Engelsk udskrift: I denne uge får vi en opdatering fra Kesha Rogers i Texas, som anfører en politik for en genoplivelse af det amerikanske NASA-rumprogram; Jason Ross fortsætter sagaen om Gottfried Leibniz; og Jeffrey Steinberg giver os Lyndon LaRouches analyse af betydningen for fredsprocessen i Syrien af de seneste udviklinger, med den russiske militære tilbagetrækning.

– DELIGHT IN CREATING SURPRISES! –

International Webcast March 18, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good Evening! It's March 18th, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden, and I would like to thank you for joining us
for our weekly Friday evening broadcast, here, on
larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the studio tonight by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}; and Jason Ross,
from the LaRouche PAC science team; and we're joined via video by
Kesha Rogers, multiple-time candidate for Federal office from the
state of Texas, and leading member of the LaRouche PAC Policy
Committee.
All of us had a chance to meet with Mr. LaRouche, both in
person and via telephone connection (in the case of Kesha),
earlier this morning. Mr. LaRouche had some very definite and
specific ideas which he wished for us to convey. Mr. LaRouche was
{emphatic} when we met with him earlier today, that the global
agenda right now is being set by Russia and by China, and their
allies. He said that the initiative in creating the future and
shaping present global policy, lies with those two countries,
strategically — in the case of Russia, as is very clear with
what is occurring in Syria right now; and economically and
scientifically — in the case of China.
You can see very clearly that the outdated and archaic
methods of the trans-Atlantic system are proving to be impotent,
both in the case of resolving the current grave crises which are
facing mankind as a planetary species right now, but also
impotent in setting the agenda and fulfilling and laying out the
vision for the future of mankind. The mission which has been
undertaken by China, in terms of their objective to explore the
far side of the Moon — something which is going to be unfolding
over the coming two years — exemplifies the necessary identity
which mankind must have in order to affirm and to fulfill our
true nature as a creative species.
Mr. LaRouche stated that something that we should develop,
in dialogue with him and with each other, is to think about the
open questions, the unanswered questions about how is mankind, a
species, reflective of a much larger, and as yet not fully
understood, creative characteristic of the galactic system as a
whole. This is a relationship which Johannes Kepler drew out in
very unique detail in terms of his discoveries about our {Solar}
System, but we have many, many large and unanswered questions of
what is the role of the human species in our relationship to the
galactic system as a whole, and then the complex of galactic
systems as a much, much larger whole.
Mr. LaRouche said that this mission to explore the "dark
side" of the Moon, so-called, is a pathway in order to begin to
understand even the opening of the questions along these lines.
The dark side of the Moon, his hypothesis was, is where you can
find some of the shadows of this much larger system, have insight
into it, and also to begin to understand mankind's role as
reflective of these broader creative processes which are involved
in these great astronomical systems.
This is the spirit of the United States at our best. Our
republic was founded on these kinds of unique ideas, as we've
discussed here in previous weeks. The role of the great
philosopher and scientist Gottfried Leibniz is a major
contributor, a "founding father", or "founding grand-father" of
our republic. This is something which I know Jason Ross has
presented multiple times and is in the process of having a series
of developing classes on that subject; and I'm sure we'll be part
of his discussion later today.
But also, this is what you can see in a great statesman,
such as Abraham Lincoln — very, very much so. Franklin
Roosevelt; and John F. Kennedy. Tragically, that spirit in the
United States has deteriorated drastically. We see now that the
leadership does indeed lie with China and with Russia; and this
is something which Kesha Rogers, who is joining us here today,
wrote about in an editorial which is appearing in this week's
edition of the {Executive Intelligence Review} magazine. Kesha's
editorial is titled, "To Save the United States Economy, Revive
the Space Program."
Kesha and I had a brief conversation earlier this afternoon.
I know she has some broader ideas to develop on this subject, so,
without further ado, I would like to hand over the podium to
Kesha Rogers.

KESHA ROGERS: Thank you, Matt. I think I'd like to start,
first of all, by continuing to develop what has and must be the
focal point by which we come to understand the necessity for the
revival and the defense of, not just the American and U.S. space
program, which I have continued to be a leader in championing the
development and the necessity of our space program and what it
truly represents for the progress of all mankind. But just on the
editorial that I wrote, I think, to understand it, it's not just
from the standpoint of looking at the economic conditions of the
United States and some practical applications to economics that
the space program will provide; but we also have to look at it
from the standpoint of is, the space program as a true conception
of real economic value. This is what's actually missing from our
thinking and what has been attacked by the current Wall
Street/British imperial system, is that economic value is based,
from {that} standpoint, on monetary value and not on the creative
powers and progress of the human mind.
The real question at hand right now, is to bring about — as
we're seeing and will be developed further in these discussions
today — a new conception of what is the identity and what is the
purpose of mankind. I have continued to use the example and the
works of the great pioneer of space flight, space pioneer Krafft
Ehricke; and looking at his conception of mankind as a
space-faring creature, as the understanding of mankind's
"extra-terrestrial imperative," as that which must be identified
and understood.
If you look at the conditions of the space program and why
it's so important, you take the example, for instance, of what
China is doing now, as completely rejecting this monetarist
policy; that the space program is not how much money you're going
to put into pet projects and specific projects. It is creating
something that's never been created before, to actually create a
new conception and identity of mankind, from the standpoint of
the idea of acting on the future.  That's what this idea and what
is being developed, for instance with China in their
investigation of the far side of the Moon.
People may look at this, "Well what is this going to
benefit us? How is this going to improve the economic conditions,
in terms of monetary value, or any of this?" But that is the
wrong way to look at it; because the problem right now is that
what you have seen is two different opposing conceptions of the
view of mankind. One coming from the trans-Atlantic system,
coming from a collapsing imperial system that has been based on
money and monetary value that is dying; and the other is
represented by what Russia and China are doing. And as Matt
emphasized and what I developed in my recent writing, was that
this was the mindset of the great leaders of our nation,
represented by the ideas of Alexander Hamilton, of Franklin
Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, [and] John F. Kennedy. It wasn't just
on the creating of new projects per se, but on a whole new
different conception of the identity of mankind.
And so, you take for instance, the example of what we
accomplished in the United States, of landing a man on the Moon
— the idea that Kennedy put forward, that by the end of decade
we would land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth.
What was the vision and intention behind that? Was it just the
idea that we would go and plant our flag on the Moon? This would
be some short-term gratification and so forth? Or, was it a
forward-thinking outlook, in terms of the direction of mankind in
recognizing what Krafft Ericke, the great pioneer of space
flight, recognized, that mankind was not just a creature of the
planet Earth. We were not just a part of, as he called it, a
"closed system," and so it was our responsibility to go out and
to do what no other animal had the capability of doing; of
actually conquering and developing, coming to understand what is
the purpose of mankind and what is the development of mankind in
the universe as a creature of our solar system and of the galaxy
as a whole.
One thing that I thought was very insightful, is that Krafft
Ericke wrote about the understanding of the Renaissance, the
Classical Renaissance, as an achievement of human progress. And
also the Classical Renaissance is something that contributed to
the development of what became our space program and what was the
intention that guided the direction of space travel and the space
program.
I'll just read a quick quote from what he expressed on this
idea. He says, "The development of the idea of space travel was
always the most logical and most noble consequence of the
Renaissance ideal, which again places man in an organic and
active relationship with his surrounding universe and which,
perceived in the synthesis of knowledge and capabilities, its
highest ideals."
So you look at this from the standpoint of Krafft Ericke
understanding that the Renaissance that was guided by the
scientific breakthroughs which I'm sure you'll hear a lot more
from my colleague Jason there, of Brunelleschi, or the
breakthroughs that came about from the works of Kepler. That the
idea of mankind, is to create something fundamentally new,
something that had never been created before, and increasing the
relationship of mankind to the Universe.
Now that's economic value! That is not what is being
discussed when you look at these debates going back and forth
from the standpoint of these Congress Members to the space
community, and what budgets are being cut and should not be cut.
But the reality is, as I stated before, we have to have, in the
defense of the space program, a new conception of the direction
of mankind. That means we're removing all limitations to
progress, all limitations that are put on mankind's ability to
continue to understand how to make new discoveries in the
principles scientifically of what's out there. Why should we
actually investigate the Solar System? What is our mission in
doing so? And it's not about a money-making short-term
gratification. And so, I think this emphasis that Krafft Ehricke
put on the renaissance as an ideal of looking at why we have, as
a human species, an extraterrestrial imperative, is really a
continued expression of what you're seeing coming from China; not
just in their space program, but in the development of the
win-win strategy of cooperation for all mankind, for every nation
to come to join together. And to further the progress of
addressing the necessary challenges to the economic condition of
the planet by actually recognizing that the solutions do not lie
right here on planet Earth.
So, I think that's the conceptions I wanted to get across;
and what I hope to have further discussion on as we continue this
fight to identify what is the real mission of the space program,
and how we come to rid the world immediately of this current dead
system that's keeping us from advancing in the way that we should
be.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Kesha; and I can recommend that
people read what you've written in the current edition of
{Executive Intelligence Review}. I also know that you're planning
on making a video statement — which will be posted on the
LaRouche PAC website and available for people — developing some
of these ideas a little bit more in detail.
So, if people have been watching this website, you know that
Jason Ross has also been working very closely with Kesha to
develop some of these ideas with their implications from the
standpoint of a scientist, whom I hope you are becoming more
familiar with by now — Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As we
discussed last week on this webcast, I think if you begin to
consider this question which Kesha just laid on the table for us,
about how do you create a future for mankind. How do you initiate
the creation of something which is completely new, as we move
into the future? Now, this can never be done through the
replication of the past; there's no precedent for a discovery. A
discovery is something which is always new, and is created {de
novo} and is introduced, which changes the course of human
history. Obviously, there is a lineage that goes back to
Gottfried Leibniz, and many Leibnizians who have lived since him:
Karl Gauss; Bernhard Riemann; Albert Einstein; and I would even
include Mr. Lyndon LaRouche in that lineage.
So, without further ado, I'm going to ask Jason to elaborate
a little bit more; picking up on what Kesha just left off on.

