Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Helga Zepp-LaRouche-pressekonference i Kina: “Den Nye Silkevej bliver til Verdenslandbroen” udgivet på kinesisk. Wall Street er dømt til snarlig undergang, færdig; Indfør omgående Glass-Steagall, forebyggende! LaRouche om koalitionen mod ISIS: Gør det!  Der er en global, strategisk alliance: En Geneve III-politisk løsning på krisen i Syrien vil nu være mulig. Engelsk udskift.

LaRouche PAC Webcast, October 2, 2015
        [proofed against the audio]

The World Is a Better and Safer Place Without Wall Street:
Dump Wall Street, Get Glass-Steagall, Bring Back Hamilton

MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening. It’s October 2, 2015. My name is
Matthew Ogden, and you’re joining us for our weekly webcast here
from larouchepac.com. We are recording here a few hours before
live show time, just to let you know, in case anything drastic
changes, but we are fresh from a discussion which we had with Mr.
LaRouche earlier today. I’m joined in the studio by Jeffrey
Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence Review}, and Benjamin
Deniston from the LaRouche PAC Scientific Team.
Obviously, we’re convening here at a very momentous time in
history. This is a week which began with the events at the United
Nations General Assembly meeting, most significantly, the
speeches on Monday by both Vladimir Putin and President Xi
Jinping of China. Now that was happening on the inside of the
United Nations building. On the outside, and in the entire
general area of Manhattan, the LaRouche movement was making a
very significant intervention which had a significant impact on
the proceedings of the United Nations, and the discussions around
that. And those of you who listened to, or had the opportunity to
listen to the 20th Fireside Chat with Mr. LaRouche that occurred
last night, Thursday night, you heard a short report by one of
the LaRouchePAC activists about what those interventions have
been. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkd4v0hiiY]
Now, simultaneous with the United Nations General Assembly
meeting in New York City, another significant leader of the
LaRouche movement, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, was in China. She was
participating in a series of meetings, and very significantly,
got to participate in a press conference announcing the
publication of the {Executive Intelligence Review} Special
Report, “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge,” which
was now published in Chinese, and is available in the Chinese
language, and we can be sure is already beginning to circulate
widely in China.
[https://larouchepac.com/20150930/eirs-silk-road-report-chinese-
presented-beijing-press-conference]
In the days subsequent to the beginning of this week, we’ve
seen a very significant, dramatic shift in world events, and I
know this is something which will be elaborated a little bit
later in our broadcast. But obviously we’ve seen the Russian air
strikes against ISIS in Syria, and this has created really a
chasm, a schism, inside the United States, where Obama himself is
finding himself completely edged out, and isolated, whereas
significant leadership inside the senior leadership of the United
States, including John Kerry and others, and also other members
of Obama’s own Democratic Party–Congressman Tulsi Gabbard is one
significant example of this–have distanced themselves, and
distinguished themselves, from Obama, and have said, this is a
necessary action on the part of Vladimir Putin, and one that
should be supported.
Mr. LaRouche was also clear to point out that Europe is
beginning to realign itself as well vis-à-vis these actions by
Russia.
Now, the primary point that Mr. LaRouche wanted us to begin
tonight’s broadcast with, was the implosion of the Wall
Street-based financial system. And this is what I’m going to ask
Jeffrey Steinberg to elaborate on, to begin our broadcast here
tonight.
Let me just paraphrase a little bit of what Mr. LaRouche had
to say in our meeting earlier, before I ask Jeff to come to the
podium. What Mr. LaRouche emphatically stated was that this
financial system is on the verge of a total implosion. It’s not
just a crash, but the entire thing is about to cease to exist.
And that means the entire system must be changed. What do we say?
Dump Wall Street! We need a total reorganization of this entire
bankrupt system, because we’re experiencing a general breakdown
of both the U.S. and the European financial systems. Therefore,
action must be taken to shut this thing down. Nothing can be done
to save it, he said.
The United States, as a nation, isn’t bankrupt, but Wall
Street is, and there’s no solution within the current form of
this financial system. The entire system must be put into
receivership. He said, either way, Wall Street is finished.
Either finished on its own accord, or finished because of a
decisive action that’s taken by patriots within the United States
government. It’s intrinsically bankrupt, according to any
rational physical economic standard of measurement, and all you
have to do is look at the facts. It’s happening now, and that’s
not a bad thing. It’s actually good, and we should make the point
that Wall Street disappearing is good for the future of the
American people.  It should have happened a long time ago; it
just needs to be cleaned up. The garbage has to be taken out, so
that we can get our people back to productive work.
So that was a short paraphrase of what Mr. LaRouche had to
say. I’m going to ask Jeff to come to the podium, elaborate a
little bit more on the context of this, to begin our broadcast
here tonight.

JEFF STEINBERG:   Last week a number of leading figures in
both Wall Street and the City of London were bracing themselves,
waiting to see whether the Federal Open Market Committee at the
Fed was going to begin the process of normalizing interest rates,
by raising them for the first time in seven or eight years by
one-quarter of 1%. There was {absolute} panic and pandemonium
over the prospect of that taking place, and statements were
issued from the City of London, the IMF Managing Director
Christine Lagarde, saying that if the Fed raises rates, it may
very well trigger a blowout of the entire system, and then the
Fed will be holding the bag, taking the blame for a financial
blowout.
Well, the simple fact of the matter is that the Wall Street
system is bankrupt, and by Wall Street system, I mean the
extended system of gambling that exists on Wall Street, that
dominates the City of London. You would got around the globe.
You’ve got Frankfurt. You’ve got Paris. You’ve got Dubai in the
Middle East. You’ve got Macao and Hong Kong in the Pacific region.
These are all centers in which there is virtually no connection
any more between the activities in the real economy, and the
gambling and churning of gambling money that’s going on in the
financial sector.
So there is nothing that can be done to avoid the fact that
at some point very soon, there will be a trigger incident. It
could be virtually anything. And it could be the beginning of a
very rapid, total evaporation of this entire mountain of debt,
and what Mr. LaRouche has also been emphasizing, is that the
danger in this situation is that if there is not immediate
pre-emptive action,  before that blowout occurs, then what you’re
likely to see is a period of total chaos, in which the bankruptcy
of the financial bubble creates a system of chaos in the real
economy, where you wind up with very destructive developments,
with social chaos, in which the real people of the United States
and other parts of the world become once again, but on a much
more dangerous scale, the victims of this kind of chaos.
So the point is very simple. There’s got to be pre-emptive
action now to put Wall Street in its entirety out of its misery.
And the simple first step to be taken in that direction is to
reinstate Glass-Steagall. By reinstating Glass-Steagall, and
making it clear, that this mountain of gambling debt will never
again be bailed out by taxpayers’ funds.
The simple fact of stating that means, that the entire Wall
Street system will immediately blow out.  Someone is going to
panic; someone is going to make a margin call, because so much of
this gambling debt, is built on borrowed money that the whole
thing will evaporate.  But the crucial thing is that you’ve got
to first create a clean and total separation between commercial
banking, which does impact on the real economy and this gambling
debt; this mountain of gambling debt that’s sitting there as a
parasite on the real economy.  If you make that separation by
passing Glass-Steagall in the United States, this will be the
basis for immediate action in other parts of the world.   So in
effect, by acting here in the United States, we will create the
conditions for a global Glass-Steagall separation, and then all
of this gambling debt can just evaporate.
Now, an illustrative case of this:  Back in 1998, when you
had the beginnings of a whole sequence of debt blow-outs, in
Japan, you had a large number of Japanese banks that were
basically bankrupt and were going to have to be put through
bankruptcy reorganization.  Under those conditions, those banks
posed a systemic risk, not just in Japan, but globally.  There
were some people in the Japanese Finance Ministry who understood,
and still had a memory of the difference between productive
investment, legitimate commercial banking activity, and the
gambling activities that had infected the whole international
banking system.
And so, those banks were basically audited, and all of the
derivative contracts, all of the international gambling
contracts that those banks had were simply cancelled. The
counterparties were contacted and given the option, of netting
out those contracts; or facing the consequences of losing those
funds, those gambling debts that nobody had sufficient funds to
be able to even remotely cover.  So, in the case of Japan, the
gambling debts were cancelled, and then the banks were put
through reorganization; there was no systemic risk.
At the same time, in the Summer of 1998, Alan Greenspan —
who was in the final phases of the elimination of Glass-Steagall
as the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and formerly a senior
partner at JP Morgan when the plan was hatched in the mid-’80s to
wipe out Glass-Steagall.  Instead what Greenspan did was, he
called in all of the counterparties of Long Term Capital
Management [LTCM], a relatively small, offshore hedge fund
located in the Dutch Antilles.  But they had derivative contracts
tied to the Russian debt, which the Russians defaulted on, the
famous GKO scandal of 1998.
And so, LCTM, rather than being put through an orderly
reorganization by netting out those derivatives contracts;
Greenspan called in all of the counterparties, and wouldn’t let
them leave the room until they bailed out LTCM.  So, on the one
hand, you had a cancellation of the derivatives; on the other
hand, you had a hyperinflationary bail-out.  Really just the
beginning of a hyperinflationary process that went off the charts
a year later, when Glass-Steagall was repealed.  And then it was
really off to the races; with everything invested in gambling
and virtually nothing going into the real economy.
So now here we are, it’s October of 2015.  We had a
shake-out of the bubble in 2008, and now it’s back once again
with a vengeance, because there was no change in policy.  The
Dodd-Frank bill with the Volcker Rule was a sick joke; it did
nothing to change anything.  So now, the too-big-to-fail banks
have accrued a greater amount of gambling debt than they
previously had.  That debt cannot and will not ever be paid.
So, by any scientific measurement, all of Wall Street is
hopelessly bankrupt; and so long as you remain in the trap of the
current system, nothing can be done about that.  And we’re headed
very soon — perhaps in a matter of days or weeks or months — to
a point where the entire system blows out; the entire
trans-Atlantic system evaporates, literally overnight.  And then
you’ve got social chaos on a very, very broad and dangerous
scale.
So, there is no money. Your money, your personal
investments in mutual funds or Wall Street stocks, or anything
like that; there’s nothing there to protect.  It can’t be
protected; and in fact, what’s going on right now on the eve of
the annual Autumn meeting of the IMF, scheduled to take place in
the next few weeks in Peru, are calls all over the place for a
new surge of hyperinflationary quantitative easing.  You’ve got
the European Central Bank about to extend its QE program towards
the end of 2018; in other words, a massive hyperinflationary
bail-out that will further erode the real economy.
So, Wall Street is dead; the funeral should have already
taken place long ago.  And now we’re at a point where that system
must be completely shut down.  Cancel out all the derivatives;
separate the banks under Glass-Steagall, into commercial banks
and let everything fall off the edge of the cliff.  Because it’s
unpayable, it’s illegal, it’s commingled with massive amounts of
criminal money; it serves no purpose whatsoever.  The world is a
better and safer place without those Wall Street activities;
without the City of London, without the activities in Frankfurt
and Paris and these other parasitical financial capitals.
Glass-Steagall right now, immediately.  And we’ve got a
political context in which President Obama, although he is not
down all together, is greatly weakened.  And you can put a {fait
accompli} on his desk and force the signing of Glass-Steagall.
If he refuses to do that, then he’s out under the 25th Amendment;
because to not do it, in the face of this imminent blow-out of
Wall Street, would be an act of criminal insanity that warrants
his removal from office.
So, that’s the story.  Wall Street is doomed.  If you listen
to idiots like Christine Lagarde, or Ambrose Evans-Pritchard over
at the London {Daily Telegraph}, they’re saying, “Gee, we’re not
sure if this is a systemic crisis, or some minor cyclical problem
that we can just weather by printing a bit more money.”  They’re
either idiots, or criminal liars, or both.
The fact of the matter is, Wall Street is dead; it’s dead in
the water.  Nothing can be done to save it.  And the question is,
do you want that doom to spread to the real economy; to the real
population that’s already suffering enough?  Or, are you prepared
to fight to insure that the right preemptive measures are taken
now?  Because a week from now may be too late; we don’t know how
close we are to the edge.  Well-informed insiders from London and
Wall Street thought that we were about to blow out a week and a
half ago, had the Fed gone through the small step of simply
raising interest rates and shifting the directionality.  There’s
a million and one potential small triggers out there, but the
triggers are not the real issue.  The real issue is that the
entire system is doomed; and we’ve got to take the right remedial
action before the doom spreads into the real world of real
people, and then it’s too late.
Franklin Roosevelt had an understanding of the kinds of
measures that have to be taken.  On the one hand, the
Glass-Steagall Act and other measures that secured depositors
funds in the commercial banks; shut out the gambling debt.  But
then Franklin Roosevelt also moved on for massive credit
emissions into the real economy.  He did the TVA; he created a
massive number of jobs through various public works programs,
much of which became the kind of infrastructure-building
projects,  major dam projects, municipal buildings, roads; all
the kinds of things that were the necessary preparations and
foundations for what became the “arsenal of democracy,”  the
enormous economic surge that occurred, when the United States was
on the verge of entering into war, against Nazi Germany and
Japan.  So, Roosevelt had the formula.
The situation today is far more dangerous, far more severe,
than it was at the time of Roosevelt. But the principles, the
American System principles, that Roosevelt understood and acted
on, are the recipe for success today. But the starting point is
to simply face the reality and act preemptively on the fact that
Wall Street’s dead. Give it a decent funeral, but pay no respect
whatsoever to this quadrillions of dollars, of strictly gambling
debt that have been built up since the repeal of Glass-Steagall
in particular.
What Mr. LaRouche has emphasized, is that this process goes
back–really the beginning of the decline in actual productivity
in the U.S. economy, started with the death of Franklin
Roosevelt. It accelerated tremendously after the assassination of

