vil blive massivt cirkuleret, hvilket er meget afgørende. *

Samtidig kører LaRouchePAC en national og international kampagne for opbakning til Apellen, (på LPAC: http://lpac.co/sign4laws, på dansk: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=18227)

(Matthew Ogden oplæser Apellen).

(Dernæst følger videoklip med Paul Gallaghers interview med Nomi Prins).

* En dansk version af denne pdf er under udarbejdelse.

Se: Introduktion. 

Se: Jason Ross præsenterer brochuren Fire Love, dansk udskrift af video, 10. marts: LaRouchePAC webcast, 10. mrs., start på 25 min  

Engelsk udskrift af hele dette webcast:

PAUL GALLAGHER : What do you think is the way that Republicans and Democrats can join on what you're proposing with Glass-Steagall, and with regard to the Dodd-Frank Act also? Glass-Steagall is now introduced in the House, it has nearly 40 sponsors; but from the Republican side, there is this attack on regulation. They're being told by their leaders that they have to look for legislation to remove regulation from the banks. How do you think that this can be bridged?

NOMI PRINS : Well, if we go back to what happened in the crisis relative to the bail-out moments, where both Republicans and Democrats were faced with a very crisis [sic] banking system, it was really more Republicans who didn't necessarily want to vote for bailing out on those banks. There certainly are a number of Republicans; there were people on both sides who didn't feel that the bail-out was the responsible thing to do. I agree with that; I think there were other ways, much more cheap ways that would have not incurred so much debt onto the U.S. books. And also this whole global proliferation of debt that I've been talking about; there would have been very simple ways to fix that entire thing. I wrote about them in "It Takes A Pillage" in 2009; but that didn't happen, and so what happened was that Republicans and Democrats and their constituents were basically on the hook for supporting these institutions. Not just in the bail-out, but then in all of the years of very low interest rates, where the savings of voters and their communities are unable to achieve the returns that they had in the past when rates were higher; and just a lot of different things happened in both Republican and Democratic institutions that were hampered by the remedies that were put in place to deal with the crisis, that had to do with the fact that our banks were "too big to fail", and the moral hazard that was associated with that, that has not gone away. It's almost as if, if we start to debate the term "regulation" or "deregulation", we're missing the structural element of what the banking system looked like; like co-mingling deposits and loans with riskier activities; and if it didn't look like that anymore, there would actually be less need for regulating smaller things around the edges.

You start to have to regulate small things around the edges of the banking system, when the banking system itself is structured in such a way that it can incur such great damage onto the overall economy. So from the standpoint — even historically — of why both Republicans and Democrats wanted the Glass-Steagall Act, and almost collectively voted on both sides for the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, that was because both parties believed there should be more confidence in the banking system. That it shouldn't be the government's concern that banks were going to implode, or trust companies were going to implode, and we were going to have another Great Depression. Nobody really wanted that; which was why it was such a bipartisan vote. It was a bipartisan vote to repeal Glass-Steagall in 1999, because we had had so many good years of basically not having financial crises, that I think Congress people on both sides of the aisle forgot why and said, "Well, the world is different right now. We can repeal Glass-Steagall; these banks should be allowed to be bigger and to operate more different types of services," because that's how the U.S. is competitive with the rest of the world if the rest of the world is doing it. That's what Europeans were doing; that's what European banks were doing. There were all these competition arguments that were coming from the Republican side and the Democratic side which forgot history; the history of why Glass-Steagall existed to begin with, and the fact that we had a lot of stability in the system for most of the decades that followed that. It was only when chinks started happening in that regulation around the edges that we started having more mini-crises, and ultimately the larger financial crisis in 2007-2008.