JASON ROSS: Thanks, Matt. Well, I think if you consider how
to conceptualize the value of the kinds of programs that Kesha
was discussing that we're promoting today, you reach a
contradiction if you try to approach them from a monetarist
standpoint. That is, the kind of economics that's generally
taught today, the kind of economics practiced as a religion —
well, I was going to say as a religion on Wall Street; the
primary religion on Wall Street is stealing — but, in general,
the basis of thinking is that economy is about money; we can
measure things in terms of money. How much is somebody willing to
pay for something? That's how valuable it is. That isn't. Money
doesn't measure different qualities; money doesn't measure the
future potential that something is able to create. And if you
base money on how much somebody's willing to pay for something,
you don't distinguish between things that are good and useful
versus bad and vices. People are willing to pay for heroin;
people are willing to pay for other opioids if they're addicted
to it. Does that mean that those drugs, as used by those people,
are valuable, or worth something because they're willing to pay
for them? Quite the contrary. So, we need a different way of
thinking about how we can measure economic value if we're going
to be human economists, instead of Wall Street magicians or
Satanists.
So, the reason we have economy is that we aren't animals;
animals don't have economies. Animals don't change what they do
from generation to generation; they don't improve, they don't
develop. We do. We create a new kind of time for ourselves. In a
very real way, humanity is a totally new and totally distinct
force of nature from anything else. Over geological time,
geologists describe to us how the Earth has changed, or how a
planet has formed; this is over hundreds of millions of years.
Over evolutionary time, perhaps tens of millions of years, we're
able to see transformations in the kinds of life that exists on
the planet. Over biological time, we have short-term periods of
the life of an organism, of its respiration, very much tied to
the daily cycle of the Earth, for example. And with humans, we
have a different kind of time. We create time. The flow of
history isn't always the same speed.
During the Dark Ages, when not much happened, you might say
that human time slowed down. And with the Renaissance, and with
the ability to discover more about nature by having a more
powerful way of thinking about it, and a more powerful conception
of us as human beings interacting with it; you could say that
time sped up. We create a certain time in that we create new eras
of humanity; not in the way that geology or evolution does, but
willfully by developing new principles that if we were animals,
you would say this is a whole new type of life all together. Life
moving from the oceans onto land; that's a totally different
quality of life. Life having developed photosynthesis and using
the Sun as a power source; that's a totally different kind of
life. But we're still human beings after the discovery of the
combustion engine, for example; the use of heat-powered
machinery. We create in ourselves the change that's comparable
only to large-scale evolutionary changes when we look at life in
general. So, we're distinct.
Now, how do we understand this? Both how do we understand
that world around us that we act on and interact with; and how do
we understand our thoughts about it and our ability to progress
and use the practice of science itself? What sort of terrain is
it? What sort of world is it? The physical world and the mental
world.
Well, here's where I'd like to take up some concepts that
Mr. LaRouche has been bringing up recently about Bernhard Riemann
and about Gottfried Leibniz, and a bit about Einstein, too, who
got the verification of his hypothesis of gravity waves announced
very near his birthday this year — which was on Monday. So,
let's think about it. Is the terrain that we're operating on, one
which is steady and indifferent to our actions? Or, is it one
where what we do and what we discover and how we interact with
it, changes that world around us in a way that the world is not
fixed; either in ourselves or in our understanding of it? And,
that is the case; we transform the world in changing our mental
understanding of it. The math that we use in understanding how do
we conceptualize that world; that changes our interaction with
it, and we're a force of nature. We change the operation of the
forces of nature by improving our understanding of the world
around us and of ourselves and our ability to discover such
things. How can we possibly think about that quality of change?
As a couple of other examples, think about the difference
between what you might say is a fixed object — let's say iron
oxide. Iron oxide is basically rust; it's a mineral that's rust.
It's reddish brown, it's not terribly useful; but with the
development of metallurgy, instead of being a deposit of some
compound, it's now a resource. It's an ore from which we can
create iron and steel. The substance itself, did it change
chemically? It did in terms of the potential of what we could do
with it. And remember, we're a force of nature; we changed what
it was. It has to be thought of that way.
Or, what's the value of a technology? How does it change
over time? In the 1400s, windmills were a great invention; they
were somewhat new on the scene. They allowed pumping water, they
allowed grinding grain. That's excellent; that's a breakthrough.
Are windmills valuable today for making electricity? I don't
think so. Consider helium; helium is an interesting element. It
was first discovered in the Sun, not on Earth. It was discovered
in the Sun by the kind of light that came from the Sun when that
light was broken up into a rainbow with a prism, and certain
bands of the absence or presence of color were the clue that
there was a new element out there named helium, after Helios, the
Sun. That element, what's it used for? You might think of it's
being used to fill up balloons for children; you might think of
it being used as a gas for cooling for physical purposes or for
experiments. It's also, as Helium-3, an ideal fuel for fusion.
So, this substance transforms its meaning based on our developing
understanding. How can we think about this?
Well, let's take the example of Bernhard Riemann. In 1854,
Bernhard Riemann delivered a presentation and a paper on the
subject of the hypotheses that underlie geometry. That might
sound like a dry title; it might sound like it has nothing to do
with physical economy or anything that we'd want to be doing
right now. But this paper is very important in the view of Lyndon
LaRouche for his own development and as a way of understanding
economics. So, let's say why. Very briefly, Riemann points out
that our conception of space itself and of the way things operate
in space is taken for granted. The ideas that we use to
understand it, they don't really come from experiments per se, or
from physical theories; they come from our thoughts about space.
For example, the idea that space has no particular
characteristics of its own; that was the view of Isaac Newton.
Newton said space is uniform, it's out there; things occur within
space. Space is there first, it's just space; it has no
characteristics in particular. Newton said the same thing about
time; that time flows on uniformly. That's what time is; it's
really not much of a definition, or an understanding.
Geometric ideas that people had, for example, are the idea
that if you add up the angles in a triangle, you get 180 degrees.
Now, if you're drawing triangles on flat paper, yes that's true;
if you draw them on a curved surface like a sphere, it's not
true. Triangles on a sphere have more than 180 degrees in them.
If you then ask, "What if I draw a triangle in space?"; that's a
tough question. When we connect points in space, is the space
between them flat, is it curved? How could we discover that, and
what would be the basis of it having a curvature if it wasn't
flat?
What Riemann does, is he discusses through all the possible
ways that this could come about. He discusses in general,
curvature — both of surfaces and of space; how a space could be
curved. He works out in general how you could do that; but he
can't answer the question. He says, to answer the question,
"What's the nature of the space, and which processes unfold?";
you have to leave the department of mathematics and you have to
go to the physics department. You can't answer questions like
that just be pure reasoning; you got to have a hypothesis —
"What physically makes space?" And in this way, he's coming back
to the view of Gottfried Leibniz, who, just to say very briefly,
Leibniz and Newton totally disagreed on a number of subjects.
People may have heard of the dispute over their invention of the
calculus; did Leibniz steal it from Newton, or vice versa? But
there's a lot more there.
One of the major disputes they had was about space. Newton's
view was that space and time were absolute; and Leibniz's view
that space was a way of understanding co-occurrences. The
relationship of things that are here at the same time — that's
space; and for Leibniz, time was the evolution of things, how
things change. But time didn't have its own existence. Now,
that's precisely what Einstein took up in his theories of
relativity; he did what Riemann said had to be done. He didn't
finish the job; but he did what Riemann said had to be done.
Einstein overthrew, in a very specific way, the outlook of
Newton; Einstein showed that space was not flat, that it was bent
in special relativity, that it was curved in general relativity.
And very importantly, the basis of its shape, the basis of how
things interact over distances — that sense of space — was
based not on what a mathematician might imagine, but on what a
physicist hypothesizes. Einstein hypothesized an equivalence
between different observers that the laws of nature shouldn't
depend on whether you're moving; something that Leibniz also said
very explicitly. Einstein considered that light moved at the same
speed to any observer; something he had been pondering since he
was a pretty young man. And he hypothesized that gravitation
would transform the shape of space; that straight lines wouldn't
be straight to the extent that gravity is affecting them. This is
what was seen with the experiments about the position of stars
around the eclipse of the Sun, performed earlier during
Einstein's life; and it's seen in the recent verification of
gravity waves.
So, most people acknowledge that Einstein, OK, this is
physically important; this is a scientist, he discovered things.
What does it have to do with this other point, though, about
understanding humanity, and our role in economy, and our creation
in economy? Well, what Riemann did was, he made it possible to
say that human discovery is a force of nature; it reshapes
nature, it transforms our understanding about the objects around
us. And the basis of that world outside of us, can't be
considered independently of our increasing knowledge about it.
What we know about the world around us changes it, in that it
changes our ability to interact with it.
So, if we're looking for a real idea of what economics is,
throw away any sense of monetarism that says money made in a
whorehouse is just as valuable as money made in a steel plant;
and instead say, "How do we foster scientific discovery? How do
we foster its social implementation through technologies that
physically improve our power over nature and our ability to
provide improving standards of living and promote the general
welfare of human beings?" If this is our basis of economics,
fostering that kind of outlook, then I think we can say that
Gottfried Leibniz was the first physical economist in that sense.
I'll just reference to the show on Leibniz from earlier this
week, and one of the documents I cited there; Leibniz's paper on
the creation of a society for science and economy in Germany. And
I think if you read that paper, you'll be astonished at how
Leibniz pulls together both promotion of discovery, how that
works, what kind of thoughts are needed, how people should work
together, and how to implement those thoughts to improve people's
lives to the betterment of mankind. And that really has to be the
basis of our economics.
One simple rough measure, proposed by LaRouche to measure
this, is the potential population density. How many people can be
supported in a given area? That's a measure that is fixed for
animals. For a certain kind of environment, the number of deer
that can live there; deer don't change that. Human beings do. And
as a rough measure of economic progress, we could take that
value. What's the potential population that we're able to
support? The ability to use these thoughts is one that is not
being expressed in the trans-Atlantic at present. In our
discussion today, Mr. LaRouche talked about the positive impact
that Riemann had had on Italian science. Riemann had
tuberculosis, and spent a good deal of time later in life — he
didn't live that long — but later in his short life in Italy;
where thoughts from Riemann influenced the development of
hydrodynamics, stretching all the way into the time of airplanes
and the consideration of getting out into space.
Today, this overall outlook is best represented by Russia,
and especially at present, by China. So, this doesn't have to be
a purely Chinese development; this is clearly something that we
can take up as a mission for ourselves to contribute to here in
the United States and in the nations around the globe. And we've
got very special and precious people in the past that we can look
to for insights in how to make the next breakthroughs in
developing our understanding of what it is to be human, the basis
of human culture, and how best to advance human economy.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jason. Now, as Jason just
mentioned, and as I said in the beginning, really right now you
do see the initiative — the economic and the scientific
initiative — being taken by China to lead mankind into the
future; especially with the space program. You also see the
initiative being taken by Russia; and this is very clearly
illustrated this week with the actions that have been taken by
Russia in Syria. The strategic initiative lies in Putin's actions
there. As Mr. LaRouche emphasized, Putin is setting the agenda;
he is constantly on the flank. You can see this going back to the
chemical weapons, where Putin took the initiative to say fine, we
will help Assad dismantle these chemical weapons. It can be seen
with the decision to intervene, a few months back, by Putin into
the situation in Syria; and then with the pull-out that happened
earlier this week. What's clear is that every step along the way,
Putin's actions have caught Washington and Obama by surprise;
constantly breaking profile. And this is what's called "taking
the flank" in a military sense. There's clear precedence, as Mr.
LaRouche always uses the example, of Douglas MacArthur's actions
in Inchon. You always, always act on the surprise.
Now, this was illustrated I think just anecdotally very well
in an article that was published March 15th — Tuesday of this
week — in the {New York Times}, with a very apropos headline
which read "Putin's Syria Tactics Keep Him at the Fore, and Leave
Everyone Else Guessing". I just want to read the first paragraph
of that article, actually, because I think it just describes very
vividly what we mean by this:
"President Vladimir Putin's order to withdraw the bulk of
Russian forces from Syria seemingly caught Washington, Damascus,
and everyone in between off guard; just the way the Russian
leader likes it. By all accounts, Mr. Putin delights in creating
surprises."
So, this is the subject of our institutional question for
this week; which Mr. LaRouche had some very specific words to say
in response to, which I'm going to let Jeff elaborate on for us.
But let me just read the text of this question to start off.
"Mr. LaRouche, as you know, earlier this week, at the start
of the Geneva Peace Talks, Russian President Vladimir Putin
announced that he ordered the withdrawal of some of the Russian
military forces in Syria. The withdrawal of Russian fighter
planes began the next day and has continued. A residual force
will remain at the naval base at Tartus and at the air base in
Latakia. How do you view Putin's decision? How might it impact
the Russian, American, and United Nations efforts to bring the
Syrian war to an end, now underway in Geneva?"