John Kennedy, and particularly after Nixon took the world off the
Bretton Woods fixed- exchange-rate system. That was the era when
people like George H.W. Bush and his underlings began to come in
and greatly accelerated the process of take-down of the real
economy.
So, we’re at the point now: Wall Street’s doomed; it’s
finished. So, let’s do the right thing.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  Thanks, Jeff. Now for the second element
of our show today, I’m going to shift to the dramatic and ongoing
change in the world strategic framework, specifically with the
situation in and around Syria, as the major focal point for this
shift.
Now, this is the subject of the institutional question which
has been posed to Mr. LaRouche this week. But before posing that
question and asking Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response, I’d
like to add just a little bit of background.
Over the recent few weeks, we have been seeing the
development of a very clear and decisive break with Barack Obama.
This has been coming from, really, around the entire world,
coming from Russia, coming from China, coming from Europe, and as
Matthew mentioned in the opening, as well as from within
institutions of the United States. And I think it’s important to
recall, that it was just a few months ago, in late July, that the
former director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Gen.
Michael Flynn, in an interview with Al Jazeera, had said that for
years President Obama has been willfully ignoring the DIA’s
warnings about the growing threat of radical jihadist-terrorist
networks in Iraq and Syria, the forces which have subsequently
become what we now call ISIS. General Flynn made it absolutely
clear that this was not just negligence or a failure, but this
has been the conscious policy of the Obama White House, in effect
protecting and supporting the growth and the solidification of
ISIS.
Now, at the same time, in this recent period, there’s been
an increasing recognition that this massive surge of refugees
fleeing into Europe, are actually running from the effect of
Obama’s policies; that Obama’s policies have been responsible for
driving this refugee crisis.
In this context, just this past Wednesday at the United
Nations Security Council, there was a meeting to discuss how to
combat the growing threat of terrorism. And both the Chinese and
Russian foreign ministers have made very clear, that in this
fight against terrorism–what’s happening in the Middle East–the
sovereignty of the Syrian nation must be respected, obviously in
direct contradiction and conflict with Obama’s calls for regime
change in Syria, and the removal of the government there.
Also this week, we saw more signs of support of this shift,
also coming from Europe, with the Swiss foreign minister saying
that the Syrian government needs to be included in a broad
dialogue to settle the conflict there, and the president of the
European Parliament calling for the inclusion of Russia and Iran
in an international coalition to resolve the conflict in Syria.
Perhaps most dramatic, as, again, Matthew referenced in the
beginning, and as I’m sure all of you have seen, Russia has now
initiated a series of coordinated air campaigns and strategic
bombings against ISIS and other terrorist elements which have
been otherwise, frankly, operating under the protection of
Obama’s policies.
So, in this context of a whole array of moves indicating a
shift in the world situation, around this pivot in Syria, the
following institutional question was posed to Mr. LaRouche:
“At the special UN Security Council session on terrorism
this week, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi called for the
convening of a Geneva III conference on Syria, with no
preconditions, and with participation of all interested parties.
What are your thoughts on China’s proposal at the UN Security
Council?”
I’d like to invite Jeff to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response
to this question.

STEINBERG:  The short answer that Mr. LaRouche gave to the
question, was two simple words: “Do it!” I’ll elaborate a bit.
You’ve had a policy, as Ben just indicated, of tolerance for
the growth and expansion of the Islamic State, of the Nusra
Front, of other similar jihadist-Salafist organizations; you’ve
got the so-called Army of Conquest, of which Nusra is now a
part–all of them operating inside Iraq and inside Syria. Despite
the fact that there’s a supposed coalition of 60 countries waging
combat against these organizations, they seem to miraculously
continue to expand their territorial holds. Despite the fact that
they’re under attack and under surveillance and scrutiny, they
keep managing, somehow or other, to get new recruits slipping
across the international borders, into Syria, into Iraq, to the
point, that several months back, the CIA estimated that the
Islamic State had 15,000 fighters total; and just in the last
several weeks, they’ve revised that number up to at least 25,000,
perhaps 30,000.
In other words, if you factor in the fact that some of them
are being killed, through the bombings, through combat
operations, —  particularly the Kurds have been quite effective
against ISIS–they’ve obviously been swelling their ranks, with
very little to stand in the way.
Now, here you have a coalition. Some of the leading players
in the, quote, “U.S.-led coalition,” are Turkey, Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Kuwait; and it’s well-known, that the major entrée point
for foreign fighters coming into Syria, is across the border from
Turkey. There’s a very lucrative black-market smuggling route,
that runs between Turkey and Raqqa , which is the capital city of
the ISIS area in northern Syria. The Turkish government, the
ruling party, the AKP, and particularly, the immediate circles
around President Erdogan, are making money hands-over-fist
through these black-market dealings with the Nusra Front, with
the Islamic State, and with these other Salafist terrorist
networks.
So, a simple question is: What coalition against ISIS? It
doesn’t exist! It’s been a fraud from the beginning.
So now the Russians have stepped in, and they’ve done it
within the framework of international law. There was a formal
authorization for the use of military force, that the Russian
Federation Council voted up unanimously to President Putin. So,
in other words, unlike President Obama, who never went to
Congress, the Russian state structures have given authorization.
The Syrian government of Bashar Assad formally invited Russia to
participate. Russia has established an information-sharing center
that will be up and functioning within a matter of days or weeks
in Bagdad, with Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Russia participating. So,
in other words, all the elements are being put in place for an
actual serious assault against this terrorist infrastructure. And
last night overnight, Russian bombers carried out 18 sorties
against Raqqa, which is the province and the capital city of the
entire ISIS-controlled area inside northern Syria and Iraq.
So, in other words, you’re seeing a serious military
operation for the first time. And the Syrian armed forces have
been depleted dramatically by four years, four and a half years,
of combat against a force that’s been continuously beefed up,
armed, supplied with new recruits, from an entire jihadist
apparatus from around the world.
And the Russians know, by the way, that there are now an
estimated 5,000 Chechen fighters in the ranks of the Islamic
State, fighting inside Iraq and Syria. And so this poses an
immediate serious, really grave security threat to Russia.
So Russia is not sitting back, is not running a phony war.
Russia is in there. They’re serious, and this is a strategic
game-changer.
The reason that the White House is hysterical over this is
that there is this so-called coalition. The United States is
protecting Saudi Arabia, and by extension, protecting the
British-Saudi Arabian dirty deals that have created this jihadist
problem in the first place. Qatar, Turkey, all supposed members
of the Obama-led coalition, are all on the other side. They’re
all actively supporting the spreading of the Islamic State and
the Nusra Front.
General David Petraeus, the so-called hero of the surge, who
is now an official adviser to the Obama White House and the
National Security Council, has called for the United States to
openly support the Nusra Front. That’s to say, openly support
al-Qaeda, the same al-Qaeda that did 9/11; the same al-Qaeda that
in 2012 killed the U.S. Ambassador to Libya, and three other
American diplomats. But fortunately, that noise, that policy from
the Obama White House, has been substantially suppressed.
There are other elements in the U.S. military that are
prepared very much to work with the Russians. Secretary of State
John Kerry has become the point person for a different U.S.
policy, a policy that he’s been working out for months in
coordination with the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and back
during his meeting in the spring in Sochi, directly with
President Putin. So Kerry in a CNN interview several days ago,
made it clear: He said, there is a new policy. And the new policy
is, we are not insisting on instantaneous regime change. We’re
not going to go there. We’re not going to do a Saddam Hussein.
We’re not going to do a Muammar Qaddafi. There’s going to be a
transition. The governing institutions are going to be preserved.
We’re going to be patient. We’re not going to allow Syria to fall
into chaos, and we’ll work with the Russians militarily.
So the Russians are making it clear. They’re carrying out
real combat operations, and they are out for blood. They’re going
to wipe out the Islamic State, and increasingly, China, India,
Germany, France, many of the countries in Europe that are now
overwhelmed by the refugee flow from ISIS, from Nusra, they’re
onboard.
So you have a global strategic realignment, which means,
yes, the prospects of a Geneva III political solution to the
Syria crisis is now viable, and feasible. You’ve got China,
Russia, India, Germany, France somewhat more reluctantly, all
ready to go on this, and you’re got Iran, Syria, and elements
within the United States who have basically sidelined, but not
yet eliminated the Obama presidency, who are ready to go with
this.
Again, as Mr. LaRouche said very simply, “Do it!”

OGDEN: Thank you very much, Jeff.  So with those two
elements of the current strategic picture presented to you here,
before I conclude this webcast, I just want to go back and
re-emphasize what Mr. LaRouche asked us to open this broadcast
with. And I want to do so by reading a short passage from what
Mr. LaRouche had to say last night on the National Activists’
telephone call, the so-called Thursday night Fireside Chat. And
this is what Mr. LaRouche said about Wall Street:
“The United States economy is about to collapse, and it’s a
real collapse. All of Wall Street is bankrupt, and worthless. If
the United States were to try and go along, and try to do
business with Wall Street, and Wall Street institutions, that
would be a disaster. Because Wall Street would itself collapse,
since it’s already in a rate of collapse. If we let Wall Street
go ahead, and do its own collapsing, the result would be a
disaster for most of the people of the United States on a very
large scale.
“So we have to get rid of Wall Street, immediately. We have
to junk it. Point out the fact that it’s worthless, that it’s
only a complete fraud. It has no economic value whatsoever,
except that of trash. And so therefore, we’re going to have to
get a radical change in the organization of the financial system
of the United States for two reasons: first of all, to maintain
an economy that will function for the United States population;
second of all, to protect the United States {against} the
influence of Wall Street. Because if Wall Street goes on its own,
and takes the dive that it will take, automatically, under those
circumstances the people of the United States may be starving all
over the place. Because if the United States collapses, then the
U.S. economy will itself be in a disastrous condition. That is,
the financial system will collapse.
“And therefore, we have to get rid of the Wall Street
system, and {we} have to collapse it in a controlled way. And
then use that method of controlled action against Wall Street, in
order to make the kind of re-organization that Franklin Roosevelt
did in dealing with Wall Street in an earlier period. And that’s
what has to happen.”
So, with that said, I’d like to encourage everybody, if you
haven’t heard it yet, go back and listen to this discussion with
Mr. LaRouche last night. This is the 20th Fireside Chat. Mr.
LaRouche will also be engaging in his weekly discussion with
activists in New York City tomorrow, and the intervention of the
LaRouche movement on the streets of Manhattan is continuing, as
we come out of this week, and into the following.
So, I’d like to thank you for joining us here tonight, and
please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video: (tilgængelig senere i dag, den 2. oktober)

Lyd:

I dag, den 28. sept., udspyede Obama sit krigsgale snavs over de samlede repræsentanter for verden på FN’s Generalforsamling. Blot få minutter senere fastslog Putins fremlæggelse med syvtommersøm den usminkede sandhed: at Obama er færdig.