So, it shouldn't be a partisan issue; it should be something that both Republicans and Democrats want to avoid — another financial crisis. I would hope that both sides look at the history of what this country did when we had a major financial crash followed by a depression; how it was stabilized after that; where it broke down and why it broke down in the last crisis. We're actually at a very dangerous point right now if we don't restructure the financial system. If we do, if we bring back Glass-Steagall, we don't have to have as many arguments about regulation anymore, because financial services companies and banks will have picked a side. One side will be lending into the main economy — corporations and so forth; one side will be trading from a riskier perspective. That's how it was, and that only changes the structure which enables us to be healthier from a risk standpoint going forward.

OGDEN: We'll come back with the second clip from this interview; but before we do that, why don't we just discuss this a little bit? Rachel, you obviously ran a nationally-recognized campaign in 2010 against Barney Frank — the author of the Dodd-Frank — who is the one who made this entire false, fallacy argument about regulation and so forth. You made Glass-Steagall a household term not only in Massachusetts, but across the country at that time. Maybe you want to say a little bit about that campaign, or what's happening now around the Glass-Steagall fight; but the broader international significance of what this means.

RACHEL BROWN: Well, I'll just say that she's right that it's not partisan; Glass-Steagall has nothing to do with a party. The Republicans have been insane to say that they're not for this, when obviously, the majority of the American population is. Wall Street is a criminal entity; it's fascist. There's no separation between Wall Street, terrorism, drug money, and the British Empire. So I think the reason we haven't put through Glass-Steagall is because there has not been an adequate response to the question of the British threat to the U.S. republic. The British did say to a LaRouche PAC correspondent that putting through Glass-Steagall would be considered a declaration of war by the British. That is the condition that the world is in right now. We either shut down Wall Street, or we have a complete collapse of the United States; going back into the state of things that we saw over the last 16 years. The American people voted in November not to die; and that should be the trend of the United States now. Take this momentum that's happening globally around the world right now, bring this momentum into the United States; and yes, put through Glass-Steagall. If we don't, there is really no other option.

JASON ROSS: That's our first ticket, the first of the Four Laws of Mr. LaRouche, that's the first ticket to joining the Belt and Road Initiative; to joining the New Silk Road. There's just no way we as a nation can participate in the kind of infrastructure renaissance taking place around the world — and it could take place here — without Glass-Steagall. There's going to be no way to orient credit towards these long-term development projects if we have a system where money goes into the banking sector and it just stays there; it never comes back out again, which is what we've had with the bail-outs under Dodd-Frank. We need that separation to make banks actually finance real projects that aren't just in the world of finance.

OGDEN: And it's that kind of Hamiltonian credit — you already see the impulse towards that coming from China with the AIIB to build the New Silk Road with the BRICS bank, the new development bank. That's actually the subject of the second clip we're going to play from Nomi Prins; so we'll put that on the screen now.

GALLAGHER : To return to the article that you wrote, forecasting for 2017, you were discussing in there, if I remember it right, the international economic situation — not only in the United States — and you talked about the potentially combined importance of Japan and China for the world economy and for the United States. Obviously, they are countries which are both coming directly with proposals towards the Trump administration; they're also countries which usually strategically oppose each other.

So, how do you see that? What is the importance of this combined effect of China and Japan on the world economy which you are otherwise describing as very unstable?

PRINS : There are a couple things. First, in this whole evolution of central banks and the Fed and the CBN Bank of Japan sort of coordinating their policies over the last post-financial crisis years, it created a situation where the People's Bank of China got very concerned, and they were very critical of this policy of cheapening money and quantitative easing and the collaboration of the other sort of "developed" countries' central banks, and talked a lot about how there was hidden risk in that. As a result of their criticism, they also began to elevate their political position; because there were a lot of other countries — developing countries — that felt the same way, both in the Asian region and also in America, and so forth, who were also concerned that the Fed was sort of dominating currencies and monetary policy and the cost of money throughout. And they had to either figure out how to separate what they were doing in their own country, join up with what the Fed was doing, or deal with how the international globalized markets would punish them.