STEINBERG: Of course, we've taking up the bulk of this
week's report with a discussion about man's extraterrestrial
imperative; the need for man to get off of the planet Earth,
because man was never an Earthbound creature. So, we're at a
point right now where Mr. LaRouche was delighted in our
discussion earlier today at the prospect of over the next two
years, China going through the preparations for the launching of
an orbiter that will be hopefully landing on the back side of the
Moon. And will for the first time, give mankind a window into the
Solar System and the Galaxy beyond. And this is something of
enormous importance and enormous excitement, because it puts this
nature of man as an extraterrestrial creature capable through
creative discovery, of not remaining Earthbound, but of exploring
the near Solar System and beyond. And it reminds me that
virtually every astronaut and cosmonaut who has travelled in
space, has remarked at one point or other, that having the
vantage point of looking down on Earth, you become at one point
overwhelmed with the fact that so much of what goes on, on the
planet of Earth, is trivial relative to the challenges that are
very obvious when you look at man from the standpoint of man's
ability to explore the Universe and make these kinds of
discoveries. And it was that approach that actually informed our
discussion about the Syria situation per se. Because as Matt
said, Russian President Putin has demonstrated once again that he
has a certain understanding that at the core of grand strategy is
always the idea of continuously moving; continuously flanking;
continuously confusing your adversaries by constantly being on
this kind of offensive.
So, we do have the developments of the past days, where at
the very moment that the Geneva second round of peace talks were
beginning, President Putin announced a draw-down of the Russian
military forces inside Syria. And in fact, the very next morning
— Tuesday morning of this week — the first Russian bombers and
other air force equipment and personnel began leaving. Now, the
Russians are there still; make no mistake about it. Russia has
established a fundamental change in the situation on the ground,
which is both a military shift and a shift at the diplomatic
table taking place right now in Geneva. Russia has a permanent
naval base fully established and more secured than at any time
previously at the port of Tartus; and it has now a major air
force facility in the Latakia province. And more recently this
week, yesterday President Putin issued a statement where he said,
if the circumstances change, if the peace process does not go
forward, then Russian forces can be reinforced in Syria, not in a
matter of days, but in a matter of hours. And quite clearly, the
infrastructure is in place for that to happen.
But Mr. LaRouche wanted to make a larger and much more
fundamental point about what is going on here. What he emphasized
is that you can't lose sight of the fact that the war is still
going on. We don't know how things are going to play out; what we
do know, is that there has been a change of conditions. In fact,
there was a major change of conditions beginning on September
30th of last year, when the major Russian military presence
began. And when the situation systematically shifted from that
point on, and yet at the same time, certain leading political
figures around the world — the spokesman for the Jordanian
government; Steffan de Mistura, the UN representative for Syria
— they all said, "We're not surprised by President Putin's
announcement this past Monday." In the case of the Jordanians,
the chief of staff of the Jordanian military, the chief of staff
of the Syrian military, were both in Moscow last October; and
they met with Russian Defense Minister Shoigu, they met with
President Putin. And they were told quite clearly that the
Russian mission was not a permanent mission; but was a limited
mission in both size and in time duration. And that when the
circumstances reached the point where it was feasible to reach a
diplomatic solution to the Syria crisis, that the Russian forces
would begin to be withdrawn.
As Matt pointed out with the {New York Times} coverage,
people in the West were scratching their heads, because they
refused to take note of the fact that Putin is a strategic
thinker. And very often, what he says — in most cases, in fact
— is exactly what he intends to do; but he's not going to do it
in a predictable fashion. He's going to do it in a way that will
catch you by surprise. And the biggest surprise is that most
political thinkers in the West, most officials in government in
the West, are ignorant and prejudiced. So, their own prejudices
prevent them from understanding how Putin thinks about these
things. Their own prejudices prevent them from understanding
because they're incapable of thinking in this kind of a strategic
fashion. Now the problem is, that we're still in a state of
warfare; and that state of warfare will continue until certain
things occur that go way beyond the borders of Syria.
Until the British Empire ceases to exist, there will be a
condition of warfare on this planet. We see it, not necessarily
in the form of warfare that most people think about — soldiers
shooting, artillery pieces firing, bombers dropping bombs. Look
what's happening right now in Brazil. The British Empire is
waging a war against the new emerging Asia-Pacific-centered
global system. They're trying to destabilize Brazil, which is a
founding member of the BRICS. There's a similar effort underway
to destabilize the Zuman government in South Africa; because
South Africa is the latest country to join in the BRICS
initiative.
So, there are all kinds of problems going on; you can't look
for a simply linear expectation or projection of what's going to
happen by the situation now ongoing on the ground in Syria or in
Geneva. Another example: President Obama is taking a series of
measures that will lead unavoidably — unless they're reversed —
to a major confrontation between the United States and China. We
had a report earlier this week from David Ignatius in the
{Washington Post}, who is very often a kind of reliable leak
sheet for what's going on inside the administration. And the
Obama administration is preparing for confrontation with China
over the South China Sea; they're waiting for a ruling from the
World Court in the Hague on a complaint filed by the Philippines.
So the United States is preparing contingencies for poking China
in the eye, for carrying out new provocations against China. The
sanctions that President Obama announced this week, ostensibly
against North Korea, are in fact sanctions against China; they go
way beyond what was agreed upon by China and the United States at
the United Nations.
So, if you take all of these factors into account, and if
you think of them as a process, not simply as a series of
discrete events, then you get a very clear idea of what Mr.
LaRouche means when he says that the planet, in general terms, is
in a state of war. Now, ultimately what this state of warfare
comes down to, is the fact that you have a new emerging
Asia-Pacific-centered future. It's defined by the economic
initiatives of China, by the One Belt-One Road policy, and most
emphatically by China's systematic plan for collaborating with
other nations on the kind of space exploration that once was a
hallmark of American policy; but has not been abandoned.
President Obama has spent the last seven years systematically
taking down and dismantling America's space capability; and Kesha
is leading the fight to reverse that process.
Over the last 15 years, if you look at the Bush/Cheney
administration followed by the Obama administration, the United
States has been under British occupation. Both Bush/Cheney and
Obama were each, in their own way, governments that were at the
beck and call of the British Empire, of the policies of the
British financial oligarchy operating through Wall Street. And as
the result, the United States, really the entire trans-Atlantic
region, is dead. Germany was once a great prospering economy; the
result of the "economic miracle" that Franklin Roosevelt
envisioned for the post-World War II period; no replay of
Versailles, but a completely different approach. Germany has now
been destroyed by the policies largely coming from the British
Empire. All of continental Europe is hopelessly and irreversibly
bankrupt; and Mario Draghi's announcement of an expansion of
quantitative easing and a zero interest rate policy is a
reflection that certain people are desperate over the fact that
Europe is doomed, that the United States under present
circumstances. We've talked in recent months on this broadcast
about the death rate increase in the United States; the true rate
of unemployment; the epidemic of heroin addiction and heroin
overdose deaths; the declining life expectancy in the United
States. These are all measures of the fact that the
trans-Atlantic region is dead; and will only begin to reverse
that death if there is a revolutionary, fundamental change in
policy. That alternative policy is being carried out in the
Eurasian and Asia-Pacific region; led by China, led by Russia,
reflected in the way that Russian President Putin has navigated
the strategic situation.
So, the great threat is coming from the fact that a dying
British Empire — which is irreversibly doomed — is lashing out
and is trying to preserve something that can no longer be
preserved. There was a time when the British Empire could impose
petty tyrannies on countries around the world and achieve a
certain limited degree of stability. That's over with. All of the
efforts within the framework of the mindset of the British
Empire, the mindset of the Obama administration, the mindset of
virtually all European leaders — the French probably the worst
of the bunch on the continent — is doomed; it doesn't work. Yet,
there is an opportunity; and opportunity for all of mankind in
what's going on in the Asia-Pacific region, led by China, by
Russia. India is clearly stepping in to play a significant role
in this new emerging combination, cooperation among nations for
purposes that go beyond national interests, but address the
interests of all of mankind. Egypt is fully established as
orienting towards that new Asia-Pacific combination.
So, this is the larger picture; this is the framework for
judging the initiative taken by President Putin this week. And it
must be judged from the standpoint of the global consequences;
and not just simply the consequences for the immediate
negotiations around Syria. Although his actions this week have
certainly greatly improved the possibility of bringing that
five-year tragedy to an end.

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff. I would just add, the
initiative being taken by these countries also very much has to
do with the decades-long work Mr. Lyndon LaRouche and Mrs. Helga
LaRouche have undertaken. The One Belt-One Road policy that China
has adopted, is the Eurasian Land-Bridge policy which the
LaRouche movement uniquely championed in the beginning of the
1990s. Now, you have an evolution of that to the World
Land-Bridge; and this is what is documented so thoroughly in the
350-page Special Report that was issued by {Executive
Intelligence Review} called "The New Silk Road Becomes the World
Land-Bridge". One very exciting announcement, because you
mentioned Egypt, just this week there was a very high-level event
which was sponsored by the Transportation Ministry in Cairo;
featuring a LaRouche collaborator, Hussein Askary, to announce
the formal publication of the Arabic language of this full,
350-page World Land-Bridge Special Report from {Executive
Intelligence Review}.
So, you can see that at the very highest levels of
government around the world, this is what is shaping the
discussion; the initiatives that the LaRouche movement have taken
for decades. And one final note along those same lines, as we
announced last Friday, Mrs. Helga LaRouche just got back from a
very important trip to India; at which she was one of the
featured speakers in a very prominent, very high-level dialogue
— the Raisina Dialogue. And if people have not seen it yet, a
wonderful half-hour interview that Jason Ross conducted with Mrs.
LaRouche was posted on the LaRouche PAC website earlier this
week. So, if you haven't watched that yet, I would really
encourage you to watch it; and to just think about everything
that has been said here today. Think about these initiatives that
are being taken by some of the world's leading countries to
create the future; and think about the role that the LaRouche
movement has played over years and decades in shaping the
possibility of these initiative being taken today.
So, thank you all very much for joining us here today. I'd
like to thank Kesha Rogers for joining us over video; and I would
like to thank Jeff and Jason here in the studio. Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Lyd:

Interviewet, som EIR's Tom Gillesberg lavede, fandt sted den 15. marts 2016 i København. Ambassadøren talte på persisk, som blev oversat til engelsk.

