Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Lyd:

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

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

Audio:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EIR: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador.

End

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

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

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

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

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

Link til København Universitets side om mødet.

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

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

Dias til mødet:

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

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

Download (PDF, Unknown)

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

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

Engelsk Udskrift.

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

International LaRouche PAC Webcast
Friday, February 19, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Med Schiller Instituttets formand Tom Gillesberg.

Send gerne en e-mail til:

info@schillerpartiet.dk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EIR’s korrespondent sagde,

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

Udenrigsminister Kristian Jensen:

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

EIR’s korrespondent:

»Vi har kombinationen af … «

Kristian Jensen:

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

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

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Lyd:

Video i 2 dele:
1. del:

2. del:

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

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video i 2 dele. Her er playlisten:

Lyd:

Det var en anden af Schillers ideer, hvor han sagde, »Hvert menneske har et ideelt menneske i sig, og det er hans eller hendes store opgave i livet at opfylde dette store potentiale og gøre dette ideelle menneske, der potentielt set findes i enhver, identisk med det faktiske menneske.« Jeg finder også, at dette er et meget smukt svar på ideen om, hvorfor er vi her? Hvorfor er vi på planeten Jord? Hvad er formålet med vores eksistens?

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Videoen er i 3 dele, som er samlet i en playliste.

Lyd:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg:

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

København, 16. september 2015 – Andreas Mogensen, den første dansker til at foretage en rejse i Rummet, ankom til Danmark i dag efter sin netop overståede 10-dages IRISS-mission til ISS (Den Internationale Rumstation, med start 2. sept.). EIR fik mulighed for at stille det første spørgsmål på en pressekonference, som Andreas Mogensen holdt i Industriens Hus. Pressekonferencen blev sendt live over den nationale kanal TV2, og en del af hans svar til EIR var leder på den artikel, der kom på TV2’s hjemmeside, med overskriften: »Andreas Mogensen: Der er ingen grænser set fra rummet«. EIR’s spørgsmål kommer efter ca. 13 minutter.

EIR: Identifikation. ”Da du holdt din pressekonference i oktober 2014, spurgte jeg dig om, at forberedelsen til din rumrejse fandt sted under en voksende spænding mellem Rusland, på den ene side, og USA og Europa på den anden side, hvor du fastslog, at det var meget vigtigt at beholde videnskabeligt og rumfartsmæssigt samarbejde. Så nu, efter at du har været i rummet på en Soyuz-raket sammen med en russisk kosmonaut fra Baikonor, hvad siger du om, hvorfor det er vigtigt at beholde samarbejdet mellem det russiske rumagentur, og ESA og NASA?”

Andreas Mogensen: ”Det er kun gennem samarbejde og kommunikation, at vi kan løse nogle af de problemer, som eksisterer. Det, jeg kan sige er, at, ombord på rumstationen er der ingen problemer mellem nationaliteterne.

Vi er mennesker, der drager i Rummet sammen for at løse fælles problemer. Måske er det første indtryk man får, når man kigger på Jorden, at det er én Jord. Man kan ikke se landegrænser fra Rummet, og man får meget hurtigt en fornemmelse af, at det er noget menneskeskabt, landegrænser. Vi er allesammen mennesker med de samme drømme, med de samme ønsker, med de samme behov, og vi lever på den samme planet, så derfor er det samarbejde, der ligger bag rumstationen, så vigtigt.

Og jeg tror, at det i fremtiden bliver endnu vigtigere, fordi det er et eksempel på, hvordan vi i fællesskab kan løse problemer. I fremtiden vil flere og flere af vores problemer være på en skala, som gør det nødvendigt, at vi arbejder på tværs af landegrænser, og på tværs af kulturer. Det er rigtig, rigtig vigtigt, og et godt eksempel på, hvad vi kan opnå, når vi arbejder sammen og samarbejder.”