China got annoyed by this, and as a result, they started pushing the IMF to include them as a reserve currency, in something called an SDR — a basket of currencies which before that point had just been the dollar, the euro. It had been the franc and the deutschmark before 1999. It was basically just the dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound. Those were the currencies that effectively lined the reserves of central banks, and it was basically how liquidity was provided throughout the world amongst the larger countries. China wanted to push into that; so they used this sort of criticism and the instability that they discuss. Not just them, but the IMF and others discuss the instability of the Fed policy, and ultimately pushed their way in to the SDRs. So now there's five currencies. And they came in No. 3, so basically, in terms of the size of the weighting of this basket, it's the dollar, the euro, the Chinese ren, the Japanese yen, and the British pound. They're almost the same at the bottom, No. 4 and No. 5. That was also a political push. It was monetary, it was political. At the same time, they were developing more trade alliances in the region with Russia, establishing the BRICS Bank, which was a development bank between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, that would be purely run and used for emerging markets, which was kind-of the newest of its kind. It started to just champion a lot of external-to-the-U.S. types of things.

As Trump was running, all this was kind of still in play. As he basically came on to the scene and started talking about more sort of nationalistic, more isolated trade policy; calling China a currency manipulator, stealing jobs and so forth, which he was not the only one. The Democrats also called China a currency manipulator. It's in my new book: all the times that something would go wrong in the U.S., and China was blamed for it, even though they weren't necessarily related.

China basically continued to develop alliances throughout the region. When Brexit happened in Europe, it basically stepped up, as the U.S. is stepping up, to try and forge a separate relationship with the UK, or to sort of start to map one out. It's trying to form separate relationships now with Mexico, because there is a sort of negativity surrounding our relationship with Mexico in the era of the Trump administration. All of these things that started to shift because of central bank and monetary policy, have sort of accelerated because of potential nationalistic and racialist isolationist bilateral trade policy.

How Japan fits in all that, is that Japan has historical antagonism with China, but at the same time it's part of Asia. So, you have a choice to make. They have a very strong relationship with the U.S. We're large trading partners; we're allies on so many different elements, including on the military side. The Bank of Japan was a staunch ally of what the Fed was doing during this entire, I call it in my new book, "Artisanal Money Era," since the financial crisis, and kind-of moving along with what the Fed wanted. So, it was playing that side, and had to. At the same time it's got this huge country next door that's developing all these other relationships in its region, and it really has to decide where survival is going to lie.

And so there have been trade arrangements and agreements that Japan has made with BRICS countries as well as with China, that have developed out of this sense of concern or uncertainty, relative to what would happen with the U.S. relationship; as they've also been trying to maintain a strong U.S. relationship. And that just alters the shift of power into sort of trading money between sort of the West — the U.S. and the European bloc — and what is growing in the area of Asia and Eurasia and the BRICS nations. Japan, again, is sort of in this component.

GALLAGHER: China is also offering the United States the Belt and Road Initiative, these large, great infrastructure projects, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank — which Obama didn't want; wanted to try to stop, but has expanded nonetheless. Do these make the world economy more stable? Is this…

PRINS: Well, I think it's a logical next point. China has criticized the U.S. policy for creating instability in the world, as have many countries. That has allowed it to have a lot more regional trading blocs and to become a part of the international financial markets. That in tandem has allowed it to continue to develop its own infrastructure; it has really good infrastructure. I was in China last summer for a while, and I took their high-speed trains from Beijing to Shanghai, and they're awesome; as are the high-speed trains, for example, in Japan, where the distance from the airport to the center of Tokyo would take like two-and-a-half hours if you take a taxi or try to drive that. But it's a very short, quick, pleasant experience on a high-speed train that also tells you where your gate is, and has all sorts of boarding information; it talks to you in different languages. There's a lot of high-tech stuff going on there, from an infrastructure standpoint. Similar in China.