English:
Interview with Iran's ambassador to Denmark, H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian about Iran's relations with Russia and China, and Iran's role in the New Silk Road, after the P5+1 agreement with Iran. The interview was conducted on March 15, 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark by EIR's Copenhagen Bureau Chief Tom Gillesberg. Ambassador Moradian spoke Farsi, and his statements were translated into English.

Audio:

Interview with H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian, the ambassador from the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Kingdom of Denmark, about Iran’s relationship with Russia and China, and Iran’s role in the New Silk Road, from a vantage point after the P5+1 agreement with Iran. The interview was conducted on March 15, 2016 in Copenhagen, Denmark by EIR’s Copenhagen Bureau Chief Tom Gillesberg. Ambassador Moradian spoke in Farsi, and his statements were translated into English. Video and audio files are available at: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=12299
EIR: Mr. Ambassador, thank you so much for agreeing to this interview, to give us an opportunity to hear what Iran’s views are on some extremely important questions, not only for Iran, but, I think, for the whole Middle East region, and, also, for the world. When Chinese President Xi was in the Islamic Republic of Iran, there was a lot of discussion with President Hassan Rouhani, and others, and agreements signed, aimed at reviving the ancient Silk Road, which the Chinese call the "One Belt, One Road."  Greek Prime Minister Tsipras was also in Teheran, and spoke about Greece's role as a bridge between Europe and Iran.
After years of war and lack of economic development, many countries in Southwest Asia are completely destroyed. What is urgently needed is the extension of the OBOR/New Silk Road policy for the entire region, as well as the Mediterranean countries — a Marshall plan, but without the Cold War connotations.
Do you see a potential for that, and if so, what are your ideas about it?
H.E. Mr. Morteza Moradian: In the name of God, the compassionate and merciful, I would also like to thank you for arranging this session for me to be able to air my views on the issues of the region, and others. Both Iran and China have high ambitions regarding transportation issues. I think that there is extreme potential for economic development, arising from the idea raised by the Chinese president. Iran is situated at a very important juncture from a transportation point of view. This has nothing to do with the issues of today or yesterday, but it is an historical issue. Iran, and the region around it, are located along a very, very important corridor.
If we look at the important corridors in the world, there are three important ones. We can see that the North-South corridor, and the East-West corridors, all pass through Iran. The important thing is that transportation corridors necessarily need lead to the growth of economic development, and also, when economic development takes place, what follows that is peace and stability. Our country, and all of the countries of western Asia, are trying to find and develop these transportation routes. In this regard, the idea raised by China can have important consequences for the region. Just to sum it up, this idea of reviving the old Silk Road, would have a very positive influence on development.
As far as Iran is concerned, Iran enjoys a very good position in regard to all forms of transportation – air, sea and land. Iran has always followed up on the issue of reviving the old Silk Road, with China. We now see that the Chinese idea, and the Iranian idea, are now meeting at some point. I think that within the framework of two very important agreements, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), and, also, the Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO), we can have very, very good cooperation. I will give more explanations later about the importance of the SCO and ECO cooperation. These are both in our region, and they can have cooperation with each other.

EIR: You have personally been involved in your country's relations with, especially, Russia and China — two countries which are playing leading roles in today's world, with Russia taking leadership in the fight against Daesh/Islamic State, and China pursuing an inclusive, multi-national, economic development strategy, which is an alternative to the transatlantic monetarist policy leading to economic collapse. Now, starting a new chapter after the sanctions against Iran have been lifted, how do you foresee the future of Iranian relations with Russia, and China, and what benefits will that bring to Iran and the rest of the world?

Ambassador Moradian: As you pointed out, I think the conditions are now conducive for good cooperation and development. During the years of the sanctions, we had extensive relations with China. There is now about $50 billion of trade between Iran and China. This has fluctuated some years, but it is between 50-52 billion dollars. China is the biggest importer of Iranian oil. We also had extensive relations with Russia during the years of the sanctions. It's natural, now that the sanctions have been removed, that the relationship between these three nations would develop further.
The important point that I would like to point out is that the three countries have common interests, and common threats facing them. We are neighbors with the Russians. We have common interests with Russia regarding the Caspian Sea, transportation, energy, the environment, and peace in the world. So, we have quite a number of areas where our interests coincide. Other there areas where we have common interests are drug trafficking, and other forms of smuggling, combating extremism and terrorism, and, also, our views on major international issues converge.
We also have quite a number of common interests with China. They include energy, in the consumption market, reviving the Silk Road, combating terrorism, the transportation corridors, and, also, in the framework of the SCO –- quite a number of areas where we have common interests. China needs 9 million barrels of oil on a daily basis. As I said, our trade relations amount to about $52 billion.
Iran enjoys some very important factors. First of all, it has enormous amounts of energy resources. Its coastline along the Persian Gulf runs up to 3000 kilometers. We are neighbors with 15 countries in the region. So these are very, very important points for Iran to be in the hub. I think that cooperation between these three powers, namely Russia, China, and Iran, can ultimately lead to stability and peace in the region. So the four areas — the combination of economics, trade, energy and transit — these are areas that can lead to the ideas that I mentioned. I think that effective cooperation between these three powers can lead to peace and stability, important in western Asia, and in the Middle East.
The revival of the old Silk Road, at this juncture of time, would be very meaningful. During the recent visit to Iran by the Chinese president, the two sides agreed to increase the volume of trade between the two countries, in the next 10 years, to $600 billion.
Also, in the recent visit to Iran by President Putin, there was also agreement on Russian investment in Iran. It has to be said that our trade relations, economic relations, with Russia is not as much as it should be. But among the topics discussed when President Putin visited Iran, was to make sure that the volume of economic cooperation increases between Iran and Russia.
Just to sum up our relations with Russia and China regarding economic cooperation, we think that with Russia, it is not enough, and we want to increase that. With China, it has been very good, but we still want to develop that further. Overall the situation is promising.
You are well aware that from the point of view of stability, Iran is unique in the region, and that actually prepares the ground for this cooperation to continue.

EIR: There is already progress on extending the New Silk Road from China to Iran. On February 15, 2016, the first freight train from Yiwu, China, arrived in Teheran. The 14-day-trip covered over 10,000 km. (about 6,500 miles), travelling through Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, saving 30 days compared to the former route. What are the plans to extend this line, and how will that improve economic relations along the New Silk Road? And what new agreements were just made between Iran and China to develop the New Silk Road?
Ambassador Moradian: President Rouhani has very clear views on the Silk Road. In fact, President Rouhani is a specialist in transportation routes and communication. He believes that the basis for development lies in the development of transportation infrastructure. He and the Chinese president have talked over the revival of the Silk Road on a number of occasions.
There was a discussion that deviated from the main subject of the Silk Road, being propagated during the past few years. That was the idea of the new Silk Road, or the American Silk Road, so to speak, and it was not based on an historical issue. Basically, they wanted to bypass Iran, and deviate the route to bypass Iran, in effect. No one can fight against economic and geographical realities on the ground. When the route through Iran is the shortest route, and the cost effective route, then nobody can go against that. And because the Chinese ideas were more realistic, then Iran and China were able to come to some sort of understanding on the development and revival of the Silk Road.
There is also emphasis on the development of sea routes. We witnessed good investment by the Chinese in this regard, in the recent years. China has invested heavily in Pakistan, in the Gwarder port.
If I want to just come to the issue regarding Iran, then I can go through the following issues. The railroad between Khaf in Iran, and Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif in Afghanistan, is an important connection. The Khaf-Herat section has been completed, but the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif section is still to be constructed. I think this is an important route that we believe, in my opinion, China would be advised to invest in. Also, within the framework of Danish development aid to Afghanistan, I think a portion of funds to the Herat-Mazar-i-Sharif railroad link would be an important factor.
If this route between Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif were to be completed, then from there, there are two routes — one leading to Uzbekistan, and the other leading to Tajikistan, and that can be an important connection. At the moment, China is making good investments in both Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, in order to establish the links. In fact, the link between China, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, is one of the most important links of the Silk Road. And there is a missing link between Herat and Mazar-i-Sharif, as I said, and I hope that the countries concerned, especially China, can help establish that link. Over the past two years, the corridor between Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Iran has now borne fruit, and is now connected. In fact, the train that you mentioned, that arrived in Teheran, actually came through this route, and this corridor has extreme potential. I hear that quite a number of countries in the region are interested in joining this corridor. We have another corridor linking Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Oman, which is called the fourth corridor. And this has also come into operation over the past year-and-a-half.
We also have other corridors, which I call subsidiary corridors. All of these subsidiary corridors can actually enhance and complement the main East-West Silk Road. One very important corridor, that you are aware of, is the North-South corridor, and a section along this corridor is now under construction — the connection between the city of Rasht, and Astara on the Caspian coast. In fact, we have reached agreement with Azerbaijan on the connection between the two cities of Astara in Iran, and Astara in Azerbaijan. This corridor also needs some investment, and we hope that countries like China can help us in developing this.
Just to sum up regarding the corridors, there are two routes which need investment: Herat to Mazar-i-Sharif; and Rasht to the Asteras in Iran and Azerbaijan.
Regarding the third part of your question, about the agreements reached by Iran and China during the Chinese president's visit in Iran, 17 agreements were signed during the visit. The areas included energy, financial investment, communication, science, the environment, and know-how. Specifically, on the core of your question about the Silk Road, the two countries agreed to play a leading, and a key role, in the development and operation of this link. They agreed to have cooperation on infrastructure, both railroad and road. For example, electrification of the railroad link between Teheran and Mashhad, is part of this connection of the Silk Road that was agreed to. The other important thing is cooperation on the port of Chabahar in Iran. The two sides agreed to have cooperation in this, and the Chinese agreed to invest in Chabahar. Regarding industry and other production areas, they agreed that the Chinese would cooperate and invest in 20 areas. Regarding tourism and cultural cooperation, the two sides also agreed to develop cooperation in this regard, within the framework of the Silk Road. I think you can see that within the framework of the Silk Road, there are quite important agreements between the two countries.