Mens han på hyklerisk vis nævnte »regering ved international lov« og ondskaben i »magt er ret«, gjorde Obama Putin og Syriens Bashar al-Assad til direkte målskive for anklager om, at de var roden til alt ondt i verden i dag og hævdede endda, at Assad er årsagen til ISIS-rædslen i Irak og Syrien. »Lad os huske på, hvordan det begyndte«, fantaserede han.

»Assad reagerede på fredelige protester ved at optrappe undertrykkelse og drab, som igen skabte vilkårene for den aktuelle strid. Og Assad og hans allierede kan således ikke simpelt hen pacificere det store befolkningsflertal, der er blevet brutaliseret af kemiske våben og hensynsløse bombardementer.«

Han sagde, at »visse stormagter hævder sig på måder, der er i modstrid med international lov«, hvilket må have fået tilhørerne til at gispe efter vejret; dernæst klagede han over, at disse samme magter fremfører, at, for at bekæmpe terrorisme,

»må vi støtte tyranner som Bashar al-Assad, der kaster tøndebomber for at massakrere uskyldige børn, fordi alternativet sikkert er værre«.

Han skød dernæst brystet frem:

»Jeg er leder for det stærkeste militær, verden nogen sinde har kendt, og jeg vil aldrig tøve med at beskytte mit land eller vore allierede, ensidigt og ved hjælp af magt, om nødvendigt.«

(Senere fremdrog Putin ødelæggelsen af Libyen og Irak, lande, der bestemt ikke truede nogen, samt Obamas ensidige tilsidesættelse af FN’s charter og international lov.)

Obamas diskussion blev mere direkte med hensyn til Ukraine:

»Se på Ruslands annektering af Krim og yderligere aggression i Ukraine … Vi kan ikke passivt se til, når en nations suverænitet og territoriale integritet åbenlyst krænkes.«(!)

Idet han tydeligvis følte presset, sagde han klagende:

»Det er ikke en sammensværgelse af amerikansk-støttede NGO’er, der afslører korruption og sætter befolkningens forventninger op i hele verden; dens teknologi, sociale medier og ønsket, der ikke kan indskrænkes, hos folk overalt om at træffe deres egne valg om, hvordan de ønsker at blive regeret.«

Rusland har, sagde han hysterisk, startet en ny kold krig, og er nu ved at kollapse.

Obama vendte gentagne gange tilbage til situationen i Syrien, men omtalte aldrig russernes flanke-initiativ, hvorved de intervenerer militært og skaber en ægte, international koalition for at knuse ISIS, hvilket er årsagen til Obamas forstillelse foran hele FN.

Se hele Obamas tale i FN her:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3V9I2Dx7vk

Mandag i denne uge markerede den officielle begyndelse af FN’s Generalforsamlings sammentræde i New York City, hvor en stor del af verdens ledere vil være samlet for de næste to uger, midt i en meget usikker, og også meget farlig og omskiftelig, global strategisk situation. Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde i en erklæring, hun udstedte for et par uger siden »En hasteappel til FN’s Generalforsamling«, så kunne dette være menneskehedens sidste chance for at droppe systemet med geopolitik og indvarsle et nyt paradigme, der bygger på menneskehedens fælles mål. I erklæringen siger hun: »Kun på denne måde vil vi overleve som art. Og efter denne standard vil statsoverhovederne på Manhattan blive målt.«

Af denne grund vil der være meget fokus på de første dage i næste uge, hvor statsoverhovederne vil samles på Manhattan for at holde taler og mødes; disse statsoverhoveder inkluderer Kinas Xi Jinping, Ruslands Vladimir Putin og USA’s Barack Obama.

Engelsk udskrift.

We’re coming to you LIVE tonight! We have plenty to update you on, so tune in LIVE at 8pm Eastern.

Transcript

MEGAN BEETS:

It’s Friday evening September 25, and I’d like to welcome you all to our regular weekly webcast. My name is Megan Beets, and I’m joined tonight in the studio by Jeffrey Steinberg of Executive Intelligence Review, and Jason Ross and Ben Deniston of the LaRouche PAC science team.

Monday of this week marked the official start of the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York City, where much of the leadership of the world has convened for the next two, in the midst of a very precarious, and also a very dangerous and rapidly transforming global strategic situation. As was said by Helga Zepp-LaRouche in a statement that she released a couple of weeks ago, “An Urgent Appeal to the United Nations General Assembly,” this could be mankind’s last chance to dump the system of geopolitics, and to usher in a new paradigm built around the common aims of mankind. She says in the statement: “Only in that way will we survive as a species. And by that standard will the heads of state in Manhattan be measured.”

Now for that reason, much attention is focused on the early days of next week, when the heads of state will be gathering in Manhattan to speak, and to meet, heads of state including Xi Jinping of China, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Barack Obama. Now, this brings us to the subject of tonight’s institutional question which reads as follows: Mr. LaRouche, President Obama is set to have a one-on-one meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin next week at the United Nations General Assembly in New York.  According to a senior administration official:  “Given the situation in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the President believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians.  In particular, our European partners have underscored the importance of a unified message about the necessity of fully implementing the Minsk agreements.  President Obama will take advantage of this meeting to discuss Ukraine, and he will be focused on ensuring Moscow lives up to the Minsk commitments.  This will be the core message of this bilateral engagement.” What is your advice to presidents Obama and Putin?

So with that, I’d like to invite Jeffrey Steinberg to the podium to deliver Mr. LaRouche’s response to that question, and also his views on the more general strategic situation.

JEFF STEINBERG: Thanks, Megan.

We had a lengthy discussion this afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, and we discussed this; and for the sake of precision, I want to briefly read you the pretty much exact comments that Mr. LaRouche made, and then I’ll give some elaboration and set some context for what he had to say.

He said: Putin will handle the meeting with Obama fine. Let Obama get stuck. After nearly two terms, it is clear you cannot deal with him. You can only denounce him. He is no good, and never was. Only half-wits support him. Look at what he is. His step-father was the prototype. In essence, he is a nasty. Putin is fine. Obama is dangerous, after his step-father.

Now, I think it’s important to realize that the statement, that was included in the institutional question from a White House senior spokesperson, is typical of what you get from Washington, D.C. today. This is true from the first day of the Obama presidency, and it was true throughout the presidency of George W. Bush, with Dick Cheney looking over his shoulder. There’s nothing that is said in Washington that can be presumed to be truthful. There’s nothing that is said in Washington that can be relied on as an accurate account of what’s actually going on.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason that President Obama, at the very last moment, agreed to this meeting with President Putin, is that he was boxed in to an absolute corner, and in fact, the proposal from Moscow for there to be just such a face-to-face meeting, was made over a month ago, and it took the White House just until the last 24 hours, to make the decision that they could not weasel their way out of this face-to-face meeting. So, when you get this high-falutin’ language about, it would be irresponsible not to sit down with Russia, despite these tremendous differences, and the attempt on the part of Obama to turn the entire issue of the discussion around the situation in Ukraine, and to completely ignore what the Russians have done in Syria — and the opportunity that represents for actually defeating the Islamic State and these other Salafist jihadis — is sheer folly.

Mr. LaRouche’s view is that if President Obama attempts to turn the discussion in that private meeting around Ukraine, his simple advice to Mr. Putin is to just say to Obama, “Mr. President, you made the decision, beginning in November of 2013, to support an outright neo-Nazi coup against a legitimately elected government because that government refused to sign on to a rotten deal that would have wrecked Ukraine, and would have led to the kind of crisis between Ukraine and Russia that we’re seeing right now.” And in fact, that’s the simple truth of the matter. President Obama is committed to the idea of war with Russia. That commitment has been there from literally the very beginning of the Obama presidency, and in November [I think it’s October—ed.] of 2011, when there was a decision made between President Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, and then-French President Sarkozy to summarily execute Libyan leader Qaddafi, rather than capture him and put him on trial, and go through the prolonged process with all that would have come out during the course of that trial, Mr. LaRouche said, this is vectored against Russia and China.

Now in the last days, just preceding the events now beginning to take place in New York City, the German national television network, ZDF, aired a news magazine — kind of their equivalent of 60 Minutes — which went through a detailed exposé of the danger behind the fact that the United States is in the process of deploying a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons into Western Europe, and in fact, the B61-12, this new generation, is in fact an intermediate-range weapon which is a clear violation of both the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force INF Treaty that was signed in 1988.  These weapons, in fact, blur the lines of distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons.  They are no longer simply deterrence against the old Cold War fears that the Soviet Army would come rushing through the Fulda Gap and would basically occupy half of Western Europe before anybody could do anything about it.  The situation right now is that these new generation weapons are far more accurate, will carry a much-reduced payload, and can be fired from combat stealth fighters that will reach deep into Russian territory.  The fact that the German national television network, a week before all these UN events, chose to put a very prominent documentary exposé of the danger behind this Obama decision, is indicative of the fact that it’s not that there’s unity between the US and our European allies over the situation in Ukraine.

There’s been a decisive break led by Germany, now also including France; because they have come to the realization that Obama is a dangerous lunatic when it comes to Russia, and is jeopardizing the real possibility of a nuclear war on European soil.  So, the Europeans have broken with Obama in a very demonstrable way.  Germany, then France, then other European countries, have also come out fully supportive of the Russian military deployments into Syria; and have called for a much broader diplomatic initiative that does not exclude Russia, that does not exclude Assad in Syria, and does not exclude Iran.  So the idea that there’s unity within the western nations is an absolute fraud.  Obama has created the conditions where Europe, in many critical areas of security, is breaking with the United States and is moving — at least by natural impulse — towards seeking cooperation and an alliance with Russia.

So remember, when Russian President Putin a month ago began the deployment of significant military equipment into Syria, this was a strategic game-changer.  The United States was in the advanced stages of reaching a rotten deal with Turkey and Saudi Arabia and Qatar and Kuwait, to establish a no-fly zone in the northern part of Syria that was to ostensibly be a safe haven against ISIS; but was in fact to be a zone where the jihadists could operate freely, because the Syrian air force was completely denied access to that.  Now, you’ve got two squadrons of Russian advanced MiG fighter planes at a base just south of Latakia in northern Syria on the Mediterranean coast.  This week, several thousand Russian engineers arrived in the port of Tartus to expand and modernize that port to be able to receive larger Russian battleships and supply ships.  So the game has been dramatically changed in the Middle East, and it was not on the basis of President Putin seeking out a compromise with President Obama.  It was based on taking a very clear political military calculation that by hitting Obama on this strategic flank in Syria, it would completely destabilize the White House; and it would create the conditions where Obama would make a series of significant political mistakes.  If he mishandles the summit meeting next week on Monday with President Putin, this will be another indication of Obama walking into the kind of trap that has been set for him; first by his own behavior, and by his commitment on behalf of London and Wall Street to fomenting war against Russia.

And we’ve seen the same things in the case of China. President Xi Jinping arrived in Seattle, Washington earlier this week; and had three days of meetings out there.  And now, has been here in Washington last night and today for a summit meeting with President Obama.  Preceding that summitry in Washington, the President sent Penny Pritzker, part of the Chicago mafia apparatus that put Obama in office; that created his political career.  She’s now Secretary of Commerce, and she was the finance chair of Obama’s two Presidential campaigns.  She was sent out to Seattle as a kind of a minder to sit in on all of the meetings that took place between top American business leaders and President Xi Jinping; to make sure that they toed the White House line of making accusations about China unfair business practices in dealing with American companies.  So that kind of crazy behavior on the eve of a heads of state summit is another typical indication of how this President has tended to do business.  So, again as Mr. LaRouche said, “Putin will handle the meeting with Obama fine; let Obama get stuck.  After nearly two terms, it’s clear you cannot deal with him; you can only denounce him.”  So that is, in all likelihood, the kind of approach with velvet gloves, that President Putin will take; and that certainly is Mr. LaRouche’s recommendation of what he should expect out of this meeting with President Obama.

Now, I should say that there are elements within the US military — high-level people — who favor the idea of US-Russian military cooperation to genuinely go after and crush the Islamic State and the Nusra front.  Their view is that: 1) there must be negotiations on what’s called “de-confliction”; the US and Russia are going to be operating in the same theatres of activity over Syria, and it’s very important that there be a level of coordination to avoid an accidental incident that could get out of control.  There are those in the Pentagon and in the US intelligence community who wish to see direct intelligence sharing and ultimately coordinated operations against the Islamic State, involving the United States and Russia.  There is a line of communication between President Putin through Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, into Secretary of State Kerry; and it’s very clear that there is both a diplomatic and a military initiative coming out of President Putin.  And he’s expected to present that in considerable detail Monday morning when he addresses the UN General Assembly.  That’ll be just several hours before his Monday afternoon meeting with President Obama.