Wanting to export that to the U.S. is a way to sort of take economic advantage, which is smart of them, to what Trump is talking about, in terms of building infrastructure here. It just might be cheaper, and actually more at a higher quality from a technological perspective, to work with the Chinese on these initiatives in our country. You kill two birds with one stone. You have jobs that are created here, because the work's physically taking place here. But you have engineering and design and plans of technology that's happening in China. And so, from a Trump perspective, you're able to say you're not losing jobs, or you're not losing some jobs, or you're splitting jobs, or whatever, which is not necessarily a bad thing. And China's able to add another growth area onto this whole pattern that it's undergone in the last five, six years.

OGDEN: The full video of that interview will be available on the LaRouchePAC website over the course of this weekend, so you can look forward to that. Let's just open it up, and we can discuss it a little bit more.

Again, this is obviously the subject of the petition and what LaRouche PAC is leading in the United States. The context of this discussion is a revival of the depth of understanding of economic science Alexander Hamilton created; and that's distilled in the form of these four economic laws, which are elaborated in this new pamphlet, and available on the LaRouche PAC website.

BROWN: I think the point about the Four Laws, is that it is a unified, integrated system; you can't have one without the other. It's also the only way to affect what's happening to people in the United States, with the drug crisis, unemployment, etc. The Four Laws are the only way to unify the country. I did want to put out a particular response to the question of the British attack on the Presidency. What are the British afraid of? They are afraid that what's happening globally may happen in the United States — a resistance to the policies of the recent period of financial control, of economic manipulation, and economic warfare, which has hit the United States. Glass-Steagall will overturn that policy; so, yes, Glass-Steagall and the Four Laws have got to be done.

When you have, now, these freak-outs and accusations against the U.S. Presidency, many of which originate from the British, you have to question what is the motivation; and has there been a beneficial aspect of the recent relationship of listening to London, of listening to Wall Street? What has that done to the American people? I think Donald Trump might want to know a few of these things — about some fundamental questions that should be raised.

What the British said recently in response about the wiretapping, has been public. Said a spokesperson for GCHQ: "Recent allegations made by media commentator judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct 'wire tapping' against the then President Elect are nonsense. They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored." This is what they say. However, you have a number of statements from U.S. intelligence representatives, one of whom — Scott Ritter — was outspoken in the fight around the Iraq war, and questioned the intelligence around the so-called "weapons of mass destruction." He just put out a recent article, saying that the evidence of the transcript of Gen. Michael Flynn — which ended in his resignation — that this transcript's existence itself poses serious questions as to how that transcript came about. That either it came about from a FISA order, which Obama said didn't happen, or it was ordered directly by the President, or it was by the FBI, which has to go through certain U.S. laws and would mean that Gen. Flynn's name could not be released publicly (that's the third option). Or, the last option, Ritter says, which wouldn't have to go through this U.S. particular law about not naming Gen. Flynn, would be to go through a foreign intelligence service, of which there is ample evidence. There is a very close collaboration of U.S. Intelligence and British Intelligence; they're said to function essentially as one unit. We also have the recent 35-page "dodgy" dossier, which is known to be written by MI6 agent, to attack Trump, not even President-elect at the time, which was paid for by Democratic Party representatives and Republican Party representatives.

So, when Trump says there might be a political motivation, and that there might be surveillance, there are many other people who think that same thing. What Scott Ritter says, is that these questions should be raised. He says that "What Senate and House members should be asking for [in their upcoming investigation] is an accounting of all interaction between the CIA and GCHQ that transpired between Dec. 29, 2016, and Jan. 26, 2017, with a particular focus on the activities of both [John] Brennan and [Robert] Hannigan during this time.” Hannigan, who was the head of GCHQ, happened to resign three days before the General Flynn transcript came out publicly, when Prime Minister Theresa May was actually in the United States, as well. Whether that could be coincidental, I don’t know; but they’re raising questions. Why did Hannigan resign at this time? In his article, Ritter continues: “Both men should be subpoenaed, as well as [Sally] Yates and any and all officials from the CIA, FBI, Justice Department, NSA, and GCHQ who were involved in any manner with the production and provision of the Flynn transcript to American intelligence, and its subsequent use by U.S. government officials." The transcript was also then leaked to the U.S. media, which was also illegal.