EIR: Building great infrastructure projects is a driver for economic growth, and increasing cooperation among nations. Now, after suffering under the sanctions, Iran has an opportunity to build up its infrastructure, as is going on, in cooperation with other countries, to help create the basis for Iran to play in important, stabilizing role in the region.
The P5+1 agreement also cleared the way for Iran's peaceful nuclear energy program, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was just signed with China, to develop peaceful nuclear energy. What were the highlights of the agreement, and what are the plans for Russian-Iranian civilian nuclear cooperation?
Ambassador Moradian: Between Iran, Russia, and China, there has been good cooperation through the years regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
32:36
Because of the reneging of the Western governments, the construction of the Bushehr nuclear power plant was left unfinished, and after the Russians agreed to pick up the pieces, we reached an agreement, and were able to develop, and make this very important plant operational. The cooperation between Iran and Russia on peaceful nuclear energy has been very constructive. All of Iran's atomic activities have been under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As we have had no deviation from our peaceful nuclear program, after 10 or 12 years, the Western countries, the P5 + 1, finally came to the conclusion that Iran's nuclear program has always been peaceful. I believe that they knew this at the beginning, as well. This was just a political game. We have also had some kind of constructive cooperation with China over the past two decades on peaceful nuclear energy. During the recent visit to Iran by the Chinese president, an agreement was also signed in this regard. In the implementation of the cooperation agreement, China, Iran and America are also the three countries forming the committee for the implementation of the agreement. It was agreed during the recent visit that China will reconfigure the Arak heavy water plant. The Chinese and the Iranians have also agreed to have cooperation on the building of small-scale nuclear power plants. This, I think, is very important for Iran, in terms of producing electricity, and the Chinese welcome this. We have also signed a number of agreements with China on the construction of a number of nuclear power plants in the past. Iran, because of its extensiveness, has always welcomed cooperation on the development of peaceful nuclear energy for the production of electricity, and other things. In fact, based on the cooperation agreement between Iran and the P5+ 1, there will be agreements with a number of the members of the P5+1 regarding the nuclear issue.

EIR:  You already mentioned the International North-South Transport Corridor (INSTC), linking India, Iran, and Russia with Central Asia and Europe. Is there anything more you would like to say about this project, and the benefits that are envisioned?

Ambassador Moradian: I explained about the corridors in my previous answers, but the North-South corridor is one of the most important corridors in the world. If this corridor were completed, it would be very effective in three most important areas — it would be a contributing factor in security, speed, and cost. This corridor starts in Finland, comes through Iran, then on to the Persian Gulf, from there to India, and then towards Africa. If we look at the present route now, it takes 45 days, but if we use the North-South corridor that I just mentioned, this would reduce the time to 20 days. The route will be 3,000 kilometers shorter. This can be a very important factor from a world economic point of view.
We are faced with realities, with situations, that nobody can ignore. For this reason, during the past few years, Iran has made endeavors, extensive efforts, to actually complete what I call the subsidiary corridors. Right now, in Iran, we have 10,000 kilometers of operational railroad lines. For our present government, the further development of railroad links is very important. We have plans to build another 10,000 kilometers in the future. It is my view, that in the next couple of years, we will see a revolution in transportation.
There are some missing links, which we think should be completed as soon as possible. As I said, from our point of view, the section between Rasht and Astara is very important, and it has to be completed very soon. In fact, during the recent visit of the Danish foreign minister to Teheran, this issue was also brought up. The Iranians announced that if the Danes are prepared to do so, they would be welcome to invest in this section. And we have that link to the Chabahar port. If this port is developed to utilize its full capacity, then this will serve as an important link in the North-South corridor. In the Persian Gulf we also have an island called Qeshm, which has an extreme potential. In fact, because Qeshm, itself, also has gas, and has a strategic location in the Persian Gulf, it can play an important role in the North-South corridor. We are seeing that various countries, like China, Japan, and South Korea, are interested in entering into these areas. In fact, there was a seminar on shipping in Copenhagen, a couple of weeks ago, and I said that to the Danish participants there, that this condition is conducive to involvement for mutual benefit. The benefits to be accrued from the North-South dialogue are global. Iran is making all efforts to complete this corridor.

A lot can be said about the North-South, and East-West corridors. Just to point out, very briefly, on the East-West corridor, some very important developments have taken place. We have had good negotiations with the Turkish side. One of the most important links in the East-West corridor, is the link between the cities of Sarakhs and Sero. Sero is located on the border with Turkey, and the Turks and the Iranians are now in very extensive negotiations to develop this route. The other route is the railway link between Iran and Iraq, and this is also being constructed on an extensive level. As I said, the subsidiary corridors – the one from Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan to Iran; and the one from Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran and Oman – are now operational, and we are also planning on development, and making other subsidiary routes operational.

EIR: What about cooperation on water desalination, and nuclear fuel?
Ambassador Moradian: Iran is faced with a shortage of water. We have quite a number of projects for water desalination in the Persian Gulf. In fact, one of the main reasons that we wanted nuclear power plants in the Persian Gulf, was to use that energy to desalinate water. Currently, a number of Iranian companies are engaged in this. One of the very big projects came on stream during the past couple of years. Regarding the desalination plants, there is good cooperation between Iran and foreign countries. I think that this is another area where Danish companies can enter into the competition. President Rouhani made a trip to the city of Yazd, in the center of Iran, and he said there, that transfer of water from the Persian Gulf to the center of Iran, to the city of Yazd, is one of the important projects that the government has in mind.
Regarding nuclear fuel, within the framework of the P5+1 agreement with Iran, it envisages extensive cooperation between Iran and  these countries on nuclear fuel. Iran is now one of the countries that have the legal right to enrich uranium, and this has been recognized. So, based on the capacities that Iran has, we can exchange nuclear fuel. Within this framework, we have exchanged quite a lot of fuel with the Russians, and we have cooperation plans with China on the heavy-water plant in Arak.

EIR: Can you speak about cooperation on fighting terrorism and drug trafficking?
Ambassador Moradian: On the issues of combating extremism and terrorism, and trafficking with drugs, and otherwise, there is extensive groundwork for cooperation. The development of extremism, and the instability that follows, is extensive in the CIS countries, and part of China. Iran has extensive experience and knowledge about combating terrorism, and in this regard, Iran can cooperate with those countries regarding this menace. Afghanistan is the world's biggest producer of narcotic drugs. In fact, unfortunately, after Afghanistan was occupied by the ICEF coalition, led by America, the level of production of narcotic drugs in Afghanistan has increased extremely violently.

EIR: While the British in the Danish troops were in the Helmand province, I think the production went up about 20 times.

Ambassador Moradian: Exactly. In that region, Helmand, in particular, there was an incredible increase in the amount of production. In fact, in combatting smuggling drugs to come to Iran, to this side, Iran has been a sturdy wall, and we have unfortunately lost quite a number of our security forces in that region, bordering on 4,000. Just something on the sideline which is very important. In fact, Iran is on the frontline in combatting drugs. When Europe talks about helping other countries stem the tide of immigrants to Europe, I think that stemming the tide of narcotic drugs coming to Europe, also requires the same sort of agreements. Iran is very active in combating and preventing drugs coming this way, and the death penalty, the capital punishment we have for the warlords of the drug traffickers, is, actually, in the pursuit of this policy of trying to prevent drugs from reaching outside of the region. Just imagine if Iran would stop cooperating, stop combatting these drug traffickers? The road would be an open highway, and just imagine how much drugs would then come across. There already exists very good cooperation between Iran, China, and Russia on combating drug trafficking. We have had multi-lateral sessions in the field of combating drug trafficking. I think that within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Iran can play a leading role in combating drug trafficking, extremism and terrorism. In the recent session of the SCO, it was agreed that after the sanctions were lifted against Iran, that Iran's status would be lifted from an observer to a full member. In the next session, which is planned in Uzbekistan, I think that this issue will be raised.

EIR: I think we have covered a lot of very many essential things. Is there anything else that you would like to say to our readers?

Ambassador Moradian: I would like to refer to a few points in this interview, which is about the cooperation between Iran, China, and Russia. The cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China is very important. The more this cooperation increases, the more it can help peace and security in the region. The revival of the old Silk Road is a very important issue. Within the framework of the revival of the Silk Road, the strengthening of the SCO cooperation, and the ECO cooperation is very important. In fact, the cooperation between ECO and SCO is also very important, and has to be developed.
Other very important issues that I would just like to briefly mention are — the first thing is that Iran's full membership in the SCO is important. In fact, in the area of security, SCO needs Iran’s experience and influence in this regard. The next thing is that cooperation within the framework of the SCO, can enhance security and peace in the region.
The next thing, is that China must make more investment in Iran. In order to actually develop the Silk Road, it has to invest more in Iran. China must also make more investments in the port city of Chabahar, and also in the Iranian island of Qeshm.
The other point I would like to mention, is that the Eastern SWIFT (financial transaction network) is also an important idea. I think that the important countries in the East, like China and Russia, should have an alternative financial connection. And the other thing is, the monetary exchange between these two countries is important. What I mean by this, is that these countries can conduct their transactions in the local currencies of the Iranian Rial, the Chinese Yuan, and the Russian Ruble.
The other thing I would like to point out, is that China is the number one country in the world that needs energy, and Iran is one of the leading producers of such energy. But the important point to be born in mind here, is Iran's independence in its decision making regarding its energy resources — oil and gas. In fact, if you look at its record, Iran has never played games with its energy policy. Any country that wants to have economic cooperation with Iran, must take this aspect into consideration, and it is an important consideration. Other countries in our region do not operate in this way.
Finally, I am very pleased that this opportunity arose for me to air my views on economic development in the region, and very important issues that will have global consequences. Thank you.

EIR: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

End

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Redrawing the Global Financial Map – Jin Liqun President of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank

“How Can the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank Contribute to Economic Development and Integration in Asia? What is in it for Europe/Denmark?”

Meeting arranged by Copenhagen University’s Asian Dynamics Initiative, Asia Research Centre, and Copenhagen Business School.

Question by Tom Gillesberg, chairman of The Schiller Institute in Denmark at ??

Link til København Universitets side om mødet.

En delegation fra Schiller Instituttet, med formand Tom Gillesberg som ordførende, havde foretræde for Folketingets Udenrigsudvalg. Hør talen og se diasbilleder:

Vi står netop nu med en enestående mulighed for at sikre, at den langvarige mareridtsagtige proces med krig og ødelæggelse, der har præget Mellemøsten i årtier, og som har spredt sig til Europa og resten af verden i form af terror fra Islamisk Stat og en flygtningebølge, der er ved at løbe Europa over ende, kan bringes til ophør og erstattes af et nyt paradigme for fred gennem fælles økonomisk udvikling.

Dias til mødet:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

P.g.a. en fejl blev programmet desværre ikke optaget, men her er kildematerialet. Michelle Rasmussens indlægsnotater på dansk vil blive udlagt senere.

Vi diskuterede nøglepunkterne i kapitler 1 og 2 af Lyndon LaRouches lærebog "So, you wish to learn all about economics?":

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Her er LaRouches video om emnet, som var lavet i forbindelsen med bogen:

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

Faren for en massiv, endnu større strøm af flygtninge, der kommer fra Afrika og ind i Europa, så vel som også den fortsatte krise centreret omkring Mellemøsten, betyder således, at Europa er absolut dømt til undergang, med mindre der finder et fundamentalt skifte i politikken sted. Og dette betyder, at USA og Europa indledningsvis må række hånden frem mod Rusland og Kina. 