Mens han var i Rummet, udførte Andreas Mogensen mange eksperimenter, af hvilke den mest spændende var, som en del af »Thor-eksperimentet«, at se, hvad det er, der sker under tordenvejr oven over skyerne, og han filmede, for første gang, »blå kæmpelyn«, der lynede op i gentagne lysudbrud, fra kuplen på toppen af den russiske sektion af ISS. Han fortalte, hvor spændende det var, da han fandt ud af, at dette var første gang, fænomenet var blevet opdaget og filmet.

I morgen vil Andreas Mogensen holde et foredrag på Københavns Universitet og møde børn på Planetariet.

Se også video og interview fra oktober 2014: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=7717

Download (PDF, Unknown)

med Christian Bechmann Olesen.

Se også: Stem NEJ den 3. december: Tale af Tom Gillesberg m. fl.

Med formand Tom Gillesberg

Video:

Lyd:

Tale af Tom Gillesberg, formand for Schiller Instituttet. 

Tale af Christian Bechmann Olesen, fhv. folketingskandidat uden for partierne, som stillede op sammen med Schiller Instituttets Venner.

Info-Video med Christian Bechmann Olesen

Vi mødes naturligvis i aften under meget alvorlige og forfærdelige omstændigheder, mens rapporter løber ind om, at over 100 mennesker er blevet dræbt i noget, der synes at være terrorangreb i hele Paris. Hele den franske nation er nu i undtagelsestilstand. Jeff Steinberg vil kommentere hele denne situation senere i aftenens udsendelse.

Engelsk udskrift.