So, the Russians have taken a number of bold and critical initiatives.  They’ve created a series of strategic faites accomplis; that’s why President Obama authorized Defense Secretary Ash Carter to engage in phone discussion with Russian Defense Minister Shoigu last Friday.  There will be a working group at the Pentagon chaired by Carter, but with representation from the Joint Chiefs and CENTCOM [Central Command—ed.] that will be negotiating and talking on an ongoing basis with Russian counterparts.  This didn’t come from negotiating and compromising with Obama; it came from forcing his hand and creating a series of unavoidable options.  So, Obama is shaken; he’s furious at what’s happened around the Syria situation.  He’s furious that the efforts to create a blockade of Russian air links into Syria failed miserably; they couldn’t even get Iraq to go along with banning Russian over flights over Iraqi airspace.  So, the corridor from Russia through Iran and Iraq into Syria has been wide open; and that’s the basis on which the Russians have carried out a very rapid and very significant military build-up inside Syria.

So, that’s the backdrop to what’s going to be happening in New York beginning this weekend and extending into next week.

Now, I think that there’s an over-arching message that my colleagues will be addressing throughout the duration of this webcast, but I just want to put it clearly on the table right now, which is that there has been so much compromise, so much “practical decisions” that have been made over such a long time. This long pre-dates Obama, long pre-dates Bush-Cheney, really goes back decades, that the kinds of compromises on core principle have an erosive effect that is a grave danger.  In fact, it’s the single gravest danger to the survival of mankind, that there is a willingness to make compromises on fundamental issues of scientific truth.  We’ve seen that with the Pope’s compromise in the encyclical, that gave ground to outright British genocidalists on this concept of global warming and climate change.  So these kinds of compromises, which are considered to be in good taste, or to be expected of honorable gentlemen and -women, is a flaw, a deep pragmatic flaw that right now has created the conditions for the crisis that the world is facing.  So, in the case of the Putin-Obama meeting coming up on Monday: no compromise.  Truth.  And on that basis we can get through this crisis, and avoid the kind of thermonuclear war that President Obama is toying around with.

BEETS:  Thank you, Jeff.

Now, as Jeff just referred to, leading into the heads-of-state meeting that is to begin Monday in New York, events at the U.N. this weekend have been co-opted by the attempt to shape the ongoing discussion in a major way around the rotten agenda, the fraud, of so-called sustainable development.  Now, a major part of that was kicked off this morning by the speech of Pope Francis in front of the plenary session, where he again, very unfortunately, pushed the doctrine coming from the British, that man is destroying the Earth, and must shift to a mode of stewardship and living harmoniously with Mother Earth, and to face the threat of climate change.  So this began a weekend full of meetings of the U.N. Sustainability Summit around their 2030 agenda for sustainable development, which was, as Jeff said, in terms of a real tragic concession, voted up unanimously by the session shortly after the Pope’s speech.

Now, as we’ve documented thoroughly in these webcasts, and also as is covered in great detail in the newly-released EIR Special Report, “Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, Not Science”, the entire program of so-called sustainability is nothing new, and it’s a fraud which has been pushed time and again throughout the twentieth and now the twenty-first centuries by the leading factions of the British Empire.  So what I’d like to do now is invite first Ben Deniston, followed by Jason Ross, to come to the podium to address, number one, what is the fraud of the policy of sustainable development, and number two, what would a real policy for human progress look like?

BEN DENISTON:  Thanks, Megan.

I think I just want to start by referring to Mr. LaRouche’s very clear and concise assessment of the situation around the Pope.  You know, he’s, I think, put this question in some terms that have important precision.  The question we have, is, what convinced this Pope of all people to go along with this policy which is a genocide program.  We may not know every aspect of why he’s going along with this, for his personal motivations.  Mr. LaRouche has made that clear a number of times, including in a discussion last night, his so-called Fireside Chat discussion, which is available on the LaRouche PAC website, but he’s made that point a number of times.  We may not know all of the motivation behind the Pope himself, but the facts are what they are, and we know that he’s going along with the policy, which is a genocide policy, and we know exactly what forces have moved in on this Pope, and what they’re characteristics are.

First and foremost, what we’ve identified and we’ve discussed on these shows, and we’ve discussed on the LaRouche PAC website, and one of the key individuals is this guy John Schellnhuber, who has been for many years a leading operative and collaborator of the British Royal Family, very specifically in their genocidal population-reduction program.  He shares the view of Prince Philip, of the Queen, of this degenerate oligarchical faction, that the world is well beyond its carrying-capacity and needs — and world population must be reduced to around a few billion people.  This is the view of Philip, and the other British Royals.  This is the view of Schellnhuber.  He’s the one who’s become a key advisor to the Pope on these environmental issues, on the so-called climate issue, including playing a leading role in this encyclical that the Pope released a couple of months back.

Now, you know, just to make this clear and put this on the table, just look at the guy’s profile.  In 2004, Schellnhuber was deployed along with Tony Blair’s top science advisor at the time, Sir David King, together to go over to the United States to try and strong-arm the Bush Administration into going along with this climate change fraud policy.  And apparently they were so egregious in their attempt to strong-arm the Bush Administration, that the Bush Administration issued a formal complaint to Tony Blair, complaining about the trip of Schellnhuber and the way he acted on it.  It was later that same year, that Schellnhuber was named an official Honorary Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, by Queen Elizabeth, and it’s been said that he very much is offended if you do not call him by his official title given by the British Royals.  In 2005, he worked with Tony Blair to organize a conference for the G-8 Summit in Scotland at the time, on the issue of this climate change fraud. Schellnhüber edited the proceedings of that conference, and the introduction to the whole thing was written by Tony Blair.  Since then, he became the key advisor to Angela Merkel in Germany, presiding over the, really, dismantling of the German economy, with their nuclear-exit program, their insane carbon-reduction policy, and their suicidal green energy program.  2009, in the buildup to the Copenhagen Climate Summit, Schellnhuber worked closely with Prince Charles to try and build support for this summit, including making another trip to the United States to meet with then Obama as the President, to make sure the Obama Administration was in line with this whole program.  So, you know, he’s got a clear, very high-level track record of trying to recruit and strong-arm leading officials to go along with this population-reduction program of the British.  Now, he is the guy who has moved in on the Pope, bringing this entire program into the Vatican.  As Megan referenced, just earlier today in his address to the United Nations, the Pope clearly asked for support from the world population, from the leaders represented there at the U.N. Summit, to support the upcoming Climate Summit in Paris this December, where they’re trying to get nations to agree to really a suicidal commitment to reduce carbon emissions in the name of this fraud of a so-called climate-change scare.  This is a killer policy, but the point is, that’s the intention.  This is being pushed by these radical de-population fanatics.  They don’t care about the facts, they don’t care about the climate, they don’t care about the reality of the science between CO2 and the climate — their objective is this population-reduction program.  You know, what are that facts we actually know on CO2 and climate?  Well, number one: there’s been no warming of the Earth’s temperature on average, for the past nearly 20 years, now, despite the fact we’ve been putting CO2 in the atmosphere at a faster rate than ever. So there’s no evidence that the climate is highly sensitive, or highly responsive, to CO2, and there’s no evidence to show that mankind is going to have some catastrophic effect. It’s just getting ridiculous.

There’s been no increase in extreme weather, despite what you hear. There’s no evidence that CO2 can be tied to any increase in sea level rise, according to the most accurate measurements we have available. And, as an added irony to the whole thing, we know that the planet is actually getting greener, because CO2 is a plant food; it’s not a pollutant, despite the insane proclamation of the EPA. It’s a vital component to the biosphere, and the higher levels of CO2 have actually led to a greener planet overall.

But, the point is, these guys don’t care about these facts. They don’t care about the scientific arguments, because they’re starting from their program of a Malthusian population reduction policy, not any scientific argument. And Schellnhüber is a leading example of this.

Now, Mr. LaRouche has also emphasized the importance of highlighting the role of another figure, another situation, expressing this exact same fight, which is Jerry Brown, over in California, the governor of California. Where yes, he’s also pushing this insane idea for a murderous reduction in CO2 emissions, but that agenda is really no different than his water policy, or maybe better said, his no water policy. The facts are clear; the reality is clear. There’s plenty of water for California. Jerry Brown doesn’t want new water for California. He doesn’t want to develop new resources. He wants to kill off sections of the population; he wants to reduce the population of California.

There’s no shortage of water supplies for the state. They’re being denied to the population by the policies of that governor. As we’ve covered on these shows, on this site, we can get all the water we need for California, and we can actually get it in new ways. We can get it more quickly. We can get it more efficiently than ever before, if we decide to actually act human, and move to higher levels, by understanding how our galactic system operates.

You can ask the question: How do specifically the atmospheric components of our Earth’s water system operate? How does the atmospheric aspect of the Earth’s water cycle operate? Well, you can’t actually understand that unless you understand how the Solar System as a whole is actually subsumed by the higher order system of the Galaxy as a whole. If you understand that, if we understand that, and we act on that; if we act on a galactic level, on a Galactic principle, then we can manage the world’s water supplies in a completely new way. We can bring water to where it’s needed, by managing the atmospheric characteristics of the water system, in a way we haven’t been able to do before.

But people like Jerry Brown — they don’t want that. It’s not that that’s not an option; it’s not that we don’t have that available. They don’t want that policy. The British Royal Family does not want that policy, because it’s contrary to their Zeusian view of mankind. Because this shows us that mankind can go to qualitatively higher levels. We can create new resources. We’re not limited by any finite amount of resources. We’re limited by the boundaries of our knowledge at any given state, but what we can do as mankind is transcend to a higher state; go to a higher level of discovery, fundamentally transforming what the nature of the human species is in the Universe. Just like this galactic perspective is a clear demonstration of that, and that’s what these people hate.

They want their Green program. They want a program of so-called sustainability. Not progress, not creation, not really truly human action, but sustainability, sustaining some prior earlier state of mankind as a fixed animal-like species.

So, this is the fundamental fight going on right now. And this is what’s happening at the United States, with the so-called move to adopt some idea of a “sustainable” policy.

If you go to the fundamental principle of the matter, and Mr. LaRouche was very emphatic on this earlier today when we were meeting with him, sustainability is a Satanic policy. This is a scientifically defined Satanic outlook. Because this goes to a deeper issue, something quite frankly that the Pope should understand, but apparently he either doesn’t understand it, or refuses to discuss. But the issue of what is the true nature of mankind. And Mr. LaRouche said this very clearly earlier today. He said: Sustainability is death. There is no such thing as sustainability. Without progress, mankind will cease to exist. Because the issue is that mankind as a unique species on this planet, is uniquely characterized by a type of creative action, which does not exist in the domain of the animal world. Something that distinguishes our species as fundamentally unique. That this is what should be discussed at the United Nations right now. This should be the fundamental principle on which we discuss a new era of relations among nations, a truthful scientific insight and understanding of what mankind is as a creative species. Not a green program, not a sustainability program.

If you’re starting from a green program, you’re starting from a Satanic conception of mankind. Despite what the Pope said earlier today, despite what these crazy fanatics say, mankind is not a product of the natural biosphere, so to speak. We’re not a product of animal life. We do not exist in any steady balance with nature that we have to maintain. It’s not true.

Mankind, the existence of society today, is purely a product of mankind. We exist at the present state we’re at right now, because of the creative contributions of prior generations that have created the current state of existence of our species. And that is what we need to focus on. That is what we need to understand.

We have to ask these questions: how is it that mankind uniquely creates his own future? And it’s not just something that happened once, and then we’ve achieved that state and that’s it. This is the substance of what makes us human: continual and unending progress.  And I think the issue is that we have to treat — if we’re going to treat individuals as truly human, we must recognize every individual’s fundamental inherent right to participate in this process.

It’s not just about biological life. It’s not just about a lifespan per se. Sure, we need better living conditions. Much of the world needs better living conditions. We need longer lifespans, we need better health care, we need better infrastructure. That’s all true. But, for what purpose? Do those lives actually get a chance to mean anything? They can live out their live, you can live and you can die, without even having the chance to make a fundamental human contribution to the progress of society, without having the chance to really be truly human, and actually participate in a creative process to move society forward.

So, that’s the principal issue. That is why a green program, a program focussed on sustainability, sustaining some magical, fanatical idea of balance with nature, some inherent balance that we should just maintain, is a Satanic conception. There’s nothing truly human in it. There’s no actual creation. And so this whole green program — it’s not just evil because it kills people. That is evil; it’s evil to kill people. But it’s evil because it denies people access to their real nature as mankind as a unique species.  It denies people access the right and the ability to contribute something unique and something meaningful to the progress of society.  So, this is the issue that Mr. LaRouche was emphatic that needs to be put on the table; the actual principle of what mankind is.  What is the basis on which we need to move the world forward on a positive conception of true human nature? But even this Green program that we’re talking about here today, Mr. LaRouche emphasized, is only a recent expression of a longer standing fight; a longer standing issue.  Today’s Green policy is not really unique; it may have new clothes, it may have a more recent expression.  But it’s a much longer standing policy, longer standing fight.  And I think Jason has some more to elaborate here on the deeper roots of this issue.

JASON ROSS:  I do.

One of the other things that the Pope had brought up at the United Nations was, that in this speech he says that as human beings, we have to follow certain laws of physics and chemistry and biology, because we have bodies.  We need to talk about what it is that makes us human.  And I’m going to do that tonight in two aspects.  One is from the standpoint of the scientist Vernadsky; and the other is from the standpoint of Zeus or Bertrand Russell against the Promethean outlook of man, and talk about what a real human identity must be and what we need to hold on to today.

So, is it true what the Pope said, that we have to follow the laws of nature and biology and chemistry and physics because we have physical bodies?  Well, ask yourself this:  Are there any unique things about us as a species?  Do we apply laws of morality to animals?  Do we say that a lion is being immoral when it’s catching, hunting down some animal and then only eating half of it; wasting the leftovers?  Are there any rosebushes or orange trees that are going to be attending the Pope’s mass on Sunday? I doubt it.  The difference between human beings and animals is an obvious thing to everybody in the sense that it’s not hard to tell if you see something in front of you; is this a human being, or is this an animal?  It’s not hard to figure that out.  Just as in the study of biology or physics, it’s not difficult to know whether something that you’re seeing is part of a living process or not.  Some people might say, “Well, viruses are an unusual case.”

So, what does Vernadsky have to do with this?  Vernadsky, the Russian-Ukrainian biogeochemist who regular viewers of our website will have heard about I think a fair amount, he looked at life as a phenomenon.  He looked at human life as a phenomenon; and rather than focussing on the actions of individual organisms the way a biologist would, his focus was more on life as a whole. The impact of life, the inter-relationship between life and the non-living material around it, and the reshaping of the originally non-living material around life by the process of the biosphere over billions of years.  As a result of this process, we’re going to compare life with non-life, and then look at the human.  Because imagine if someone had said, “Well, life has to follow the laws of physics and chemistry.”  Imagine if you had gone back to the dawning of life on Earth, and said, “Wait a minute!  Life, you’re going to destroy the planet; you’re going to alter everything.  You’re going to reshape the soils; you’re going to change the atmosphere.  Look at all that pollution you’re making.”  This happened in life; the initial life on this planet lived off of chemical energy, such as deep sea vents, things in the crust, that sort of thing — chemical energy.  The breakthrough invention in life of photosynthesis, where the light of the Sun became the fuel and power source for life; that was tremendous transformation [that] totally changed life’s relationship to the rest of the planet.  It also led to the production of a very dangerous chemical.  Unlike carbon dioxide, which isn’t going to hurt anything, oxygen is actually is toxic; you might have said life was polluting the planet.  And indeed, the kind of life had to change to be able to live in an environment that had oxygen.  New kinds of metabolic pathways were developed that used oxygen as part of metabolism; like we do, as animals.

So, there’s been a dramatic change in life’s presence on this planet.  This is seen in the biogenic migration of atoms; of the flow of material from living organisms to the non-living — but almost undoubtedly shaped by life — surroundings.  The flow back and forth between life and non-life.  The development and growth of an increasing amount of biogeochemical energy. Vernadsky says that life increases its free energy; it colonizes the non-living.  At this point, the whole crust of the Earth down to a certain depth, the atmosphere; it’s all been shaped by life. Vernadsky points to other differences.  Take, for example, evolution.  Now, evolution has a direction to it.  I’d mentioned earlier the transition from chemical energy only to having photosynthesis, to developing higher forms of life — animals, warm-blooded animals.  The process of cephalization, meaning moving towards the head, where in animal life, more and more of the senses, the neural systems developed into the head.  That’s a process that took place over time; making it possible for there to be human beings.  Life doesn’t respond the way chemical elements do in other respects.  Life treats isotopes differently than can be explained by chemical or physical processes.  It treats left- and right-handed isomers differently in a way that purely chemical processes don’t.

So, there’s plenty that distinguishes life from non-life. In a similar way, there’s plenty that distinguishes human beings from life.  Despite what you may have heard about lawsuits about chimpanzees or other such animals having human rights; they’re not human.  And this used to be an obvious thing.  Let me read a section now from Vernadsky.  This is from his paper “Problems of Biogeochemistry Two“, and it’s available in a Vernadsky anthology that we put together. (Anthology Book I Here)  Vernadsky says:

“From the standpoint of the biosphere, the individual living organism is usually lost from view; in first place comes the aggregate of organisms — living matter. In biogeochemistry, however — in some strictly defined cases — at times it is necessary to pay attention to the discrete organism, to its individuality. It is indispensable to do this in those cases, where the activity of Man appears as a geological factor, as we see happening now, and the individual personality sometimes becomes vividly apparent and is reflected in large-scale phenomena of a planetary character. The human personality changes, accelerates, and causes geological processes of enormous significance, through its presence in the biosphere.”

With human beings, individuals actually matter on a planetary scale; no individual animal matters on a planetary scale, no individual plant matters on a planetary scale, no fungus.  With human beings, it’s different; how is that?  He said:

“We are living in a brand new, bright geological epoch. Man, through his labor — and his conscious relationship to life — is transforming the envelope of the Earth — the geological region of life, the biosphere. Man is shifting it into a new geological state: Through his labor and his consciousness, the biosphere is in a process of transition to the noosphere.  [From the root noeses, or thinking.]  Man is creating new biogeochemical processes, which never existed before. The biogeochemical history of the chemical elements — a planetary phenomenon — is drastically changing. Enormous masses of new, free metals and their alloys are being created on Earth, for example, ones which never existed here before, such as aluminum, magnesium, and calcium.”

“Plant and animal life are being changed and disturbed in the most drastic manner. New species and races are being created. The face of the Earth is changing profoundly.  The stage of the noosphere is being created. Within the Earth’s biosphere, an intense blossoming is in process, the further history of which will be grandiose, it seems….”

Human beings aren’t animals.  Bio-behavior, by looking at human existence over time as a phenomenon; just looking at it a scientist, looking at it as something that occurred.  We do things that animals have never done and never will.  We transform biogeochemical processes; we create new states of existence in the universe on the Earth.  We make new things happen that would not have happened by any means that was purely biological, physical, or chemical; we create.

Now this is a way of understanding the idea of human beings as being made in the image of God, for example.  The distinction between human beings and animals used to be, this wasn’t really much of a question.  Religions that look to Genesis and the notion that human beings are made in the image of God; that’s a clear distinction.  Squirrels are not said to be so made.  We see it in the indications that Vernadsky gives of the kinds of transformations we’ve made; so let’s talk about how that happens. And what that means about our identity, and what it means about how we have to approach the future.  I want to read a response that Lyndon LaRouche gave last night on a call of activists that we have every Thursday evening.  I’ll read the question, too. The question was:

“How do you deal with strengthening the spiritual ability for mankind, or the person to deal with the problem of the world? You mentioned people are becoming disheartened of the fact that the crisis is becoming unbearable for some.  But how do you strengthen the quality in defending mankind?”

LaRouche in his answer, said:

“We have the means, mankind has the means to understand mankind.  And what I said in an earlier remark this evening, that at a certain point, we are able to understand mankind, how?  We understand that, because we are all human, and we all know that we are going to die, sooner or later. And we know that the question is, what’s the meaning of our life?  And many people have a big problem, because they have never been able to resolve what has been and what will be, ‘the meaning of my life.’

“So you start with what has been the meaning of your life; then you go to the really tougher question, and you say, what is the meaning of your future of your life?  And that means you have think, now, of what you are, and shape what you are going to be, in such a way that you do not feel shame about having lived. That means that you devote your life to making contributions which lead mankind to improve mankind!  That is to improve people, living people.   And rather than simply taking care of your own greed, and so forth, you’ve got to think about what you can do to influence people, to make the next generation, a better generation than the one you’re living in.”

He says, “That is a short way of saying it; but I think it’s an adequately effective one.”

Now, on this subject, LaRouche — when we spoke to him this afternoon — was very emphatic about drawing the contrast between that outlook that he expressed and the outlook of mankind expressed by Zeus, or by Bertrand Russell, or by John Schellnhuber — sorry, I forgot your title there, John.  You do it by not being practical.  Now the story of Zeus and Prometheus is one of tyranny.  Zeus the tyrant said that human beings were of a lower class than he; he was a god, human beings were these mere mortals.  And that the power of fire was something reserved for him alone; it wasn’t for human beings to have.  If Zeus had his way, he’d exterminate the human race, as a matter of fact. Prometheus enters the story as the fire-bringer; as defying Zeus and bringing the power of fire to mankind, and in fact, creating mankind.  Listen to this; you can understand the creation of the human species as a non-biological, non-animal — we’re not animals.  Here’s Prometheus.  He says:  “Listen to the miseries that beset mankind.  How they were witless before I made them have sense, and endowed them with Reason.  First of all, although they had eyes to see, they saw to no avail.  They had ears; but they did not understand.”  Your cat, as much as you love it, probably doesn’t understand a whole lot.  “But just as shapes and dreams throughout their length of days, without purpose, they wrought all things in confusion.”  He says, human beings didn’t know how to build houses; didn’t know how to use wood; didn’t understand the seasons; didn’t know when to plant crops; didn’t know how to navigate using the stars; didn’t have numbers; didn’t have poetry; didn’t have writing; didn’t use animals to do their chores for them; and didn’t have sailing.  And didn’t have metallurgy; he goes on.  Prometheus, yes; the fire-bringer.  The power of fire which no animal species uses; and creativity itself as a whole, defining the human race.

Now, against that idea of the human race, stood Zeus then and, in our time over the past century, has loomed very large — Bertrand Russell.  I’m not going to say a lot about Bertrand Russell; we’ve got a lot of material, we’ve gone through this a good deal in the past.  But to give a short reminder, I suppose you could call it, in 1900, Bertrand Russell took up a task that was put down by David Hilbert about, in effect, killing science. The specific idea was about turning mathematics into a branch of logic; but what the whole pursuit meant to Russell was eliminating creativity.  To turn science — instead of being something creative where new things could occur, where new discoveries happen; Russell sought to destroy it, and say, “We’ve really got it all figured out; and everything in the future can be derived from the past.  We can take the model of Euclid; you derive from what you’ve already got, and that’s all that we’re going to have in the future.”  And that really has taken over science; modelling, curve-fitting, throwing in more parameters to explain anomalies in the way that Ptolemy or Copernicus did by adding in extra epicycles.  Approaching things mathematically, rather than as a scientist in the tradition of Mendeleyev, Kepler, Cusa, Fermat, Leibniz, or a great musician.

So, I’d like to actually at this point get to a short idea about this from Percy Shelley.  Now, Percy Shelley wrote a poem, Prometheus Unbound.  Aeschylus’ play Prometheus Bound is only the first of a trilogy, and the other two plays have been lost; we don’t have them.  But let me read an epilogue to Shelley’s poem, Prometheus Unbound.  He’s writing this to Prometheus.  He says that

“To suffer woes which hope thinks infinite; to forgive wrongs darker than death or night; to defy power which seems omnipotent; to love and bear; to hope ’til hope creates from its own wreck a thing it contemplates.  Neither to change, nor falter, nor repent.  This, like thy glory, Titan, is to be good, great, and joyous; beautiful and free.  This is alone life, joy, empire, and victory.” 

That the greatest power that we have lies in our minds; lies in the power to do new things; lies in the power to — as we understand it today through LaRouche’s economics — to live our lives in such a way that not only can we feel good about ourselves, but that we can have access to a necessity.  In other words, it’s possible to live a life in such a way that you will have been necessary to the future.

And as Ben said, just as we must prevent people from being killed — murder is wrong; we can’t have a SPCA approach to human beings.  To develop the Third World like adopting a poor puppy from the pound, or something like that.  That’s not a human approach to our fellow human beings.  The development that we need is one in which people are elevated to being able to play a role in that development process itself; and to be truly human. To know what means, to have an idea of what future must be; and as in that quote from LaRouche, to shape yourself, and live your life in shaping yourself to be able to bring that about.  That is the highest form of freedom for an individual.  And by bringing that to society as a whole, we can achieve the true highest sort of freedom; which is not only a freedom from want, oppression, tyranny; but it’s freedom to express intelligence, a freedom to know.  It’s a very developed sense of freedom; the highest sense of freedom.  And to make that something that people are able to participate in, is truly the highest work for us today.

BEETS:  Thank you very much, Jason.

With that, I’m going to bring a close to tonight’s broadcast.  I’d like to thank Ben, Jason, and Jeff for joining me tonight; and I would like to thank all of you for watching.

Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com. Good night.

Jason Ross diskuterer miljøbevægelsens udvikling, og hvordan det, der kaldes »økologi« eller »miljøbeskyttelse« i dag er ansvarlig for millioner af dødsfald under dække af såkaldt ’miljøbeskyttelse’. Dreissen og Ross diskuterer også myten om ressourcekrisen, og hvad der gøres for at opdyrke den ultimative ressource: det menneskelige intellekt.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

EIR’s spørgsmål kommer efter 40 min.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:

Lyd:

https://soundcloud.com/si_dk/hvad-putin-vil-tale-om-pa-fns-generalforsamling-den-14-september-2015

Progress – or die

LPac Video

Med dansk udskrift

På grund af emnets aktualitet udlægger vi denne LaRouchePAC-video, som er fra 13. april, 2012:  

… den første atombombe blev kastet over Hiroshima, en militærbase … Vi vil fortsætte med at bruge den, indtil vi fuldstændig har ødelagt Japans evne til at …

Kennedy 1963: » … i Berlin eller på Cuba vil en krig i dag eller i morgen, hvis den blev en atomkrig, ville den ikke være som nogen anden krig i historien. En fuldt optrappet udveksling af atomvåben, der varede under 60 minutter, kunne, med de våben, der nu findes, udslette mere end 300 millioner amerikanere, europæere og russere, såvel som utalte millioner andre steder, og de overlevende, som formand Khrusjtjov advarede det kommunistiske Kina om, de overlevende ville misunde de døde. Hvis blot én termonuklear bombe blev kastet på en amerikansk, russisk eller anden by, hvad enten den blev udløst ved et uheld eller med overlæg, af en galning eller af en fjende, af en større nation eller af en mindre, fra et hvilket som helst hjørne af verden, kunne denne ene bombe udløse mere destruktiv kraft over denne ene, hjælpeløse by end alle de bomber, der blev kastet under Anden Verdenskrig.«

 2012: I dag, næsten halvtreds år efter disse ord af præsident Kennedy, hænger den termonukleare krigs sky stadig over vore hoveder. Konfronteret med sammenbruddet af verdens monetaristiske system er Det britiske Imperiums fremstød for generel krig allerede i gang. Fra mordet på Gaddafi i Libyen til fremstødet for en militær intervention i Syrien, og til Israels fremstød for et angreb på Iran, skubbes verden frem mod randen af generel krig. I en æra med termonukleare våben betyder generel krig en termonuklear krig. Det betyder ikke blot utænkelige mængder af død og ødelæggelse; det er en trussel mod vor arts blotte eksistens. Men denne aktuelle, dødbringende tingenes tilstand behøver ikke at eksistere.

 (Ronald Reagan) »… lad os vende os mod videnskab og teknologi, der har frembragt vor storslåede industribasis og givet os den livskvalitet, som vi i dag nyder. Hvad, om frie mennesker kunne leve trygt i visheden om, at deres tryghed ikke hvilede på truslen om amerikanernes evne til at levere et omgående gengældelsesangreb for at afskrække et sovjetisk angreb, hvis vi kunne opfange og ødelægge strategiske ballistiske missiler, før de nåede frem til vor eller vore allieredes jord? Jeg ved, at dette er en formidabel teknisk opgave, en opgave, som ikke ville blive fuldført før ved slutningen af dette århundrede, men er det ikke enhver investering værd at befri verden fra truslen om atomkrig? Det ved vi, at det er. Jeg opfordrer vort lands videnskabelige samfund, som gav os atomvåben, til nu at anvende deres storslåede talenter i verdensfredens tjeneste, til at give os midlerne til at gøre disse atomvåben impotente og overflødige.«

 Lyndon LaRouche: »Den fremgangsmåde, vi må anvende, hedder ’trinvis strategisk ballistisk missilforsvar’. Den første forsvarslinje er laservåben, hvis opgave er at ødelægge sovjetiske missiler i samme øjeblik, disse missiler udløses …« Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ, udviklet af Lyndon LaRouche og vedtaget af Ronald Reagan, var på randen af at blive til virkelighed, et fælles amerikansk-sovjetisk, rumbaseret, ballistisk missilforsvarssystem, der tog nye fysiske principper i anvendelse, såsom de sovjetiske stråle-partikel-lasere, samt andre, endnu ikke opfundne teknologier, der ville gøre våbnene overflødige. Men SDI blev ikke til noget. Det britiske Imperiums hånd greb ind for at standse menneskets fremskridt. Gennem Det britiske Imperiums sovjetiske marionetter, Yuri Andropov og Mikael Gorbatjov, sammen med de britiske marionetter i USA, blev SDI-forslaget lukket ned, og i stedet for et program uden fortilfælde med videnskab som drivkraft, fik vi London-Wall Street svindelnummeret, et svindelnummer, som nu har bragt hele det transatlantiske område på denne planet til en elendig tilstand af fysisk-økonomisk sammenbrud, et svindelnummer, der har bragt os til randen af termonuklear krig.

»Skønsmæssigt 30.000 mennesker marcherede gennem Athen i torsdags i den anden protestbølge mod … Molotov-cocktails, to tønder med gas, og sten flyver gennem luften«

Lyndon LaRouche: »Hvis SDI ikke var blevet droppet, ville vi ikke befinde os i dette rod i dag. Vi havde ret; jeg havde især ret, og de, der ikke lyttede til mit budskab, mislykkedes, og var fiaskoer, og alle de ting, som de ikke gjorde, og som de skulle have gjort, var det, der muliggjorde den aktuelle trussel om den omgående udslettelse af den menneskelige art.«

Der findes mere end 20.000 atomsprænghoveder. Hvad, hvis de blev taget i anvendelse? Vore ubåde af Ohio-klassen symboliserer USA’s ødelæggelseskapacitet. Hver af disse ubåde kan rumme op til 24 Trident-missiler, missiler, der kan flyve med en hastighed af over 13.000 mil i timen og ramme mål 7.000 mil borte. Hvert missil er udstyret med 4-8 atomsprænghoveder; enten W-76 sprænghovedet med en ladning på 100 kiloton, eller den mere destruktive W-88 med en ladning på 475 kiloton. Til sammenligning havde Littleboy, atombomben, der blev kastet over Hiroshima, en ladning på 14 kt, og Fatman, der blev kastet over Nagasaki, 23 kt. De var atombomber. I dag har vi at gøre med termonukleare bomber, der hver er 8-40 gange kraftigere end Hiroshima. Med 4 W-88 sprænghoveder i hver Trident-missil, og med 24 missiler på hver ubåd, og med 14 amerikanske ubåde, der er bevæbnet med disse, bliver det til næsten 400 sprænghoveder med hver en ladning på 475 kt – en kolossal ødelæggelsesevne.

I Rusland har deres interkontinentale missil, SS-27, en rækkevidde på 6.500 mil og bærer en ladning på 550 kt. Eller tag Ruslands SS-18, med kælenavnet ’Satan’, af hvilke man har kendskab til 6 eksisterende, og som har en rækkevidde på 10.000 mil og kan levere et enkelt sprænghoved med en ladning på 8.000 kt! Hvis ’Satan’ blev udløst over New York City, ville storbrandens radius, inden for hvilken alle mennesker ville dø inden for 24 timer, være omtrent 4 mil.

I Kina har de DF 5A, der kan udstyres med et enkelt sprænghoved med en ladning på 4.000 kt eller med 4-6 sprænghoveder med hver sit mål, og hver med en ladning på mellem 150 og 300 kt; dette interkontinentale ballistiske missils rækkevidde er på 8.000 mil, hvilket gør USA’s vestkyst til et meget let mål.

Hvis vi kom ind i en global, termonuklear konflikt, ville vi på få minutter gøre en ende på civilisationen, som vi kender den. Storbyer over hele kloden ville forsvinde fra landkortet; milliarder af mennesker vil være døde, og som Kennedy citerede, ville ’de levende misunde de døde’. Men betyder dette udslettelse? Ud over død og ødelæggelse på jordens overflade har en termonuklear krig evnen til at transformere Jordens klima. Ligesom eksplosionen fra en stor vulkan, som Tamboras udbrud i 1815 i Indonesien, der lukkede sollyset ude og frembragte ’året uden sommer’, således kan også eksplosionerne fra termonukleare våben forårsage globale klimaforandringer. Man skønner, at udveksling af blot 15 bomber af Hiroshima-størrelse mellem Pakistan og Indien, hvilket udgør langt mindre end 1 % af verdens atomarsenal, ville skabe klimaforandringer uden fortilfælde i menneskehedens historie, hvis de blev kastet over kæmpebyer i hvert af disse lande. 5 mio. tons sort kulstofrøg ville blive sluppet ud i den øverste troposfære, og ville dernæst, når den først blev opvarmet af Solen, blive løftet endnu højere op, i stratosfæren. Man skønner, at denne røg ville sprede sig i løbet af 49 dage og lægge en dyne over hele Jorden og lukke tilstrækkeligt af for sollyset til at skabe et klima som i den lille istid. Hvis verden kom ind i en global konflikt, hvor man brugte en tredjedel af verdens atomarsenal, ville der dannes så meget røg, at Solens stråler ville blive udelukket fra at nå Jordens overflade og få temperaturerne til at falde under frysepunktet i månedsvis over hele kloden og dræbe praktisk talt alle fotosyntese-processer, og dermed alt liv, der er afhængig af dem. Hvor svovlpartiklerne fra et vulkanudbrud forbliver luftbårne i omtrent 2 år, kunne røgen fra atom-eksplosioner vare i et årti. Oven i død og ødelæggelse af storbyer over hele kloden, ville selve Jordens biosfære, den skrøbelige indpakning, som det har taget milliarder af år at udvikle frem til det stadie, hvor menneskeligt liv kunne eksistere, blive ødelagt. Vi taler virkelig om masseudslettelse af den menneskelige art.

Men det behøver ikke ske.

Alt imens de monetaristiske nationer smuldrer, bevæger nationer som Rusland og Kina sig væk fra en monetaristisk økonomi og satser på en politik med skabelse af fysisk rigdom, storstilet økonomisk udvikling og pionerprojekter inden for den arktiske udviklings og menneskets kolonisering af rummets nye, fremskudte grænser. Rusland har inviteret USA til at gå sammen med sig i eventyret om denne nye, fremskudte grænse. Rusland har ikke alene foreslået et fælles program til udvikling af Beringstrædet, men Rusland har tilbudt principperne om 1980’ernes SDI tilbage til USA i form af Det strategiske forsvar af Jorden. Foreløbig har USA valgt at klamre sig til sine fantasier om Wall Street og City og London.

 (Den britiske dronning) »… i dag er USA fortsat vor vigtigste allierede … «

I stedet for at tage imod Ruslands tilbud om fælles økonomisk udvikling, spiller USA rollen som syndebuk for det smuldrende, Britiske Imperium. Alt imens Rusland og Kina nægter at underkaste sig imperiesystemet, bruger Det britiske Imperium USA’s våbenarsenal til at forsøge at true dem til underkastelse. Det er dette sammenstød mellem imperiesystemet og kampen om den menneskelige arts overtagelse af styringen af planeten, som driver os frem mod krig.

Hvis vi fjerner Barack Obama fra Det hvide Hus, fjerner vi USA’s våbenarsenal fra briternes kontrol og vælter skakbrættet. Ved at fjerne Barack Obama åbner man op for, at USA kan arbejde seriøst med både Rusland og Kina, og for, at Amerikas pionerånd, som gav verden ’et frihedens tempel og et håbets fyrtårn’, atter kan blive udløst.

(JFK) »Verden har før været tæt på krig, men nu har mennesket, som har overlevet alle tidligere trusler mod sin eksistens, taget evnen til at udslette sin egen art mere end syv gange i sine dødelige hænder. I aften står jeg her, med ansigtet mod vest, på det sted, der engang var den store, fremskudte grænsepost; fra det land, der strakte sig 3000 mil bag os, opgav pionererne deres sikkerhed, deres tryghed og undertiden deres liv for at bygge vort nye Vesten. De holdtes ikke tilbage af deres egne tvivl, eller var fanger af en gevinst for sig selv. De var fast besluttet på at skabe den nye verden, stærk og fri, et eksempel for verden, på at overvinde dens farer og dens vanskeligheder, og besejre de fjender, der truede indefra og udefra. Nogle ville sige, at denne kamp er forbi, at alle horisonterne er udforsket, at alle kampene er blevet vundet, at der ikke længere er nogen fremskudt, amerikansk grænse, men jeg er sikker på, at ingen ville erklære sig enig i denne stemning, for alle problemerne er ikke løst, og alle kampene er ikke vundet, og vi står i dag på randen af en ny, fremskudt grænse, 1960’ernes fremskudte grænse, med ukendte muligheder og farer, uopfyldte håb og uopfyldte veje; den nye, fremskudte grænse er her, hvad enten vi søger den eller ej; denne nye, fremskudte grænse er de områder i rummet, der ikke er kortlagt, uløste spørgsmål om fred og krig, uvidenhedens og fordommenes ubesejrede provinser, ubesvarede spørgsmål om fattigdom og overskud. Men jeg er overbevist om, at tiden kræver forestillingsevne og mod og vedholdenhed. Jeg beder hver af Jer om at være pioner i denne nye, fremskudte grænse. Min opfordring er til de unge af hjertet, uanset alder, til de stærke i ånden, uanset parti, til alle, der imødegår skriftens opfordring: ’Vær stærk og modig, vær ikke bange, lad dig ikke skræmme’. Hvis vi har modet og viljen, kan vi komme igennem en tid, hvor vi ikke alene vil blive vidne til nye gennembrud inden for ødelæggelsesvåben, men også et kapløb om herredømmet over himlen og regnen, havene og tidevandet, den fjerne side af rummet og menneskets egen ånd, det er spørgsmålet om den nye, fremskudte grænse, det er det valg, som vor nation må træffe, hele menneskeheden afventer vor beslutning, en hel verden ser hen til, hvad vi vil gøre, og vi kan ikke svigte denne tillid, og vi kan ikke undlade at forsøge.« (Bifald)

Den nye, fremskudte grænse er ikke en række løfter, det er en række udfordringer. Det appellerer til vor stolthed, ikke til vor tryghed. Det kræver forestillingsevne og mod og vedholdenhed. Se, hvad menneskeheden er i stand til. Vi er en mægtig, geologisk kraft. Hvordan kan det være, at termonuklear fusion kun er blevet anvendt til at skabe masseødelæggelsesvåben? Hvorfor har vi ikke anvendt den som middel til at drive et bemandet rumfartøj til Mars? Hvorfor er vi aldrig vendt tilbage til Månen? Hvorfor opgav vi Kennedys drømme om den nye, fremskudte grænse? For da briterne myrdede Kennedy-brødrene, underkastede vi os de regler, som oligarkiet fastlagde. I dag står vi på randen af en ny, fremskudt grænse; men for at opnå den må vi tilintetgøre det oligarkiske princip. Det holder os ikke alene tilbage; det truer med at udslette vor art.

Det er nu, vi må vælge enten at gøre videnskabelige fremskridt – eller dø.

Schiller Instituttets formand, Helga Zepp-LaRouche:

»Du ved sandsynligvis ikke noget om det endnu, for massemedierne dækker det ikke, men virkeligheden er den, at menneskeheden allerede har indledt en fuldstændig ny æra med BRIKS-landene. De er i færd med at virkeliggøre et fuldstændigt nyt økonomisk og finansielt system. Kina er i færd med at bygge den Nye Silkevej, der bringer udvikling og fred til alle lande, der deltager i projektet. Kinas kultur er orienteret imod en bedre fremtid for menneskeheden, og hele den kinesiske befolkning deltager optimistisk i denne fællesmission.

Den indiske premierminister Modi har udtrykt det således: ’BRIKS-landene udgør den første alliance i historien, der ikke defineres ud fra sine aktuelle kapaciteter, men ud fra det fremtidige potentiale, og det er dets befolkningers kreativitet.’

Lad os gøre alt, vi kan, for at få de europæiske nationer og USA til at gå med i dette optimistiske perspektiv for fremtiden.«

(Men uanset, hvilken form for trykkemaskine, der bruges, må vore trykkeriarbejdere …)

 Speaker: »Den største udvikling i vores levetid er blevet fuldstændigt blokeret af medierne. Er der noget, medierne ikke vil have, du skal vide?«

 Den kinesiske præsident, Xi Jinping:

»Vi har kun en planet, og landene deler denne ene verden. For at få fremgang i Asien, og i verden, kan vi ikke undvære hinanden. Det, som Kina derfor har mest brug for, er harmoniske og stabile, nationale forhold, og fredelige og rolige, internationale forhold. Uroligheder og krig er imod det kinesiske folks fundamentale interesser. Kina har, i moderne tider, lidt under uroligheder og krig i mere end et århundrede, og det kinesiske folk ville aldrig ønske at påføre andre lande, eller folkeslag, den samme tragedie. Historien har lært os, at intet land, der forsøgte at opnå sit mål ved hjælp at magt, lykkedes med det.«

 Den russiske præsident, Vladimir Putin:

»Vi går nu ind i en ny fase af vores nationale udvikling. Vi må forstå, at de fremtidige generationers liv og vore udsigter som land og som nation afhænger af os i dag, af vores faste beslutning om at udvikle vore udstrakte vidder fra Det baltiske Hav til Stillehavet.«

 Den indiske premierminister Narendra Modi:

»Ligesom vi kæmpede for vores frihed, ligesom vi kæmpede sammen; vi var ikke adskilt dengang. Vi var sammen. Vandt vi ikke kampen om frihed imod det imperium? Hvis det indiske folk kunne fjerne så stort et imperium uden at have regeringsmagten, uden våben og endda uden ressourcer, så er det, venner, nutidens nødvendighed at udrydde fattigdom. Kan vi ikke overvinde fattigdommen? Mine kære, 1,25 milliard landsmænd, lad os beslutte at udrydde fattigdommen, vinde kampen imod den. Lad os gå frem med drømmen om at udrydde fattigdom i Indien.«

Fra den Gamle Silkevej …

til den Nye Silkevej:

Et nyt paradigme for civilisationen

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med næstformand Michelle Rasmussen

Se den oprindelige video: Andreas Mogensen, dansk astronaut til ISS – se EIR’s interview fra 10. okt. 2014

2. del (3 min.)

Lydfilen:

Se EIR's video-interview med Andreas Mogensen fra 10. oktober 2014 efter Sputnik artiklen.
Fra vores indlæg 24. august:
Sputnik Danmark, 7. august 2015 – ”Danmarks første astronaut Andreas Mogensen fra den Europæiske Rumorganisation gik torsdag i gang med at aflægge prøver før flyvningen. Det sker i centret for kosmonautuddannelse i Stjernebyen uden for Moskva. Han er sat på det nye hold, der skal op til den internationale rumstation ISS. Det beretter RIA Novosti.”

Således lyder det i Sputnik Danmarks artikel. Videre lyder det:

”Andreas Mogensen har udtalt, at han er meget begejstret for den forestående mission og håber på at kunne lære noget af den besætning, der er på stationen nu.

’Det er en meget stor ære. Jeg er meget glad for at være den første danske astronaut. Selvom jeg har erfaring fra arbejde på andre områder, så er arbejdet i verdensrummet noget helt andet’, sagde han til journalisterne ved eksamenstræningen for den nye besætning, der skal op til den internationale rumstation. Opsendelsen er planlagt til 2. september og skal ske med transportfartøjet Sojuz TMA-18M.

Læs hele artiklen på Sputnik Danmark her. 

——————————

Se EIR's video-interview på dansk med Andreas Mogensen fra 10. oktober 2014.

med EIR's København korrespondent Michelle Rasmussen. Efter pressekonferencen arrangeret af IPC, International Press Center, København. Spørgsmålene inkluderede:

Hvorfor ville du være astronaut?

Hvorfor skal vi tage ude i rummet?

Hvad er forskel mellem at være bundet til Jorden, eller skifte udgangpunktet til solsystemmet eller den næste galaxe?

Har vi brug for politikere som har langsigtede visioner, istedet for frem til det næste valg?
See the whole press conference with Andreas Mogensen in English from Oct. 10, 2014. EIR asked three questions, which start at about 47 minutes.

At the International Press Center in Copenhagen. Andreas Mogensen describes his mission and training, and reveals his mission logo, and ESA's Nigel Savage describes the educational programs connected with Andreas' mission. The first three questions, at about 47 min., were from Executive Intelligence Review's Michelle Rasmussen.

Question resumé:
1. The US is cutting its space program, while the Chinese and Indians are going to the Moon and Mars. Indian PM Modi is engaging youth both to eliminate poverty, and create scientific and technological progress, seeing one as necessary for the other. Why should we, during an economic crisis, still reach for the stars?

2. How does your mission relate to asteroids?

3. Because of the sanctions policy against Russia, the US is stopping part of their space cooperation. Why is it important to continue international cooperation, and not stop it because of politics?
October 15, 2014 (EIRNS) — On Friday, Oct. 10, 2014, Andreas Mogensen, Denmark's first astronaut, chosen by the European Space Agency (ESA), held a press conference in Copenhagen, arranged by the International Press Center of the Foreign Ministry, where EIR was able to ask three of the six questions (in English) and have a private 10-minute interview (in Danish). The question session came after Mogensen described his 10-day scientific mission to the International Space Station (ISS), to occur in one year, and his training. He will be co-piloting a Russian Soyuz rocket to get there and back, and much of his training is taking place in Russia, and, also, the US. This spurred him to make a plea for the continuation of international space cooperation, in answer to an EIR question. Here are highlights (in paraphrase) of his exchange with EIR during the public press conference.
EIR counterposed the US space program being sacrificed, to China's Moon H3 fusion perspective, and India's Mars orbiter. Modi is mobilizing the youth to both eradicate poverty and persue scientific and technological progress. Why, during times of economic crisis, should we still reach for the stars?
Mogensen, while expressing optimism about future NASA plans for the Moon, asteroids and Mars, said that China has come on to the scene, and ESA is cooperating with them. We will be lucky if ESA astronauts can fly to the future Chinese station.
Space flight can inspire the younger generation. That's where our future lies, and we are aware of that, also in Europe…. Hopefully the work we do will help inspire the next generation.
Nigel Savage from ESA's youth education program said their education programs are an investment to fuel the future workforce, to inspire youth, and reverse trend away from natural science. He cited a UK minister calling for an Apollo effect, for science, engineering and math.
There was an EIR question about the part of the mission dealing with asteroids, which Mogensen answered by saying that that was a possible future landing destination. NASA is considering an asteroid redirect — to capture a small asteroid, and put it into orbit around moon, and then send astronauts there to investigate. This could reveal artifacts of the early solar system, and we could learn about the its past state — which elements were present. Some suggest that amino acids will be found there, which form the building blocks of life.
On Nov. 11, the Rosetta spacecraft will attempt to land on a comet for the first time, and take surface samples.
EIR then raised that because of the sanctions against Russia, NASA has cancelled some of the space cooperation. What is the importance of maintaining cooperation, and not allowing that to be eroded because of political considerations.
Mogensen said that the ISS is a good example. It could not exist without US and Russia. The only way to get there is via a Soyuz rocket, and some vital functions are provided by the US. We have to help ensure continuation, on a daily basis, of communication on all levels — ministerial, technicians and engineers — like how the scientific programs during the cold war helped to ensure mutual understanding, and international cooperation. That is the only way to break through stereotypes, see things on human, not rhetorical level, where political slogans come into play. The ISS is a perfect example of communication to ensure that peace continues.
The private interview, held in Danish, dealt with the more philosophical questions of why Mogensen wanted to be an astronaut, why we should go into space, LaRouche's concept of changing worldview to a solar system, or galactic perspective, and if we need politicians who have a long-term vision of the future, like JFK, not just to the next election. [mr_]

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

København, 28. august 2015 – Følgende udveksling fandt sted på en pressekonference med Danmarks udenrigsminister Kristian Jensen (Venstre), der blev afholdt i dag på det Internationale Pressecenter i København, som hører under det danske Udenrigsministerium.

EIR: »Med spændingerne baseret på det kollapsende transatlantiske system og den voksende dynamik i BRIKS med økonomisk udvikling som baggrund, står vi faktisk over for en voksende fare for krig. En organisation ved navn European Leadership Network, der består af tidligere udenrigsministre og forsvarsministre fra Europa og Rusland, har netop for tre dage siden udgivet deres tredje rapport. Den bærer titlen: ’At undgå krig i Europa: Hvordan man reducerer risikoen for et militært sammenstød mellem Rusland og NATO.’[1]

De siger i rapporten, at der i løbet af de seneste 18 måneder har været en forværring af relationerne mellem Rusland og Vesten – et fundamentalt tillidssammenbrud. Og de nævner Ukraine, missilforsvaret, udvidelsen af NATO, udstationering af konventionelle militærstyrker i Europa og taktiske atomvåben. At de økonomiske relationer er forværret, og at begge sider faktisk forbereder sig til krig. Militærøvelserne, siger de, forøger udsigten til en krig, og også, at der næsten ikke er nogen kommunikationskanaler tilbage.

De siger, at folk taler om en Kold Krig, men vores redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, har sagt, at det, vi i realiteten står overfor, er en ’varm’ krig, og sågar en atomkrig.

Så hvad vil du gøre for at standse denne fare for krig og beskytte den danske befolkning?«

Kristian Jensen: »For det første sagde du, at der var et svælg til BRIKS-landene, rent økonomisk. Jeg mener, at BRIKS-landene ikke er det, vi så dem for at være for blot et par år siden. Brasilien og Rusland har deres egne kriser, og Kina befinder sig i en vanskelig situation, for ikke at sige mere om det.

Men det er rigtigt, at, i Europa er de økonomiske strukturer mellem Rusland og Europa, EU-landene, blevet revet over. De politiske strukturer er blevet nedfrosset.

Og skulle man pege på det ene punkt, der giver håb, så er det Iran-aftalen, hvor Rusland var med ved bordet og handlede konstruktivt for at lave aftalen og levede op til internationale forventning om, at de ville satse på en aftale, og det gjorde de, og det gav mulighed for, at andre udenrigsministre, fra UK, Frankrig, Tyskland og USA, kunne komme mere i dialog med Rusland.

Og jeg mener, at vi behøver denne dialog. Vi behøver en dialog for at sikre, at de ved, hvor vi står, og hvor vi ikke står. Hvilket vil sige, at, i nogle af disse konflikter er sandheden ofte et af de første ofre, og propagandaen er ekstrem lige nu. Det, vi f.eks. ser komme fra Rusland mht. Ukraine eller Georgien, er ekstremt. Så bare for at sikre, at de folk, der har ansvaret i Rusland, ud fra et førstehåndskendskab ved, hvad vi mener, behøver vi en dialog.

Det betyder ikke, at jeg ønsker at ændre Danmarks syn på Rusland. Jeg står stadig meget fast på, at vi skal have EU-sanktioner imod Rusland, for hvis de ikke hjælper med til en fredsproces i Ukraine, Minsk-aftalen, så må vi have en fast holdning over for dem, men samtidig må vi også have en dialog. Derfor har jeg foreslået at ændre det danske syn på at mødes med russiske politikere, og jeg ser frem til at få chancen til dette i de kommende måneder.«

Under Kristian Jensens indledning havde han talt om sit initiativ for at genoplive Det dansk-russiske Ministerråd, der fremmer møder mellem danske og russiske ministre.

Pressekonferencen blev besøgt af journalister fra Rusland, Kina, Norge, Sverige, Tyskland, USA og den arabiske verden, blandt andre.

Pressekonferencen foregik på engelsk; ovenstående er en oversættelse til dansk.

[1] Se http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=7585

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:
2. del

Lydfil:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Det farligste, vi kan gøre, det er at være søvngængere; det er at være folk, der sidder foran Tv-skærmen … , og bare betragter udviklingen, ser, hvordan det bliver værre og værre, nøjagtigt, som det skete dengang … op til Første Verdenskrig. … eftersom alle forberedte krigen, så blev det til sidst et spørgsmål, ikke OM krigen kom, men HVORNÅR krigen kom! Hvis det sker, hvis man drager den konklusion i Moskva, i Beijing, i Washington og andre steder: KRIGEN KOMMER; det er ikke et spørgsmål om, men hvornår, jamen så drejer det sig om så hurtigt som muligt at få trykket på knappen og få sine atommissiler fyret af.

Den 8. august 2015 holdtes en demonstration på Christiansborg Slotsplads imod lukningen af Irak- og Afghanistan-kommissionen. Begivenhed var arrangeret af: De Visionære – Debatgruppen For Alle. Der var en række talere, bl. a. Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet, musikere, og ca. 1-2.000 demonstranter.

Du kan høre Tom Gillesbergs tale nedenfor eller klik her.

Tom Gillesberg: Jeg synes, at dette er et fantastisk initiativ, fordi netop nu, så opfører de fleste sig som søvngængere. De går rundt og gør mere eller mindre det samme, som de plejer, uden at se, at verden netop nu er på vej i krig, er i krig, men også er på vej ind i en atomkrig, hvis ikke vi gør noget. Der er mange løgne, der er blevet afsløret her i dag. Man snakker om løgnen, som man i 2001 brugte, fra Anders Fogh Rasmussens side, fra Tony Blairs side, Bush og andre, til at føre Danmark, Storbritannien, USA ind i en illegitim krig; men problemet er, at fordi de løgne aldrig blev stoppet – altså igen: efter Anden Verdenskrig, så havde man en Nürnberg Tribunal. Så sagde man, at de, der er ansvarlige for krigen, skal stilles til ansvar, så vi undgår, at det her sker igen. Fordi det ikke er sket over for Anders Fogh Rasmussen, Tony Blair, Bush og mange andre, så er den krigspolitik, som Danmark blev en integreret del af i 2001, fortsat. Den er fortsat, ikke bare igennem, at vi sendte F 16-fly til Libyen for at føre krig dér, officielt for at sprede demokrati, folk skal ha’ det godt; det ved alle, ikke skete. Men det er samtidig også en del af en krigs- og konfrontationspolitik, som ikke slutter i Irak eller i Libyen og for den sags skyld i Syrien, men som sit direkte mål har at få en direkte konfrontation med Rusland, med Kina; og det indebærer altså også storkrig, og det indebærer også atomkrig, hvis den politik får lov til at fortsætte.

Det er derfor, det her er vigtigt. Det her drejer sig ikke om fortiden; det drejer sig om fremtiden, og det drejer sig også om den helt umiddelbare fremtid. Netop nu er USA i gang med at producere 500 nye, taktiske atomvåben, de såkaldte B-61-12, som er specielle, fordi det er målsøgende atombomber. Det er atombomber, som man kan sætte på F35 Joint Strikefighter fly, nogen af dem, som Danmark skal have, og så kan man bruge dem til, med en stealth-teknik, at gå ind under radarerne og sende dem mod mål, bl.a. i Rusland.

Man arbejder altså allerede nu i USA’s politik, og i den politik, Danmark er en del af, med muligheden for at føre atomkrig og kunne vinde en atomkrig. Og hvis vi ikke får stoppet den politik, så får vi atomkrig, og så får vi en atomkrig, der kommer til at lægge menneskeheden i ruiner, og kommer til at lægge Jorden øde.

Det er derfor, det her er så vigtigt, for hvis man havde taget et opgør med løgnene tidligere, hvis Anders Fogh Rasmussen og alle de andre, som løj for at få krig, hvis man havde stillet dem til ansvar, så havde vi stoppet den her proces. Og hvis vi vil undgå atomkrig, så skal vi nu til at sige sandheden, så skal vi nu sørge for, at sandheden kommer frem, og så skal vi sørge for, at denne proces bliver stoppet.

De gode nyheder er, at mens Anders Fogh Rasmussen, efter dansk politik, har dedikeret sit liv til at skabe mere krig, så er der altså andre kræfter i verden, som vil noget helt andet. Vi har en geometri i verden, hvor BRIKS-landene – Brasilien, Rusland, Indien, Kina og Sydafrika – har indledt et meget tæt samarbejde, har etableret en Ny Udviklingsbank, har etableret en monetær fond, er i gang med at etablere banker med det specifikke formål at skabe økonomisk udvikling; at skabe fred gennem udvikling. Hvor disse lande, hvor Kina og Rusland, rækker hånden frem og siger: ’Lad os samarbejde om det her. Den tid, hvor man kunne løse konflikter gennem krig, må være slut. Forsøger man at løse konflikter gennem krig, så ender det med atomkrig og menneskehedens udslettelse.’

Netop nu er vi i den lykkelige situation, at størstedelen af Jordens befolkning har forstået det. Vi har kun et problem, og det er, at den meget potente militærmagt og økonomiske magt, som findes i USA og i Europa, ikke har forstået det endnu! Det er vores opgave at sørge for, at det sker. Nu er der ikke så mange tilbage på pladsen her, heldigvis har der været flere tidligere; men hvis hver af dem, der har været her i dag, faktisk tager det på sig og siger, ’Jeg vil sørge for, at vi ikke ser menneskehedens udryddelse i en atomkrig, fordi nogle folk bare ikke kunne lade være; jeg vil sørge for, at sandheden nu kommer for en dag; jeg vil stille mig op og være et modigt eksempel, ligegyldigt, hvor meget de så bagtaler mig og siger negative ting; jeg vil gå ud og kæmpe, og jeg vil få andre med mig’ –  jamen så kan vi, med dem, der er tilbage her, for slet ikke at tale om alle dem, der var tidligere, sagtens vende det her. [klapsalver]

Det farligste, vi kan gøre, det er at være søvngængere; det er at være folk, der sidder foran Tv-skærmen eller noget andet, og bare betragter udviklingen, ser, hvordan det bliver værre og værre, nøjagtigt, som det skete dengang – ikke med Tv, men alligevel – op til Første Verdenskrig. Alle landene forberedte sig på krig, alle sagde, at de ikke ville have krig, men eftersom alle forberedte krigen, så blev det til sidst et spørgsmål, ikke OM krigen kom, men HVORNÅR krigen kom! Hvis det sker, hvis man drager den konklusion i Moskva, i Beijing, i Washington og andre steder: KRIGEN KOMMER; det er ikke et spørgsmål om, men hvornår, jamen så drejer det sig om så hurtigt som muligt at få trykket på knappen og få sine atommissiler fyret af.

Så det her er farligt. Verden er på ’Launch on warning’, og derfor vil jeg bare sige: Lad være med at – igen, der er nok folk, der har sovet Tornerosesøvn længe nok i det her; lad os snakke om tingene.

Tilbage i 1980’erne kunne man se hundrede tusinder af mennesker, der var på gaden og sige, ’Nu må vi gøre noget, for vi vil ikke have atomkrig’ – hvor er de i dag, hvor faren er meget større? Det skal vi gøre noget ved; vi skal sørge for, at det sker. Så jeg håber, at alle vil tage den mission på sig, og hvis der er nogen, der ikke kender alle detaljerne, der har brug for noget mere information om noget af det, jamen så stil spørgsmål og få svar. Få den information, I behøver, således, at I kan gå ud og slås og sørge for, at vi vinder det her slag, for som sagt, i dag, det er kun begyndelsen.

Lad os kæmpe, lad os vinde; men lad os gøre det hurtigt, så vi også har en menneskehed at vinde sammen med. Tak. [klapsalver]

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Klik her.