Engelsk Udskrift.

US & EUROPE MUST REACH OUT TO RUSSIA & CHINA TO AVOID WAR

International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, February 19, 2016

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s February 19, 2016. My name
is Matthew Ogden and you’re joining us for our weekly, Friday
evening broadcast here from larouchepac .com
I’m joined in the studio tonight by Jason Ross from the
LaRouche PAC science team, and we’re joined via video, from a
remote location, by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence
Review. The three of us, along with several others, had a chance
to have a discussion earlier today with both Lyndon and Helga
Zepp-LaRouche, so what you’re about to hear will be informed by
that discussion.
Now, I’m going to just start right off the bat with a
discussion of the very dire threat of an international conflict
arising, especially from the powderkeg of Syria, Northern Africa,
and the Middle East. The area of Syria, where, despite the
efforts of Secretary John Kerry to find common ground with
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Obama’s refusal to tell
Saudi Arabia and Turkey to stand down is threatening to blow this
entire thing sky high. A very accurate discussion of this was
published earlier today in a piece on Consortium News by Robert
Parry, the editor of that publication, in which he says the risk
that the multi-sided Syrian war could spark World War III,
continues, as Turkey and U.S. neo-cons seek an invasion that
could kill Russian troops, and possibly escalate the Syrian
crisis into a nuclear showdown.
What Robert Parry says in this article is that Barack Obama
took questions from reporters on Tuesday, but he did not take the
one that needed to be asked: which was whether he had forbidden
Turkey and Saudi Arabia to invade Syria, because on that question
could hinge whether the ugly Syrian civil war could spin off into
World War III and possibly a nuclear showdown.
Now, this was part of our discussion earlier today with Mr.
LaRouche and what I know Jeff will elaborate much more on, was
LaRouche’s analysis. But in short, what Mr. LaRouche had to say
is that what Putin is doing in this situation, and overall in a
strategic manner, defines the point of action, defines the point
of reference, for action. Everything else is bluff.
So, let me hand it over to Jeff, and he’ll elaborate many
more of the details, and then we’ll come back to our
institutional question for this evening, which Jeff will also
answer. So, Jeff?

JEFFREY STEINBERG: Thank you, Matt. Well, as we were going
through the discussion with Mr. LaRouche earlier today, he
actually drew a distinction between the bluff, and what he said
much more accurately is the folly of what Turkey and Saudi Arabia
are up to. It’s folly because they are caught in their own
madness, and don’t even realize the consequences of what they’re
doing in the real world. They don’t have the capability to carry
out the kind of provocations that they are threatening, and the
danger, of course, is that that does not mean that they’re not
going to try to do it.
Putin stepped into the Syria situation at a critical moment
last September, and the entire situation has shifted radically
since that point. The Russian intention is {not} to simply
accomplish a military victory on behalf of the forces of
President Assad. They’re creating the conditions to force the
intransigents, in this case Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, some of
the other Gulf states, and always lurking in the background when
you’re dealing with Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood is
the British. So, Putin has established a clear sense of control
over the situation. Undoubtedly part of Putin’s configuration is
that Obama has been greatly weakened by the actions of Russia; on
the economic sphere, the actions of China; and there are sane
military forces in the United States who recognize the folly of
what Turkey and Saudi Arabia are doing.
This has been described by Parry, whose article you
mentioned, and by others, as the danger of a Sarajevo 1914 flash
point, along the Syria-Turkey border, but what Mr. LaRouche
emphasized today is that Putin has a very clear sense of the
military correlation in this situation, and has also a very clear
sense that Turkey and Saudi Arabia are acting on the basis of
their own irrationality. And he is luring them in to the kind of
trap that could be basically enclosed on them at any moment. It’s
a gravely dangerous situation, but you have at least one key
player, namely Russian President Putin, who knows what he’s
doing, and who is steering these events in a way that conforms to
an appropriate strategic analysis, and to an understanding of how
to basically defeat these forces that have been trying to destroy
Syria for the last five years, and in so doing, to deprive Russia
of one of its own critical access points in the Mediterranean
region.
Now, what Mr. LaRouche really emphasized, and I think that
this is the crucial point to take away from this issue, is that
the center of gravity of world affairs has dramatically shifted
to where the Asia-Eurasia region, anchored in the cooperation
between China and Russia and India, with other countries grouping
around that, is really where the strategic center of the world
economy has now been shifted. And if you look at the situation in
Europe, in particular, from one end to the other you see nothing
but bankruptcy and political failure. The United States is on the
verge of the same kind of bankruptcy. And so the only place where
you have growth and stability by any measure, and of course Asia
and Russia and Eurasia are not devoid of problems, but relative
to the state of absolute bankruptcy that we see in Europe and in
the United States, we see a disintegration of the political and
economic conditions in much of South America, as well. Of course,
Africa has been on the target list of the British and other
European colonial, imperial powers for the longest time.
But in Asia, you not only have a much more stable and
growing situation, but you have a commitment to an abandonment of
geopolitics in favor of what Chinese President Xi Jinping has
called the ”win-win” strategy. And if you look at the crisis in
Europe right now, leaving aside the fact that the entire European
financial system is bankrupt — hopelessly, irreversibly bankrupt
under the present conditions and terms of thinking that dominate
Europe — if you look at the refugee crisis, you’re beginning to
see a glimmer of sanity, driven by desperation, by certain of the
people who are responsible for creating the European fiasco in
the first place.
So, you’ve got people like Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance
minister of Germany, who was one of the monsters behind the
destruction of Europe, including the German economy itself, now
saying there must be a Marshall Plan to rebuild Syria, to rebuild
other parts of the Middle East, and only on the basis of a
Marshall Plan, which gives people a clear incentive to go back to
their homes, to rebuild their country, only under those
circumstances, and those circumstances alone, can the refugee
crisis in Europe be remotely solved. And of course, what applies
to the Middle East applies doubly for Africa, where the
U.S.-British-French overthrow of Qaddafi unleashed absolute hell
throughout the African continent.
And so the danger of a massive, even larger flow of refugees
coming out of Africa into Europe, as well as the continuing
crisis centered in the Middle East, means that Europe is
absolutely doomed unless there is a fundamental change in policy.
And for starters, that change means that the United States and
Europe must reach out to Russia and China. You had the recent
visit by President Xi Jinping of China to Saudi Arabia, to Iran,
and to Egypt, and what Xi Jinping made very clear is that China
is prepared to move towards the building of the Silk Road
infrastructure, the New Silk Road land route, the Maritime Silk
Route, which will come up through the newly expanded Suez Canal
— China will do that. In fact, just this week, the first freight
train from Eastern China arrived in Iran, and this is part of the
entire European system of not just transportation corridors, but
development corridors that have been put forward by China as the
cornerstone of their foreign policy.
So, they’re presenting a win-win alternative. And in the
case of Europe, there is no alternative. Europe is so politically
and psychologically bankrupt — the leadership of Europe is so
bankrupt that China, through this Middle East development portion
of the One Belt, One Road policy, offers the only viable basis
for this Marshall Plan idea to actually be put into practice. And
were it not for the Putin intervention, beginning last September,
we couldn’t even be contemplating the possibility of that kind of
solution to this seemingly intractable problem in the Middle
East.
Now, Mr. LaRouche emphasized in this context that Europe is
completely gone; it’s completely bankrupt, and there are
solutions, but the present leadership is unprepared to consider
that kind of level of rethinking. In the United States, we’re
very close to the edge, but the United States {can} be saved and
the solution to the problems in the United States begins with
removing President Barack Obama from off ice immediately, and
moving to wipe out the thoroughly bankrupt Wall Street system.
Because until that system is put through basically a bankruptcy
shutdown, then none of the viable and available solutions are
going to be there. But, if you were to get rid of Obama, if you
were to wipe out Wall Street,–and, for example, immediately
passage of Glass-Steagall would be one critical element for that
process to happen almost overnight — then we have a history in
the United States. We had Alexander Hamilton. We had Franklin
Roosevelt. We had glimmers of the same policy with John F.
Kennedy. You go back to a credit system, a government credit
system that kick-starts production, that trains a young
generation that’s right now completely unqualified to serve in a
real economy.
All of that means the United States coming into alignment
with what we see going on with China, with Russia, with India,
with others. In other words, the United States becomes part of a
genuine trans-Pacific collaboration, and under those
circumstances, Europe itself would have no choice but to get on
with the program.
So, what we’re seeing from Turkey, from Saudi Arabia, and as
I said, always watch for the British lurking in the background
with those two countries — you have clinical insanity and folly,
which holds the danger of war. But Mr. LaRouche again emphasized,
Putin knows this. He sees all of this, and he is on top of the
situation, and is prepared to take the appropriate and necessary
actions. And there are some people who are not completely out of
their minds on the U.S. side, within the military-intelligence
community, who understand that partnering with Russia is the only
way to solve this problem.

OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Now, just really on the subject that
you ended on here, the bankruptcy of Wall Street and the extended
Wall Street system, and the relationship of that to the
conditions in Europe; that brings us to our institutional
question for this evening, which reads as follows: ”Mr.
LaRouche. The heat is turning up on British Prime Minister David
Cameron, who’s trying to get the upper hand over a referendum
that could result in the UK leaving the European Union. The
potential break-up of the European Union, which is called
‘Brexit’, has elicited warnings about the impact on the UK
economy should voters say that they want out of the EU. A recent
poll showed that 42% of UK voters would opt to leave the EU;
compared to 38% who say that they would vote to stay. This week
will be the first major test as to whether Cameron’s done enough
to secure an agreement to change some terms of the UK’s
relationship with the European bloc. Cameron says that he will
campaign to stick with the EU, if a deal can be reached. This
Thursday and Friday will be the first time that all 28 EU
countries will discuss a package of proposals recently released
by the EU, aimed at addressing the UK’s economic concerns.
Cameron negotiated the proposals with the EU leaders and Donald
Tusk, President of the European Council — the EU’s main
decision-making body. What is your view of a possible ‘Brexit’?”