You also have Larry Wilkerson, the former Chief of Staff for Secretary of State Colin Powell, who also said that it's very strange that Hannigan resigned at this time. He says, "I'm not one to defend Trump, but in this case he might be right. It's just that it wasn't the FBI. Comey's right, he wasn't wire-tapping anybody, it was John Brennan, at the CIA." Then you also have Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst, who also said something to this effect; he talked about the collaboration between GCHQ and the NSA. So, I think those facts should be on the table, as well as the Tony Blair history and the history of assassinations of U.S. Presidents.

Then also to put forward, as mentioned before, Helga Zepp-LaRouche's statement from earlier this week that we should not just look at today and yesterday in the news media; but keep in mind this global process that has really been emerging over the last several years. Just over the last year, we had the Vladivostok forum last summer in Russia, which was a major development; the G20 meeting in China; the Chinese presentation at the UN on the One Belt, One Road last fall; the BRICS forum in Goa, India last October; and then in November, the U.S. elections. So, this is a monumental process in history, and it's absolutely LaRouche's Four Laws and the United States joining this international process of regaining an orientation towards truth and the development of the physical economy that this is the time to put this completely through.

ROSS: It's a whole shift in paradigm; and part of this thing with the British freak-out in many different ways regarding the Trump Presidency and the style of approach that many in the Democratic Party have taken, of a simple idea of "resist". Resist anything that Trump does, no matter what it is. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? It doesn't matter; Trump did it. Resist!

The idea of resist is a color revolution type of outlook. It's an outlook that doesn't go anywhere; that doesn't provide leadership, when leadership is what's needed right now. We need Glass-Steagall passed; we need to be able to finance the infrastructure needs of the United States to lay out a whole new platform of infrastructure. That's going to cost a lot of money. Donald Trump's $1 trillion is not nearly enough. Doing it through public-private partnerships is not going to work. So, where is the party of FDR, for example, saying we're going to finance this in a Hamiltonian credit orientation; we're going to make trillions of dollars available over the long-term to finance projects that will have a massive pay back in terms of totally changing the whole system a decade from now, five years from now, 20 years from now for the larger projects. That's leadership; and that's what's needed. It's an entirely different world.

Rachel, you brought up that the Four Laws aren't four laws that when passed will have a cumulative good effect; but that it's one outlook, it's one paradigm that has this four-part component. Like a piece of music that has four movements; but they're not four movement that got put together and happened to work nicely, it was one piece. Leadership on that is what's needed. Think about the irony of this: President Bush, Vice President Cheney started based on faulty, untrue intelligence — which certainly at least Cheney knew was untrue — which came via the British; launched a war in Iraq that has led — according to accounts of people there — to over 1 million dead Iraqis. They weren't impeached; Cheney should have been impeached. The idea that now it's bad to be friends with Putin? You know who you really would not want to be seen with? How about the Queen of England? How about Tony Blair? {That's} somebody you wouldn't want to be seen in public with. You want to talk about an unelected dictator making decisions with the military that have world implications? There's the Queen of England for you, for example.

The potential that we've got right now for a New Paradigm, not a few new laws; not four independent laws that have a cumulative or synergistic impact. But a New Paradigm that's wide open right now. When Xi Jinping in September 2013, first publicly launched the One Belt, One Road — now called the Belt and Road Initiative — in Kazakhstan at Nazarbayev University, that wasn't one action by President Xi; that was opening up a whole new paradigm that's been in preparation for years. Something that the LaRouches have been organizing for, especially intensively since the collapse of the Soviet Union; a potential for world organization for the betterment of people; to eliminate poverty and move to a new level of mankind. That's what we could be doing; and that's what leadership would look like right now, not resisting.