MATTHEW OGDEN:  Good evening. It’s November 13, 2015. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you’re watching our weekly Friday
evening webcast here from larouchepac.com. I’m joined in the
studio tonight by Jeffrey Steinberg from {Executive Intelligence
Review.}
Now, obviously, we are meeting here tonight under very
solemn and horrifying conditions, as we are hearing reports that
over 100 people have died in what seem to be terrorist attacks
across Paris. The entire nation of France is currently under a
state of emergency, and obviously details of these attacks are
still coming in, as this is an ongoing situation. I know Jeff
will have something to say later on this subject, later on this
evening, during this broadcast, as pertains to these horrific
events.
But this evening we’re going to be beginning our broadcast
with an on-the-ground video report from New York City, where the
LaRouche Political Action Committee held a rally earlier today in
front of the headquarters of the {New York Times}. I’m sure many
of our viewers have had a chance to see on the front page of the
LaRouche PAC website a press release which was published on this
website yesterday, which is titled, “Why won’t the {New York
Times} publish Obama’s Drone Papers?”, which makes the point
that, despite the fact that the Times played a central role back
in 1971 in publishing the so-called “Pentagon Papers”, which were
revealed by Daniel Ellsberg, and were released to the American
people by the courageous actions which Senator Mike Gravel took
by reading them into the {Congressional Record} — despite the
fact that the Times was instrumental in this action, which was
instrumental in laying the foundation for the downfall of Richard
Nixon, and the ultimate end of the Vietnam War — today the {New
York Times} has made the willful choice {not} to publish any
serious coverage of the so-called “Drone Papers”, which were
likewise leaked by a courageous whistleblower from within the
drone program itself, a so-called second Edward Snowden, and
published by Glenn Greenwald’s internet-based publication, {The
Intercept.}
Despite thoroughly damning new details that have emerged and
are contained within these documents, the Drone Papers, which
pull back the curtain on the murderous and completely out of
control targetted assassination program that’s being run,
top-down by President Barack Obama, in his weekly kill sessions,
without any due oversight, and from behind closed doors, despite
this, the editors of the {New York Times} have publicly stated
that in their opinion, these new revelations do not “warrant
their own story.”
The truth is — and you can be assured that the {New York
Times} editorial staff well knows this — any widespread and
serious coverage of the “Drone Papers” today. by a major national
newspaper of record, such as the New York Times, in the fashion
of the Times’ own coverage of the Pentagon Papers in 1971, would
have an utterly devastating effect on revealing to the American
people the true reality of how this secret drone program is
actually run, and the character of the President who runs it. And
just as the Pentagon Papers did back then, major publication of
the “Drone Papers” today would likewise lay the foundation for
the indictment and political downfall of this President — as his
murderous proclivities are put on full display for the entire
country to see.
The question is: Knowing all of this, as the press release
puts it, “Is the {New York Times} more afraid of Barack Obama
than it was of Richard Nixon? And will that fear of taking on the
true characteristic of what this President stands for, cause the
{New York Times} to fail to address that awful reality at the
very time that Obama is leading the United States into
unprecedented war-provocations against both Russia and China, and
by failing to do so, thus finding themselves  — the {New York
Times} —  complicit in actions which threaten the outbreak of a
Third World War, and endanger the continued existence of all
mankind.
With that said as an opening statement, we bring the
on-the-ground report from New York City, delivered by LaRouche
PAC’s Daniel Burke:
“Hi, I’m Daniel Burke, and this is a LaRouche
Political Action Committee rally that you’re witness to at the
moment, in front of the {New York Times} headquarters on 41st
Street and 8th Avenue. And we stand here today in the midst of
certainly the gravest crisis that our species has ever faced,
which is well expressed in this banner that we have before us
“Obama Leads America to Hell.” But our mission is to unify the
United States, to have the courage to stand up against the
insanity that is dominating  our government today.
“At the moment, we are on the brink of a thermonuclear war,
because of the fact that this man has been tolerated, and his
provocations against Russia, and against China, are unprecedented
in the history of humanity, in terms of the danger that they
pose. But as we’ve laid out in webcasts over the recent weeks,
there is a clear train of abuses; the evidence is before you, and
now it’s a matter of having the courage to stand up against it.
So that’s what we’re doing today, because the fact of the matter
is that the {New York Times} has been covering up for Obama’s
Satanic drone murders. It’s been released through {The
Intercept}, from a new whistleblower, as we’ve documented in our
webcasts so far: that Obama is at the top of a chain that is
mass-murdering civilians. And the {New York Times} buried the
release of these documents at the bottom of a column a couple of
weeks ago, and then they justified this, by claiming that it did
not warrant its own story.
“So, we stand here to specifically indicate the editors, the
writers, who were involved in this cover-up; demand that this be
brought to justice; and in the meanwhile to consider that what we
need today is for one Senator to stand up, and to move against
Obama. This is what happened with Richard Nixon, and it was in
that case that the {New York Times} had the courage in 1971 to
publish the ‘Pentagon Papers’. Why will they remain silent on
these Satanic murders from Barack Obama?”
OGDEN: Now, Mr. LaRouche wanted to feature this video report
from New York City for the reason that he has placed Manhattan at
the center of his strategy to restore the United States to its
original founding principle as embodied in Alexander Hamilton,
the very opposite of everything that Obama has come to represent
today. Further coverage of this rally will be available on the
LaRouche PAC website, including a longer version of this
on-the-ground report, as well as the text of the press release,
which I mentioned at the outset of tonight’s proceedings.
But, when you place Obama’s drone program in the context of
his open and blatant war provocations against both Russia and now
increasingly against China, in the recent days and weeks, which
will lead to a global thermonuclear war if not stopped.  In that
context, I would like to ask Jeff to elaborate a little bit on
what Mr. LaRouche’s assessment was of the importance of using
this campaign, as you just saw, centered in Manhattan around the
revelations that are now contained and released in the “Drone
Papers” in order to drive Obama from office before he has the
chance to lead the world into World War III.

STEINBERG:  I learned earlier today that there is a joke
circulating very widely in Israel, and I’m sure in other places
around the world.  And the joke goes something like this:  What’s
the difference between God and Barack Obama?  The answer?  God
doesn’t think he’s Barack Obama.
What we’re dealing with here is truly a Satanic personality,
and yet, he’s been permitted to carry out atrocity after
atrocity; all on behalf of the British, whose policy, at the
level of the British Empire, at the level of the British
monarchy, has been always one of massive population reduction
through policies of genocide.  I think that’s the way you’ve got
to understand the events that are unfolding right now in Paris.
In a very real sense, the slaughter that’s taken place over the
last few hours — and of course French authorities are not sure
that it’s over; there were seven attacks against seven different
random targetted popular nightspots all around the city of Paris,
highly coordinated.  Kind of what we saw in 2008 in Mumbai, but
on a much more elaborate scale.  And you’ve got to ask yourself,
where does this kind of Satanic behavior come from?  What are the
roots of this Islamic State jihadist apparatus?
Well, remember that the former head of the Defense
Intelligence Agency, General Michael Flynn, warned earlier this
year in a now widely circulated interview with Al-Jazeera
America, that he had gone to President Obama in the summer of
2012 and warned that the policies that the US was pursuing —
particularly the policies of facilitating the running of heavy
weapons from the Libyan port city of Benghazi into various Syrian
rebel groups — was going to result in the creation of a jihadist
caliphate on the eastern shores of the Mediterranean, and in that
general Middle Eastern region.  Now, this was two years prior to
the formal surfacing of the Islamic State, which really launched
its operations in Iraq with the dramatic takeover of Mosul; and
that was in June of 2014.  So you’ve got high-level US Defense
Intelligence officials telling the President of the United
States, “Drop your fixation with the overthrow of the Assad
government in Syria.  Halt the flow of weapons that were
unleashed on the world as the result of the overthrow of Qaddafi
and his instant execution back in the fall of 2011; which
unleashed floods of weapons throughout Africa.  And through this
Benghazi operation of British Intelligence and John Brennan as
the Counterintelligence Director of the Obama administration, the
weapons began to flow into Syria; and these weapons went into the
hands of the very jihadist networks that we’ve now seen operating
on the streets of Paris.
So, is there a causal relationship between the British
Satanic policies of mass population reduction, often stated by
Prince Philip — the royal consort who insists that the world’s
population must be reduced by 80%.  The fact that General Flynn
openly said that President Obama did not ignore the warnings, but
pursued a willful policy of continuing with the arming of the
Syrian rebels after he was repeatedly told what the consequences
of that would be.  And now we’ve seen those consequences, with
the establishment of the Islamic State; we’ve seen those events
now spilling over into the streets of Paris.  The situation in
France is still unfolding; there’s no definitive answers in terms
of who particularly carried out these heinous attacks.  But we
know that the circumstances under which those kinds of events
could happen, were the product of a persistent line of policy
that has come out of the Presidency of the United States for at
least the last 15 years; the 8 years of Bush and Cheney, and now
the 7-plus years of Barack Obama. So you’re dealing with somebody
who is by his character, pursuing outright policies that are
evil, that are Satanic, and that at their core are British; that
directly go to the demands of the Prince Philips of the world,
who call for mass population reduction.
Now we know that in two weeks, the COP21 climate change
conference is scheduled to happen in Paris; we may very well find
that there was a relationship between these attacks that we’re
now just seeing unfolding on the streets of Paris right now, and
that upcoming conference.  Earlier this week, Secretary of State
John Kerry bluntly stated what has now become obvious; namely
that that COP21 conference — despite the efforts of the papal
encyclical and John Schellnhüber and other outright proponents of
genocide — that conference is likely to fail.  There’s too much
resistance from developing sector countries that realize that
what they’re looking at is a recipe for genocide.  So, what we
have before us then, are other means by which the world is
careening towards the kind of events that can lead to the mass
population reduction policies that are being demanded principally
out of the British monarchy; and are being carried out
principally through agents of that monarchy such as Barack Obama.
So, what have we seen just in the recent days?  The
administration has continued with the drone kill policy; and as
we saw in the rally out in front of the {New York Times}, it’s
quite clear that the White House has put enormous pressure on the
major US media outlets to suppress the story.  Because if the
story were to get national media attention through the {New York
Times}, through the {Washington Post}, through CNN or one of the
major cable news outlets, there would be a groundswell of demand
for President Obama’s removal from office.  These policies are
policies of outright genocide.  And we’ve been continuing our own
investigation into the drone kill policy of Obama; looking beyond
the “Drone Papers” that were released by {The Intercept} about
three or four weeks ago.  And when you dig deeper into this
policy, what you find is that there have been repeated and
consistent studies carried out by the military, carried out by
major thinktanks whose job it is to do analysis of the actions of
the military.  You have the Stimson Center producing a series of
two reports in 2012 and in 2014; the Naval Post-Graduate School
out in Monterrey, California, produced a major study; the Rand
Corporation produced a major study.  In every instance, they can
to the identical conclusion: the drone policy is a failed policy;
it can never work; it will never work. The idea of targetting
priority terrorist agents for elimination, does nothing to reduce
the spread of these kinds of jihadists. If anything, it becomes a
major means of further recruitment, of expansion of operations.
These are not things that are unknown at the levels of the
National Security Council, the Obama White House, and similar
locations. It is {willfully known} that these polices do not curb
terrorism, do not defeat insurgent movements. They feed them,
they fuel them, they expand them.
And so, you really do have a principle here, in which the
objective is not to defeat terrorism, but the objective is to
spread the kind of murderous chaos that weve seen engulf Syria
for the last four and a half years; that weve seen in Iraq and
Afghanistan, going back to the beginning of the Bush/Cheney
administration in 2001, with the aftermath of the 9/11 events
that have been systematically covered up, first by President
Bush, now by President Obama.
The real issue, here, is not exposing the role of the Saudis
in this kind of sponsorship of terrorism, including the 9/11
attacks. The real issue here, is that there is a {conscious
policy} of creating conditions of global instability and chaos,
that ensure that the targetted population- reduction goals are
being met, and war is still one of the major means for that to be
carried out. So, we have a period that weve been living through,
that constitutes more than a Thirty Years War, a period of
perpetual war, and these last two Presidencies have been major
instrumentalities to make sure that that policy happens.
Now, in the past days, in addition to the continuing
cover-up of the Obama drone kill programs which go directly and
personally to Obamas desk in the Oval Office, every single one of
these kill orders has Barack Obamas personal signature on it.
Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, when he was asked to
comment about the drone program, simply said, Its the only game
in town. So, this has been the {signature policy} — an
indiscriminate mass murder policy, of this President and of this
administration. The idea of toleration for that, for one moment
more, is something that now clearly threatens us all. If these
kinds of actions can happen in the streets of Paris, France, then
they can happen anywhere, including here in the United States.
Now, not only is Obama continuing to pursue and defend this
policy of drone kill, but, in the past week, weve seen an
escalation on the strategic scale, as well. Defense Secretary Ash
Carter spent last week in Asia, attending the ASEAN Defense
Ministers Meeting. He tried to turn that event, unsuccessfully,
fortunately, into a gang-up against China. The host government,
Malaysia, refused to include a reference to the South China Sea
situation in the draft communiqué for that conference. Carter
showed up — and by the way, the United States is not a member of
ASEAN. Carter was there as an invited guest of the ASEAN
countries, the ten nations of Southeast Asia. But, he basically
intervened to try to hijack the entire direction of that
conference. Fortunately, many of those countries of the region
simply refused to do it. As the result, the conference ended in a
shambles; there was no final communiqué.
From Kuala Lumpur, Carter returned to the United States via
Simi Valley, California, where he gave a major speech at the
Reagan Library, and assailed both Russia and China, and accused
them of sabre-rattling around the threat of nuclear war. What he
was referring to, in the specific case of Russia, is that Russia,
in response to the United States deployment of ABM systems right
along the southern borders of Russia, the expansion of NATO
throughout eastern Europe, in violation of the agreements that
were reached at the time of German reunification. In response to
all of those provocations, the Russians have moved to establish
new levels of defense against what President Putin this week
described as a clear attempt by the U.S. and its allies, to break
up the strategic balance that had existed throughout the period
of the Cold War and the post-Cold War period, up until this time,
and that the United States, by refusing to collaborate with
Russia on some kind of global missile defense program, as
President Reagan had proposed back in 1983, when he was in close
collaboration with Lyndon LaRouche on that project. The United
States policy, is to create a thermonuclear war-winning option.
That poses not just an existential threat to Russia, but a grave
threat to all of mankind.
Now, middle of this past week, President Putin convened the
annual meeting with top Russian defense officials and leaders of
the defense-industrial sector of Russia, at Sochi, on the Black
Sea. In opening remarks to that event, which were widely
televised throughout Russia, Putin made very clear: the United
States has been targeting Russia with the ABM deployment. The
fact is clearly demonstrated, because even after the P5+1 deal
was reached with Iran, the United States announced it was
continuing to move full steam ahead with the ABM deployment, not
in partnership with Russia, but unilaterally, with U.S. allies.
Since the original argument had been made that this ABM system
was strictly directed against Iran, now that Iran has come into
compliance with the nuclear deal, with the P5+1, it just shows
the lie to everything that Obama has been saying on this. Putin
made very clear, that Russia is moving forward to develop new
weapon systems that can defeat any kind of ABM program that the
U.S. puts in place, which {will} be directed against Russia.
At the same time, as reported this week in the {Guardian} —
weve mentioned it here on these Friday night webcasts for some
time — the United States is going ahead with the deployment of
what is, in effect, a new generation of tactical nuclear weapons
that will be forward-based in central and eastern and western
Europe, which will be a new generation. Theyre called the B61-12,
with highly accurate tail-guidance systems, that will penetrate
deeper into Russian territory, with much more precision accuracy,
and therefore these nuclear weapons will have greatly-reduced
thermonuclear payloads, which means that the gap between
strategic nuclear war and tactical-theater conventional nuclear
war, is greatly reduced. In other words, were moving towards a
policy of having a deployable force of thermonuclear weapons,
directed at close range, against targets in Russia.
Now, we learned this past week, through excerpts from a
forthcoming authorized biography of George Herbert Walter Bush
[{Destiny and Power}, by Jon Meacham], that at the time of the
1991 Operation Desert Storm, and again during 2003, during the
period of the invasion and overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq,
[Vice President] Dick Cheney was persistently pushing for the use
of nuclear weapons. In the case of the first war in the Gulf,
Cheney was promoting the idea that the U.S. should use 17
tactical nuclear weapons against targets in Iraq. So now we’ve
got a continuation of that policy under President Obama.
So, here we are, more than 25 years after the end of the
Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the
Warsaw Pact — we’re facing the gravest threat of thermonuclear
war not because of any actions on the part of Russia, but because
of the character of the President of the United States, a Satanic
character who has no sense whatsoever of the consequences of
pursuing this kind of policy of genocide.
So, whether it’s preparing the groundwork for thermonuclear
confrontation with Russia, and similarly with China — we’ve had
B-52 bombers, which are bombers that are capable of carrying
thermonuclear warheads, flying over territory that China claims
in the South China Sea, as China’s sovereign territory, as part
of the Spratly Islands. That happened just in the last several
days, and it’s only now been first acknowledged by the Pentagon.
There was an earlier incident involving naval ships, incursions,
into those same waters.
So we’ve got the targetting of Russia, the beginnings of a
similar outright targetting of China. We have the drone policy,
and the cover-up of that policy. So here we are, literally
looking at somebody whose track record, documented proven track
record, is that of mass murder. And yet there is toleration for
his remaining in office.
Now in our discussion this afternoon with Mr. LaRouche, he
very much placed the emphasis on the situation in Manhattan.
You’ve got a unique characteristic of the population of
Manhattan, the population of New York City and the great
metropolitan area — but particularly the population of
Manhattan. They still have a greater sense of reality, at least
large segments of the population do. They have a greater sense of
the morality that goes with recognizing the great danger that
we’re facing in the world today. And so, if you look back
historically, Manhattan was the place where the core concepts
around which our Constitutional republic was organized were
formulated. They were formulated in Manhattan in particular by
our First Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. There is a
Hamiltonian tradition that prevails, and that tradition is the
organizing principle for our nation, for our republic.
So Manhattan holds a special place for the nation as a
whole. Mr. LaRouche pointed out that if you do a survey, region
by region around the United States, you will find that region by
region the economy has been destroyed. The social fabric has been
gutted. We have drug addiction, suicide, all kinds of social
dislocation because region by region, the economies of these
areas of the United States have been gutted, particularly during
the period first of the Bush-Cheney administration, and at a
greater and greater accelerating rate, under President Obama.
Never mind that since 9/11, $44 {billion} in your taxpayers’
money has gone into the establishment of this drone kill program
that is one of the critical factors that keeps expanding the size
and brutality of the terrorist apparatus that we’ve now seen
playing out on the streets of Paris just in the last few hours.
So we’re dealing with an assault against the American people, an
assault that has weakened the social fabrics of many parts of our
country. So again, Manhattan represents a certain kind of glue, a
potential critical point of inspiration for saving this nation,
and this event that you’ve just seen a brief excerpt of in front
of the {New York Times} headquarters today, is indicative of the
kind of thing that we will be doing at an accelerating and
continuing rate of expansion in Manhattan.
And we’ve got a situation in Washington, where there are a
precious handful of elected officials, people in other positions
within the Federal government, within the military, within the
diplomatic corps, within the intelligence services — a handful
of people — who remain truly committed to the survival of this
nation and the planet, and we call on you, the American people,
to put maximum pressure on them to step outside the bounds of
what’s required to “go along to get along” and for a handful of
these people to step forward and speak the absolute truth about
what has gone on in this country, particularly during the seven
years of this Obama presidency.
One or two leading members of the U.S. Senate, in
particular, taking their oath of office seriously, can bring this
President down and start the process of reversal of this
destructive, literally Satanic takedown of the United States and
everything it has historically stood for. We need that step, but
we need the voice of the American people, led by Manhattan, to
make sure that that actually happens, and that it happens in
time.
OGDEN: Thank you, Jeff. Jeff’s comments just now regarding
the events which occurred in Paris this evening prompted me to
recall the remarks that former Senator Bob Graham made at a press
conference on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6 of this year, which was
nearly hours after the Charlie Hebdo attacks, also in Paris. And
in that press conference, former Senator Bob Graham laid the
responsibility right at the doorstep of President Obama, and put
the fault right on Obama’s doorstep, because of his refusal to
end the cover-up of the 28 pages of the 9/11 Joint Inquiry
report. And as Jeff  just said, this indictment of Obama’s fault
on this matter, obviously still applies, and Bob Graham at that
press conference, called for a Lincolnesque standard of full
disclosure of the contents of the 28 pages in that count, but
also this obviously applies to the “Drone Papers”, and all the
other crimes that remain in the shadows.
Bob Graham was referring to Abraham Lincoln’s full
disclosure of the role of the British in supporting the
Confederacy during the Civil War. And what Senator Graham said at
that time, was that the national security threat lies {not} in
the disclosure of these documents, but in the non-disclosure, as
could be seen then in the case of the attacks on {Charlie Hebdo},
and I believe as can be seen again today in the continuing
attacks in Paris. Also, I would say the 28 pages warrant the
Pentagon Papers treatment by some courageous member of the United
States Senate, or U.S. House.
Now, with that said, we have a question which has come in
from our institutional source, and I’m going to read it. It’s
very brief, and I’m going to ask Jeff to respond: “Mr. LaRouche.
What are your thoughts on the immigration crises in Europe, and
what is our advice to European leaders?”
STEINBERG: Mr. LaRouche’s answer to this question was very
brief and very blunt. He said the first step toward solving this
problem is that Wolfgang Schaüble, the Finance Minister of
Germany, has got to be dumped. Schaüble, in Mr. LaRouche’s words,
belongs to be put in a pig pen, because his ideas and his
opinions stink. He’s terrible, he’s disgusting, and he
personifies those in Europe who are trying to stir up this
refugee crisis into a showdown, a kind of a confrontation that
could ultimately lead to the eruption of an outright civil war in
Europe.  In fact, I greatly feat that in the wake of these Paris
attacks, that you’re going to see an enormous backlash.  German
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is increasingly becoming a captive
of the revolt by people like Schaüble in her own party, actually
took the surprising, but courageous stance, of saying that these
refugees must be assisted; they must be protected, and they must
be given an opportunity to be integrated into European society.
And so, there’s a deep split over this issue.
The Russians, through President Putin, have intervened
forcefully into the Syria situation to bring the Syria war to an
end.  The Russian military intervention on behalf of the Assad
government, is beginning to show significant success.  Remember,
the Russian involvement only began directly on September 30; so
we’re talking about a period of six weeks.  And in that six week
period, there have been a number of significant setbacks
delivered to the Islamic State and some of the other jihadist
elements of the Syrian rebel opposition.  The area around the
city of Aleppo, which is the industrial capital of Syria, is now
in the process of being retaken by the government forces.  60% to
80% of the population of Syria has now moved, or has already been
located in areas under government protection.  So, the idea that
the Syrian people are fleeing to Europe through Turkey and other
routes to get away from Assad is not the reality of the
situation.  They’re fleeing to get away from the Islamic State,
the Nusra front, and the jihadists who’ve been the instruments
for the war to overthrow the Assad government.
Remember, in August of 2009, President Obama simply
declared, “Assad must go”; and with that declaration, the US
began facilitating the efforts of the Saudis, the Turks and
others to provide weapons to an army of jihadists who have come
in from around the world.  So, defeat the Islamic State; push
back against the tyranny of the Anglo-Saudi apparatus; dump the
likes of Wolfgang Schaüble and others of his ilk, who are trying
to stir up literally a Hitlerian backlash in Europe against these
refugees, who are caught in a trap between the brutality of ISIS
back in the Middle East and Iraq and Syria, and the emergence of
a nativist right wing, literally a Hitlerian backlash inside
western Europe.  If Europe is to survive, if Syria is to be
rebuilt, then you’ve got to take certain decisive actions; and
the United States should be collaborating with Russia in a
coordinated effort to defeat ISIS.  Because every effort that the
US and this so-called coalition of 60 nations has taken against
ISIS has been a completely transparent fraud.
So, who’s responsible for the flood of refugees streaming
into Europe?  Start with President Obama, British Prime Minister
Cameron, former French President Sarkozy, current French
President Hollande.  These are the criminals who, along with the
Saudis, the Turks, the Qataris and the others, have been
providing all of the logistical and other support to the spread
of jihadism.  Because ultimately what they’re out to accomplish
is a population war.  We’ve said this previously.  The British
policy towards the entire Islamic world, is to foment a new
religious Hundred Years War between Sunni and Shi’a on a global
scale; because ultimately their objective is population
reduction.  If they can launch such a Hundred Years War, then how
many of the 1.8 or so billion Muslims on this planet will survive
at the end of the day?  And again, we have a President of the
United States who, by personality and by ownership by the
British, is a fully witting instrument in this process.
So, on the one hand, as Mr. LaRouche said, Schaüble and
people of his ilk have got to be dumped.  They’re the menace;
they’re the danger.  Schaüble wants to go ahead with murderous
austerity against the population of Europe; and has even less
interest in doing anything for these refugees.  And Obama, in his
own right, has carried out the same kinds of policies.  The
destruction of the United States on his watch and on the watch of
the previous President, is a crime beyond imagination.  And so,
it’s time for the American people and even a handful of leading
elected officials in Washington to wake up to exactly where the
clock stands and to act before midnight.

OGDEN:  Well, with that said, I think is the point where we
are going to bring a conclusion to our broadcast tonight.  Again,
I would recommend people go on the website and watch the full
coverage of the rally in front of the {New York Times}
headquarters today in New York City; as well as reading the full
text of the press release that was circulated en masse there
today.  Thank you for joining us, and please stay tuned.  And
please, if you are in the New York City area, participate in the
weekly discussion which Mr. LaRouche holds every Saturday
afternoon with the citizens of Manhattan.  If you’re not, you
have the opportunity to do the same on Thursday nights with the
weekly Fireside Chats.  Thank you very much for joining us
tonight; and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.