STEINBERG: Well, you know, you’ve got ”Brexit” that was
preceded by ”Grexit”, and probably we’re going to have a much
larger lexicon; that all comes down to the fact that people have
the sense that the European Union, particularly the European
Monetary Union, is a sinking ship. And therefore, if the ship is
sinking, or the movie theatre is on fire, you get to the exit as
fast as possible. But the reality is, that the European Union —
and within that, the European Monetary Union — are the problem.
So, therefore, unless you address the more underlying issue,
which is that Europe is financially and economically bankrupt;
then it really is almost of secondary significance whether
Britain stays in or leaves. If Britain leaves the European Union,
then that’s virtually it for the European Union. Other officials
in Europe, even including Schäuble at the Davos Conference
earlier this month, said that if the Schengen agreement, the open
borders agreement in Europe is broken, then the European Union
will cease to exist. And already in Poland, in Hungary, in other
countries on the edge of Europe but within the European Union,
they’re already building those walls. So in effect, the European
Union, as it’s presently constituted, is a dead letter; it really
doesn’t exist. And the countries of Europe, either collectively
or individually, are going to have to come to face the reality
that their banking system is thoroughly bankrupt; they’ve lost so
much productive capacity that Europe from a physical standpoint
is no longer capable of self-reliance, self-preservation. So, the
whole thing is going under; and of course, there’s a certain
irony in the British threatening to leave the European Union,
since the bankruptcy of the entire trans-Atlantic system is
largely the result of policies that were created in London, and
were then spread about Europe and the United States. You could
almost say that Europe was doomed from the moment that Margaret
Thatcher launched the Big Bang in 1985, and turned London into a
safe haven for speculative gambling operations, drug-money
laundering, anything other than investment in the real economy.
So now, we’re 30 years into that process, and Europe is
finished. So, the issues that are being negotiated between
Cameron and Tusk and the others on the European Commission, are
tiddlywinks; they’re not the real issues. Unless Europe comes up
with its own version of shutting down the City of London and Wall
Street, a genuine full-scale Glass-Steagall separation of
legitimate commercial banking activity from all of the gambling,
then Europe is completely doomed. And the only hope that they
will have is that some sane future leaders, who emerge out of
this political rubble, recognize before it’s perhaps too late
that aligning with China and Russia — which is exactly the
opposite of the policies that are being pursued in Europe right
now — is the only answer. So, I think that that’s the context in
which the question can be answered; and so the issue is merely
that Europe in its present circumstance is doomed. And whether
Britain leaves the European Union or stays in, they are part of
that system of doom that’s going to have to be changed in a much
more fundamental — I’d say ”revolutionary” — way. And the
opportunities are there; they’re presented there because Europe
is at the western end of Eurasia; and the Chinese have already
established the rail links between central China and Germany.
There are opportunities galore under the umbrella of the ”One
Belt-One Road” policy; but the first step is that the European
leaders are going to have abandon their folly. And that’s a
difficult proposition to conceive of, given who the current
European leadership is.

OGDEN: Absolutely. And, let me just elaborate a little bit
what Mrs. Helga Zepp-LaRouche emphasized, which is that if you
just look at the refugee crisis, for example, and the absolute
breakdown of Europe to even absorb and handle this under the
current economic conditions. This has pushed people to begin to
discuss the possibility of what the LaRouche movement has been
advocating for quite a long time; which is a new Marshall Plan, a
new program of economic development for the Middle East and North
Africa. It is what was published by the Schiller Institute and
{Executive Intelligence Review} in a major book-length
publication a number of years back, called ”A New Marshall Plan
for Southern Europe and the Mediterranean”. What Helga LaRouche
emphasized is that at the point that the EU is really detonating
underneath people’s noses, there is no solution within the
current geometry.
The only solution is to go with this kind of Marshall Plan,
and to work with China and the BRICS and other countries, to
extend the Silk Road project into this region and to develop the
Middle East and North Africa in order to have an incentive for
millions and tens of millions of refugees not to leave to seek a
better condition. And Helga LaRouche’s emphasis was that this is
a very substantial example of what Xi Jinping has called the
”win-win” paradigm; the ”win-win” system. It is a win for
everybody, for Europe and the United States to work with China
and Russia to develop the Middle East and North Africa along the
Silk Road routes. This kind of cooperation between China and the
rest of the world is what China is seeking in inviting the rest
of the world to engage in; and this is the only way to solve the
crises and shift the geometry overall which is creating the
existential threat which is now being faced by Europe.
Now, this new paradigm; this is exactly what we have been
talking about for quite a while, but I think the foundation for a
new paradigm cannot be seen as merely some sort of extension of
former or present geopolitical ideas about how the world works.
This is not merely a rearrangement of political and economic and
strategic alliances between countries that would still be
dominated by the same axiomatic world view which is what has
brought us to this crisis point to begin with. Rather, there
needs to be a true renaissance; a new calibration, a
re-examination of what our view of mankind is. What our view of
man as a species is, and what mankind’s role within this galaxy
and his relationship to the entire universe; and indeed, what his
responsibility is as a uniquely creative species in this universe
must be.
So, on that subject, Jason Ross is joining us from the
LaRouche PAC Science Team, and I think we’re going to have a
somewhat exciting discussion of what are the implications of the
really profound work that Albert Einstein engaged in over a
century ago; and which is now grabbing the headlines again in the
form of this experiment that has revealed the affirmation of
Einstein’s hypothesis concerning the shape of space-time.

JASON ROSS: Thanks. As I imagine everyone has heard by now,
on September 14th of last year, a gravitational wave was detected
by the interferometer experiments that we had set up in
Washington state and in Louisiana. Over a few months, that signal
was studied to make sure that that really was what had occurred;
and a paper was submitted in January and published in February
announcing the news that a gravitational wave phenomenon
representing the merging of two black holes had been detected.
This meant that a change in space-time had been experienced in
that detector; where maybe we don’t know how the experiment
worked.
Very briefly, two tracks at right angles to each other,
allowed light to move up and down those tracks. Those tracks
reach 4 kilometers long. Due to some very clever engineering, the
effect of length was 100 times that; and by the motion of these
gravity waves — meaning a change in the shape of space due to a
varying intensity of gravity due to these two black holes
spinning around each other — the length of the two tracks varied
by an amount that was about 1/10 the diameter of a proton over a
track length of 4 kilometers. This is equivalent to the star
nearest to us getting closer and further away by the width of a
hair. It’s amazing that was actually able to be measured; that’s
an astonishingly tiny change.
And it says something about the difficulties and why it’s
been — as Matt said — it’s been a century since Einstein had
proposed the existence of these gravity waves; and now they’ve
been detected. So, the recent upgrades to these detectors here in
the US made this possible; there are other detectors around the
world. Some of them are being upgraded; new ones are being
brought on line. There is a proposal for a space-based
interferometry experiment — the Lisa experiment; which NASA had
been a part of, and has now left it to the European Space Agency,
currently scheduled to launch in 2034. Perhaps it’ll be sent
sooner than that, based on this news.
But what does all of this mean? What does it tell us about
— what are the implications? Well for one thing, this means we
really have an entirely new tool for looking at the universe that
we live in. All of our knowledge about the heavens beyond us,
comes from sight, or various forms of sight. You can’t smell a
star, you can’t taste it; you can’t hear it, you can’t fell it.
You can see it. So various forms of seeing are the way we learn
more about our surroundings. From simple observations with the
eyes here on Earth, which were all that were available to Kepler
when he determined how the planets moved; the use of telescopes
in the optical range — simple telescopes that could be seen with
the eye — into more complex telescopes, including ones that see
what we wouldn’t typically call light; radio telescopes.
Telescopes in Earth orbit, looking in other wavelengths of the
electromagnetic spectrum; infrared telescopes, ultra-violet
telescopes, x-ray telescopes. We’ve got a lot of ways of