OGDEN: You compared the Four Economic Laws to a piece of music; four movements in a piece of music that necessitates the following one and necessitates the previous one. A spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry recently compared the New Silk Road to a symphony. He said this kind of win-win paradigm among nations is comparable to a symphony orchestra, where you have different musical instruments, but not any one of them in isolation can produce the awesome beauty and power of a symphonic composition; but all of them together create something which is much bigger than each one by themselves. That's the kind of win-win paradigm which the United States should be joining; it's not us against them anymore. It's not winner take all; it's a completely New Paradigm as you're saying. It's based on new axioms of relationships between.

We saw Donald Trump in his state of the union address, he said America is willing to find new friends and to forge new partnerships where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict. Well, the kind of harmony of a symphony orchestra, the kind of harmony of the New Silk Road, requires British imperialistic-style geopolitics be a thing of the past. We need to make a clean break and say "What {are} our mutual interests?" Mutual interests can only be found in the future; it's only in the future of mankind as a whole, especially at this point in human evolution.

Now I know that yesterday on the LaRouche PAC activists' call last night, Bill Roberts was the featured guest speaker. I think he had a very good presentation of what Franklin Roosevelt accomplished in terms of the industrial and economic revival of the United States, which allowed us to win World War II. This obviously was referring back to Donald Trump's visit to Ypsilanti, Michigan, where he made reference to the Arsenal of Democracy. But there are economic principles which are required to be understood.

The other thing which is available to understand real harmony, and as you were saying, the unity of effect of either LaRouche's Four Laws or this New Paradigm of economic relations among countries, is a presentation that John Sigerson made in Manhattan during a meeting up there on Saturday. It's titled on the LaRouche PAC website "Motivführung 101: Introduction to the Haydn-Mozart Revolution". [https://larouchepac.com/20170314/motivf-hrung-101-introduction- haydn-mozart-revolution] This is the kind of thinking which is required if you are to understand all of the moving parts that are taking place right now in world history. So, all of those are recommended to our viewers in addition to this full interview that's going to be presented on the website this weekend — Nomi Prins; and also the full text of the digital pamphlet on America's Future Along the New Silk Road.

But Rachel, coming back to what you said, people must understand that the fight for Glass-Steagall is just that; it is a fight! There are avowed enemies to this New Paradigm of economic relations, who are willing to stop at nothing. Many of those are found on Wall Street and found in the City of London. Putting those facts on the table and making that reality clear, that there is a very nasty political war going on right now, not just behind the scenes but in full daylight. I think that's very significant for people to understand, and not be naïve about. Maybe you can say just a little bit more about that in terms of what the American people should see as their role in actively intervening into that.

BROWN: LaRouche reminded people after the election, that this should be a reminder to them of their power. We are witnessing a reawakening of the thinking of the nation. For a long time, people were afraid to think; they might not have been conscious of it, but there is an optimism out there. But it needs to be educated; and what is not understood is this international process. There is a desperate attempt to keep this out of the U.S. media and to keep people focussed on these non-issues, as you're mentioning. They're not real; they're fictions, they're distractions. So, I just think people need to be reminded of their power; and given that encouragement to study the solution, that's what people need. We have to inspire people; we have to create something that's infectious, and what's infectious is beauty, is optimism, is great ideas. People should just use the material that we're putting out — the music, the pamphlet — and go out there and inspire other people.

OGDEN: OK. Thank you very much. So, one last time, I'm going to put a link on the screen for this petition. This is "U.S. Needs Win-Win Development; Implement LaRouche's Four Laws and Join China's New Silk Road" — lpac.co/sign4laws. Please circulate that as widely as possible, and be on the look-out for the pdf version of the new LaRouche PAC pamphlet. So, thank you very much to Rachel and Jason for joining me here today; and thank you to all of you. Again, Happy St. Patrick's Day! And please stay tuned tolarouchepac.com.