side of the Moon, where China is going to be within just a
few years sending a lander. The potential to do long wavelength
radio telescope work from that location; this represents
something new.
But what we’ve got with this successful detection based on
the change in space-time with the LIGO [Laser Interferometer
Gravitational-Wave Observatory] experiments, this is something
totally different. This is like bringing in a new sense all
together. We’ve been seeing the universe; now we can probably
hear it would be the best analogy. It represents a vibration,
like the sound vibrations our ears are able to pick up. Only this
time, it’s incredibly faint, and it’s about space itself
vibrating; that really is what it is. So, that’s tremendously
important.
On the history of this, it’s important to keep in mind
people are very excited about this; there’s good reason to be,
it’s quite a development. But this can only indirectly be called
a scientific breakthrough; the science behind this — Einstein
proposed this in 1916. He had some more thoughts and wrote
another paper in 1918; some more discussion about it. Hypotheses
about black holes, breakthroughs in computing ability to try to
model these types of things; all of that took place. But what
could be called the fundamentally scientific change occurred 100
years ago with Einstein’s theory of relativity; with gravity
waves being one of the implications. Being able to detect them is
wonderful; it’s an amazing technological advancement. It shows
that we are capable of precision that was totally undreamed of in
Einstein’s time, certainly, or even a few decades ago. The
development that we’ve made has been tremendous.
But I think it’s fair to say this was not a scientific
breakthrough in the real sense of science. It is a new sensation;
it is a new technology. It is a whole new way of looking at
things; and that is tremendously important. I think that if we
look back at what Einstein did that made his hypothesis possible,
we can compare it to the really awful influence of Bertrand
Russell.
So, first on Einstein. We’ve got to recall that what
Einstein did in laying out his revolutionary theories was not
something that he derived; it wasn’t something that he proved. It
wasn’t something that he showed was true based on what was
already known. What Einstein said about the universe contradicted
the Newtonian view of space and time that had become dominant.
Einstein said that that simplistic view of space and time, which
went along somewhat intuitively with our senses, was in fact
untrue; and that basic concepts like simultaneity, or knowing
that two events happen at the same time, such a basic concept as
that. That there’s one time that applies everywhere; Einstein
showed that was untrue. That’s a very unintuitive thought. The
idea that space could have a shape to it; that’s a very
unintuitive thought. It’s not suggested by appearances.
But what Einstein was doing was implementing a world outlook
that goes back to Cusa — although I’m not going to talk about
him right now — but to Leibniz and to Bernhard Riemann. If we
consider the work of Leibniz, 1646-1716, the founder of physical
economy; there’s plenty to say about him, and plenty will be said
on this website. One of the specific things that he looked at was
in the world of physics, Leibniz’s demonstration that there was
no absolute space; that there was no absolute time. This was
contrary to Descartes, Newton, and others. Leibniz said there’s
no distinction between rest and motion, for example. If there’s
no absolute space, you can’t say that anything is at absolute
rest; that was a concept used by Descartes. Absolute space was a
concept used by Newton. But Leibniz was in a fight about this,
saying that space was a relation between concurrently existing
things; but it didn’t exist on its own. In a debate that he had
with a top Newtonian — Samuel Clarke — this seemingly physical
discrepancy about is space absolute or not, turned into very
directly a political one. That, both of these two — Leibniz and
Clarke — used their concept of space to make a point about God,
and implicitly also about government; about the basis of the
legitimacy of a ruler.
Clarke, the Newtonian, said that because everything could
have been created anywhere in space once God decided to do the
Creation, that showed that God made a choice without any
necessity; that it was just because God felt like doing then and
felt like doing it where he did, because he felt like doing that.
Sort of like a dog deciding to his business wherever he feels
like it. Leibniz said that if God had to do something without a
good reason, that God would be only all-powerful, but not good or
wise. And Leibniz said that that conception of God has to include
those perfections as well; goodness, wisdom, and power.
Now between the lines, what these two were also saying was a
view of government and a view of society. Implicit in this is
Leibniz’s view that the legitimacy of a ruler or of government is
not simply from having gathered power; but from using it in a
wise way to achieve good ends. That may seem a little bit far
afield, but it’s true; and this is part of the background on this
concept. That from the necessity for goodness came the
nonexistence of absolute space; that’s how Leibniz showed that.
He was right.
Bernhard Riemann, in 1854, delivered a presentation, wrote a
paper on the shape of space. And Riemann said that since the time
of Euclid up to his time, no one had ever really taken on in a
realistic way, what the basis of the shape of space is. That
Euclid said things like the sum of the angles in a triangle are
180; Riemann said that may or may not be true. On a curved space,
for example, it’s not true. The most important aspect is that
Riemann didn’t propose replacing Euclid with a similar geometry;
it’s that he said that the basis of our understanding of space
has to be the physical causes that make things occur within
space. He was right; that was Einstein’s approach. With
relativity, he said that our understanding of space can’t start
from a box; it has to start from physical principles that give
rise to the effects in space, and to the relationship of objects
in space. So light, gravitation, these became the basis of space
for Einstein; and those concepts lie outside of space. They
aren’t geometrical concepts in the way Euclid’s concepts were
geometrical. Light is a real thing; gravity is a real principle.
So, Einstein, in following on this and implementing it, and
developing his theories, developing his breakthroughs of
relativity, created something that contradicted; he made a new
hypothesis. To contrast that, let’s look at the past 100 years.
We’ve now affirmed something that Einstein had proposed 100 years
ago; but where are the new Einsteins? Where are the new theories
that contradict? Where are the new concepts that don’t follow
from what we already know, but introduce fundamentally new
principles? And more importantly, why is that not understood as
what science really is?
To say just a little bit about Bertrand Russell’s role in
all of that, LaRouche has called Russell the most evil man of the
20th Century; and we have given ample demonstrations of that.
Some of the more straightforward evidence of it is his views
about keeping the world population down; especially dark-skinned
races, who Russell particularly was upset about there being more
of. Proposing a scientific dictatorship, using murder to
eliminate people who became intelligent and opposed the ruling
class, keeping science secret from the majority of people; this
is some of the nice outlook that Russell had on things. He also,
in his own work as a ”professional” you might say, worked on
destroying the concept of science and turning it into
mathematics. He did this before and after the year 1900; this is
somewhat earlier in his life, where he wanted to throw away what
Einstein ended up doing, which was creating a new concept that
contradicted the past. And say instead, that every thought in the
future, will have to derive from thoughts in the past; that we
can replace creativity with logic.
Russell really put that into practice. Many people who are
familiar with Russell might think of him as being an anti-war
demonstrator, as being a peace-loving activist. Somebody who was
opposed to war, to conflict; especially to nuclear weapons. And,
included in that, technology itself; the concept that science is
dangerous, that perhaps science should be held back, because
these technologies allow us to exterminate ourselves. The idea
that the appropriate response to that would be to eliminate
technologies, rather than to have a productive, future-oriented
basis for relations among nations. This really sprung up in a
major way around anti-nuclear activism, of which Russell was a
major proponent.
So, I think what we can reflect on, what we can take from
the excitement around these gravitational findings, is that: 1)
it’s an opportunity to really go back and really develop and
understanding of who Einstein was. How did he think? Who was this
man, who a century ago, put forth the hypothesis that was
detected in this way only this year. Who was Riemann? How did he
actually think? We can reflect on the opportunities that we have
for the use of these kinds of instruments to provide us an
entirely new window to understanding the universe around us. Not
only are we seeing things in a different band, we’re using a
different sense all together. We’re hearing the universe; we’re
able to listen in on a completely different kind of physical
process than the electromagnetic ones that are the basis of all
astronomy otherwise. Using light, radio waves, x-rays and that
sort of thing. And I think it also demonstrates that the ability
to develop new technologies, to rise to a challenge, certainly
exists. And we saw this in the Apollo program, which similarly,
going to the Moon itself did not involve as much new science as
it did new technologies, new social organizations to implement
those technologies. Which we saw with some of the breakthroughs
of the truly amazing apparatus used to detect these gravitational
waves. But we have to have grand objectives. I mentioned the LISA
experiment; a space-based interferometry experiment, similar to
ones which did this recent detection, which NASA had been a major
player in and then pulled back on, as part of the Obama
destruction of a national mission, a natural future. NASA, as the
leading representative of that future orientation of the nation.
So, we have to have human objectives for the nation, for
ourselves. We have to, as a nation, have objectives like what
China’s doing now; as represented by China’s moves towards the
Moon from the Helium-3 standpoint. From the sheer excitement of
the population of China being asked to put forward proposals for
experiments to take up to the Moon. This is something that people
are actually thinking about as citizens of this nation. ”Wow!
What are we going to send up there?” ”What are we going to take
to the Moon for the next trip?”
We’ve got a lot of objectives that have been defined that we
have just been sitting on for decades. And if we eliminate the
source of this culturally, the frankly unscientific view of
science, this anti-human view of humanity, we can do great
things. And we can do it by removing Obama and giving this nation
a future-oriented mission again.

OGDEN: Well thank you very much, Jason. I think that’s
certainly exciting; the idea to be able to directly perceive
changes in space-time itself. So, I’d like to thank Jason for his
presentation, and I’d like to thank Jeff for joining us remotely
today. And I’d like to thank all of you for joining us; and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Med Schiller Instituttets formand Tom Gillesberg.

Send gerne en e-mail til:

info@schillerpartiet.dk

om, at du gerne vil give en vælgererklæring for at hjælpe Schiller Partiet til at kunne stille op til det næste folketingsvalg. Da det kræver cirka 20.000 vælgererklæringer for at kunne gøre det på landsplan, må du også meget gerne opfordre andre til at gøre det samme.

I april vil du få en e-mail fra vaelgererklaering.dk, der administreres af Social- og Indenrigsministeriet, efter at Schiller Partiets navn er blevet godkendt.

Fra vaelgererklaering.dk:
Social- og Indenrigsministeriet har ansvar for vaelgererklaering.dk, som er en løsning, der understøtter nye partiers indsamling af vælgererklæringer til at kunne opstille til enten folketingsvalg eller Europa-Parlamentsvalg.

Hvis du ønsker at støtte et nyt partis opstilling til folketingsvalg eller Europa-Parlamentsvalg, skal du kontakte partiet.

Partiet skal bruge din e-mailadresse (eller CPR-nummer, hvis du ikke har en e-mailadresse). Du vil derefter få en e-mail, hvor du skal følge instruktionerne og følge linket i e-mailen videre til vaelgererklaering.dk, hvor du logger på ved hjælp af NemLog-in og støtter partiet ved at afgive en vælgererklæring til dem online. Hvis du har givet partiet dit CPR-nummer, vil du modtage et brev med instruktioner.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Klik også her for videoen af Camerons bilkortege, sandsynligvis med hele den britiske pressegruppe, som kom lige forbi vores demonstration.
ALSO CLICK HERE FOR A VIDEO OF CAMERON’S CORTEGE, PROBABLY INCLUDING THE BRITISH PRESS CONTiNGENT, DIRECTLY PASSING BY THE DEMONSTRATION.

København, 5. februar 2016 – Schiller Instituttet og EIR udfordrede i går, 4. feb. og i dag 5. feb., personligt den danske udenrigsminister Kristian Jensen, og ved en demonstration på Christiansborg Slotsplads imod den britiske premierminister David Cameron, om truslen om atomkrig mod Rusland og Kina.

Kristian Jensen holdt en tale på Københavns Universitet for studenter og Udenrigspolitisk Selskab. Folk, der ankom til mødet, fik Schiller Instituttets flyveblad, der gengav LPAC’s lederartikler fra 3. og 4. feb. samt rapporten om professor ved New Yorks Universitet Stephen Cohens udtalelser om faren for atomkrig.

Efter talen fik EIR’s korrespondent mulighed for at stille Kristian Jensen et spørgsmål under en privat pressekonference:

EIR’s korrespondent sagde,

»Vores redaktør Lyndon LaRouche og andre taler nu om en alvorlig fare for atomkrig imod Rusland og Kina som en måde at forsøge at begrænse deres rolle i verden. Baggrunden er den, at vi nu konfronteres med et nyt finanskrak, med de seneste [begivenheder omkring] de italienske banker, og med Deutsche Bank, der nu er på en kriseliste. I går sagde Stephen Cohen, professor ved New York Universitet, at, pga. USA’s beslutning om at firdoble militærstyrkerne langs Ruslands grænse, betyder det, at faren for en atomkrig med Rusland er farligere end under den Kolde Krig. Vil du tage afstand fra denne konfrontationskurs og søge at samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, f.eks. om at bygge den Ny Silkevej og at udvide den ind i Mellemøsten?«

Udenrigsminister Kristian Jensen:

»Jeg er slet ikke enig i din analyse. Jeg mener, du stiller dit spørgsmål på et helt forkert grundlag. Vi er ikke i nærheden af en atomkonflikt med Indien … med Kina og Rusland.«

EIR’s korrespondent:

»Vi har kombinationen af … «

Kristian Jensen:

»Jo, men jeg er ikke enig med dig. Jeg er simpelt hen ikke enig i din forudsætning.« (Går).

I dag mødte den britiske premierminister David Cameron den danske premierminister Lars Løkke Rasmussen om den særlige, britiske EU-aftale. Ved indgangen til Statsministeriet måtte hans cortege passere direkte forbi Schiller Instituttets demonstration, centreret omkring et stort banner med ordlyden, »Stop the British drive for nuclear war against Russia and China. Win-win with the New Silk Road«. (Stop det britiske fremstød for atomkrig med Rusland og Kina, win-win med den Nye Silkevej). Den lille gruppe af demonstranter sang en speciel kanon baseret på dette og uddelte flyveblade på dansk og engelsk til forbipasserende.

Desværre var EIR ikke en af de tre journalister, der var udvalgt til at stille Cameron et spørgsmål under pressekonferencen med de to statsministre.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Video i 2 dele:
1. del:

2. del:

EIR korrespondent Michelle Rasmussen spurgte Udenrigsminister Kristian Jensen om faren for atomkrig imod Rusland og Kina efter han holdt en tale for Udenrigspolitisk Selskab på Københavns Universitet den 4. februar 2016.

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

Relevante links:

LaRouchePAC fredags-webcast om bl.a. USA's præsidentkandidat Martin O'Malleys støtte til Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling

Danmarks første astronaut Andreas Mogensen:
EIR interview

Fred gennem internationalt samarbejde om rumfart.
Interview med Andres Mogensen, første dansker i rummet.
Dansk version af en EIR artikel fra den 19. september 2015

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen.

Links:

Vores side om klassisk musik.

Er skønhed en politisk nødvendighed? Interview med Helga Zepp-LaRouche.

»Beethovens årtier lange kamp for den Niende Symfoni« af Michelle Rasmussen.

Skønhed er nødvendigt, ikke praktisk, for menneskeheden.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video i 2 dele. Her er playlisten:

Lyd: