Overvind staten i staten for at sikre det nye paradigme.
LaRouche PAC Internationale Webcast,
31. marts, 2017; Leder

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

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

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

Udskrift af webcast, engelsk:

DEFEAT THE DEEP STATE TO ENSURE THE NEW PARADIGM!

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

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

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

        ROSS:  You're speaking of the DNC?

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

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

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

        ROSS :  Yeah.  It puts the ranking and ranking.

        MCGOVERN:  Yeah, you got it!

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

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

        ROSS: Twice a day.

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

        ROSS [laughing]: Well put.

        MCGOVERN: I think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

        JONES:  Thank you for having me.

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

 

   




USA: Vil I have FBI til at køre dette land?

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

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

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

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

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

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




Trump-præsidentskabets kamp handler om
det Amerikanske vs. det Britiske System
– Afgørelsen vil komme snart

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Hvordan får vi ryddet op i rodet? Gå i offensiven mod FBI!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




De værste ‘falske nyheder’ er, at medierne
nægter at informere befolkningen om det
Nye Paradigme, der finder sted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Hundredeåret for den tysk-amerikanske rumfartspioner:
Virkeliggørelsen af Krafft Ehrickes vision
for menneskehedens fremtid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Der er to systemer i verden: Det
Amerikanske System vs. Det Britiske System.
Leder; LPAC Internationale Webcast,
24. marts, 2017

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

Matthew Ogden: God aften. Det er i dag den 24. marts, 2017. Jeg er Matthew Ogden, og dette er vores udsendelse fredag aften på larouchepac.com. Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review; og via video har vi Michael Steger, et ledende medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee, fra San Francisco, Californien.

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Så kan vi gå i gang.

(Her følger resten af webcastet i engelsk udskrift):   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


[1] Se EIR-Tema-artikel: »Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord« , af Jeffrey Steinberg og Anton Chaitkin.

 

 




Menneskets ånd er ukuelig

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

LaRouche respondere den næste dag ved at sige:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Præsident Trump vil genoplive det
’Amerikanske Økonomiske System’:
Ved I, hvad det vil sige?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Det Amerikanske Økonomiske Systems grundpiller var:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Det modsatte af falske nyheder? Sandheden: Vi kan vinde!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Den virkelige sandhed er, at menneskeheden kan vinde.  




Imperiet kollapser: Lad os kæmpe for menneskehedens modne alder

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Foto: Solen går ned over Buckingham Palace.




Schiller Instituttet planlægger at bringe
Amerika ind i ’Det Nye Silkevejsparadigme’
i dette forår

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Krigen mod Det britiske Imperium bliver hedere

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

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

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

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

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

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

Det bliver en interessant uge.

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




Brug skønhed, optimisme og store ideer til at inspirere folk!
Leder; LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
17. marts, 2017

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

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

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

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

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

(Matthew Ogden oplæser Apellen).

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

* En dansk version af denne pdf er under udarbejdelse.

Se: Introduktion. 

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

Engelsk udskrift af hele dette webcast:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 




100-års dagen for rumpioneren Krafft Ehrickes fødsel nærmer sig

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 16. marts, 2017 – Næste fredag, den 24. marts, fejrer vi 100-års dagen for den store, tysk-amerikanske, visionære videnskabsmand, Krafft Ehrickes fødsel. Gid han endnu var i live, i dette enestående, men midlertidige øjeblik i historien, hvor vi, efter spildte årtier, omsider kan gå fremefter med virkeliggørelsen af hans planer for menneskehedens forædling. Da han ikke er her mere, påhviler det os, der er tilbage, at studere og indoptage hans tankegang i en grad, hvor han bliver en del af os, så han lever gennem os, og vi vinder de sejre, som han så klart forudså.

Selv om det globale rumprogram skylder Krafft Ehricke alt, så var han meget mere end en rumforsker. Som alle store videnskabsfolk; som Lyndon og Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med hvem han havde et tæt samarbejde, så åbnede han et nyt vindue til den virkelige, menneskelige ånd. Han forstod og forklarede, at det er selve den fundamentale, unikke kerne i mennesket, der får det til at erobre enhver af naturens fremskudte grænser – og som nu bringer det frem til at udforske Solsystemet, og dernæst gå hinsides dette. I Ehrickes »Astronautikkens tre fundamentale love« skrev han, at det er menneskets »skæbne som et element i livet, der er begavet med fornuftens evne og den i det iboende, moralske lovs visdom«. Og således er det. Men i andre skrifter gik Krafft endnu videre og sagde, på sin egen måde, at menneskets enestående talent for skabende fornuft udgør et unikt udtryk for selve universets inderste natur. Keplers store gennembrud kom fra en tilsvarende indsigt. Han og Krafft begreb, sammen med også Dante, »den kærlighed, der får Solen og de andre stjerner til at bevæge sig«.

En udarbejdelse af denne indsigt udgøres af Lyndon LaRouches Fjerde Lov, der på en vis måde indkapsler de tre andre af hans »Fire Nye Love« fra juni, 2014.

Efter at Obama, dømt, ligesom en Macbeth, af sine enorme forbrydelser, er faldet og stødt ud i vanære, har Det britiske Imperium mistet sin håndhæver, i det mindste for indeværende – præcis, som Lyndon LaRouche havde forudset. Efter den blodige tyrans omstyrtelse, er den nye præsident velmenende. Men intet kan erstatte Lyndon LaRouches intellektuelle lederskab; dette er lige så sandt i dag, som det har været siden 1970’erne.

Men det kræver, at I åbner øjnene: sejren er nu inden for rækkevidde. De Fire Love kan blive vedtaget. USA kan gå med i Den Nye Silkevej. USA kan gå sammen med Kina, Rusland, Indien og andre nationer om at erobre rummet, fra hvilket udsigtspunkt Krafft Ehricke vil smile ned os.

Foto: Den tysk-amerikanske rumforskningspioner Krafft Ehricke (venstre) drøfter en satellitmodel til menneskelig beboelse, den 22. juni, 1958, før den første, bemandede rumflyvning fandt sted.

(Dette skete, da den sovjetiske kosmonaut (daværende russiske betegnelse), Jurij Gagarin, i 1961blev det første menneske i rummet og den første til at gå i kredsløb om Jorden.)




Hvad kan du gøre for menneskeheden?

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 17. marts, 2017 – Det værste, der kan ske for et bankerot og dekadent imperium, hvis fortsatte magt afhænger af formbarheden hos befolkningen, som er beregnet at skulle være dets offer, er, at folk begynder at afsløre deres bluff. Dette er, til stor fortrydelse i City of London og på Wall Street, en afgørende proces, der er i gang over hele planeten.

Den kinesiske regering er, f.eks., i færd med at feje dem til side, der opfordrer til konfrontation mellem USA og Kina, og erklærer i stedet, at der er »lyse udsigter for et samarbejde mellem Kina og USA« samtidig med, at de minder verden om, at »Kina fortsat vil være en vigtig motor for verdens vækst«, som premierminister Li Keqiang udtalte den 15. marts. Et møde mellem præsidenterne Xi Jinping og Donald Trump forventes nu afholdt i begyndelsen af april.

Rusland går heller ikke med på Londons »skal vi to, du og ham, slås«-spil. Russiske topanalytikere afviser den seneste videoprovokation fra CNN imod Vladimir Putin ved at bemærke, at »Vesten forsøger nu at bruge den sidste chance, der stadig eksisterer, før Putin møder Trump, for at dæmonisere den russiske præsidents person«.

Og internt i USA finder der en voksende gæringsproces sted i befolkningen og blandt politiske personer, i den gruppe, der har fået nok af Wall Street og deres marionetter i Washington, og som i stedet ligger på linje med Lyndon LaRouches politiske krav om en tilbagevenden til FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov og udviklingen af avancerede, videnskabelige missioner for menneskeheden, såsom fusionskraft og udforskning af rummet – sammen med de andre elementer i LaRouches Fire Love.

I dag responderede Lyndon LaRouche til Wall Streets insisteren på at sabotere Glass-Steagall, og på at lukke de få kernekraftværker, der stadig måtte være i drift i USA. »Dette er en total, idiotisk fejltagelse«, udtalte han. »Vi må absolut bekæmpe det her, og vinde; man kan ikke opretholde realøkonomien uden denne beskyttelse«, den beskyttelse, der tilvejebringes af kernekraft og andre, avancerede, videnskabelige kapaciteter.

LaRouche fremsatte krav til sine medarbejdere om at lancere et nationalt mobiliseringsfremstød for at fremme en respons til disse spørgsmål i befolkningen: Det er et spørgsmål om en handling, der må udføres. Han udtalte, at den store, tysk-amerikanske rumfartspioner Krafft Ehrickes liv og arbejde – Ehricke, der byggede Saturnraketten, der bragte USA til Månen – bør bruges i denne henseende, fordi det er et aktuelt spørgsmål, der peger på den form for forbedringer, som behøves. Ehricke var en dyrebar person, et menneske, der gik hele vejen for at præstere resultater. Ved at støtte mindet om, hvad han har gjort for nationen, og for verden, kan vi stille følgende spørgsmål til vore amerikanske medborgere:

Hvad kan du gøre for menneskeheden? Ikke kun for de umiddelbare, politiske hensigter, men, hvad kan du gøre for deres intellekt?

Foto: Saturn V-raketten blev brugt til at sende astronauter til Månen. (NASA)   




Kinesisk initiativ ønsker at hjælpe
Trumps 2026-vision for USA;
Britisk efterretningstjeneste ønsker
at afsætte eller dræbe ham

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 14. marts, 2017 – Hvis det voksende antal meldinger om, at Donald Trump og Xi Jinping vil mødes i Florida i næste måned, er korrekte, så ligger vejen åben for, at præsident Trump kan samarbejde med Kinas globale drivkraft for vækst og fremskridt – den såkaldte Nye Silkevej eller Bælt & Vej-initiativet – og som Barack Obama nægtede at gøre.

De mål ude i horisonten, som Trump har fastsat for Amerikas »250-års jubilæum« i 2026 – fred med nationer, inklusive vore nuværende »modstandere«; en fornyet, moderne, økonomisk infrastruktur, »vore fodspor i fjerne verdener« – ville i så fald have langt bedre udsigter til at blive nået. Disse mål er ikke på dagsordenen hos nogen af USA’s to krigsførende, politiske partier.

Det britiske efterretnings- og sikkerhedsapparat har forvandlet det Demokratiske Partis chok over Trumps valgsejr til en fuldt optrappet mobilisering, der stadig kører i højeste omdrejninger, for at fjerne ham gennem afsættelse ved en rigsretssag eller ved tilbagetræden. Nogle, på den europæiske elites højeste niveau, ville også overveje mord. Den ene britiske efterretningsagent efter den anden (hvoraf dagens briefing rapporterer om den seneste) har indført »efterretninger, der kan ødelægge Trump« i den amerikanske, politiske proces, gennem Obama og hans George Soros-fraktion af Demokrater. Mandag, den 20. marts, er endnu en nøgledato i deres mål, deres indsats for at bringe Trump til fald gennem falske skandaler, såfremt Obama-demokrater fortsat spiller rollen som klovn for denne indsats.

Det britiske oligarki kan ikke udholde tanken om en amerikansk præsident, der afviser geopolitik og finansimperium, til fordel for national udvikling og »win-win«-samarbejde mellem de store magter – USA, Rusland, Kina, Indien, Japan og andre. Dette er, hvad der står på spil i de forestående møder med Xi Jinping og, måske, med den russiske præsident Putin.

Målene med at genopbygge Amerikas infrastruktur, med at vende tilbage til Månen på permanent basis, og hinsides Månen, kan ikke opfyldes på nogen anden vis. De $5-8 billion, der behøves til et nyt, højteknologisk, amerikansk infrastruktursystem, eksisterer ikke uden, at verdensmestrene i dette felt, Kina og Japan i særdeleshed, deltager. Bælt & Vej-initiativet, som Kina nu kalder sit globale opbygningsinitiativ, er altafgørende for dette nye paradigme; og ligeledes for udsigten til fred i Mellemøsten i samarbejde med Rusland.

Det er nyttigt, at chefen for Bælt & Vej-initiativets topmøde, Yang Jiechi, også er den mand, der tilbragte to dage med møder med Trumps team i Washington og New York i sidste måned.

Men, de afgørende handlinger, der vil få dette til at fungere, afhænger af os.

Det betyder at bryde Wall Streets magt ved at gennemtvinge en Glass/Steagall-bankreorganisering; at presse igennem en national kreditinstitution efter Hamiltons principper, og som USA fuldstændigt mangler; og at fastholde »Amerikas genopbygning« på det absolut højeste niveau med udvikling af fusionskraft og udforskning af Solsystemet.

Lyndon LaRouche fremlagde disse »fire love til USA’s redning« for flere år siden, for præcist at opnå dette mål med samarbejde, og som repræsenterer hele hans livsværk. Og han har advaret om, at den britiske krones kræfter ikke vil tolerere at »miste« USA til dette nye paradigme; de må besejres, for at dette paradigme kan bære frugt.

Foto: Præsident Trump under et møde med sin regering, 13. marts, 2017. [facebook@DonaldTrump] 




USA må spille sin rolle i Bælt & Vej-symfonien

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 12. marts, 2017 – Den kinesiske regering har lanceret et globalt organiseringsfremstød for at sikre, at det forestående Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde, som skal afholdes i Beijing den 14. – 15. maj, konsoliderer en »bred, international konsensus med hensyn til Bælt & Vej-initiativet«, siger den kinesiske regerings toprådgiver Yang Jiechi, der står for forberedelserne til forummet. Med en bemærkning om, at »den globale økonomi endnu ikke er kommet ud af den internationale finanskrises dybtgående virkninger«, understregede Yang i et interview til China Daily den 10. marts, at »vi håber, Bælt & Vej-forummet vil være med til at bortfeje det økonomiske dødvandes skyer«, og at, allerede, »man i lande i hele verden giver førsteprioritet til realøkonomien, sektoren for varefremstilling, industrialisering og økonomisk diversificering«.
»Bælt & Vej-initiativet blev foreslået af Kina. Men det bliver ikke et solonummer fra Kinas side«, udtalte Yang. »En bedre sammenligning ville være en symfoni, opført af et orkester, der er sammensat af alle deltagerlande.«
 
Kina har gentagne gange gjort det klart, at Bælt & Vej-initiativet er åbent for alle nationer i verden, og det omfatter i særdeleshed USA. Som den kinesiske udenrigsminister Wang Yi udtalte den 7. marts, så bør Kina, Rusland og USA arbejde sammen for at forfølge »win-win resultater, snarere end nulsums-resultater … Vi mener, de tre lande kan udvikle sunde og positive relationer, så vi i fællesskab kan opfylde vort ansvar over for verdensfred og udvikling«. Det er også værd at bemærke, at Yang Jiechi var den kinesiske regeringsrepræsentant, der blev sendt til USA tidligere på året, til drøftelser med den tiltrædende Trump-administration.
 
»Det Nye Paradigme er ved at blive den dominerende, afgørende dynamik på planeten«, sagde Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag til medarbejdere. »Og i betragtning af, at der er mindre end 100 dage til Bælt & Vej-forummet i maj, mener jeg, at vi bør bruge tiden til virkelig at sikre, at vi får USA til at tilslutte sig, men også får de europæiske nationer til at tilslutte sig, for dette er etableringen af et højere fornuftsplan, der virkelig kunne løse alle problemer.«
 
Vi må gå hurtigt frem, tilføjede hun, for hele det transatlantiske finanssystem er en krudttønde, og der er kun én løsning, og det er genindførelsen af Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, som er en del – det første skridt – af LaRouches Fire Love. Den fare, vi konfronteres med, er faren for et kaotisk kollaps af hele systemet, før vi kan få Glass-Steagall og de Fire Love på plads. Men hvis USA tilslutter sig Bælt & Vej-symfonien, kan Amerika, med sit forfærdelige infrastrukturunderskud og økonomiske kollaps, blive genopbygget på en højere, teknologisk platform, med hjælp fra Kina, Japan og andre nationer.
 
Vi må hurtigt få folk til at tænke på et strategisk niveau, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, og til at erkende, »at der finder en enorm, enorm forandring sted i historien. Hvilket i virkeligheden vil sige, at, hvis det lykkes at få USA – og de europæiske nationer, for den sags skyld – ind i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina omkring den Nye Silkevej, så kan alle problemer i verden blive løst. Det betyder ikke, at de vil blive løst natten over, men de kan løses. Og det er grunden til, at Det britiske Imperium er ude af sig selv; det er grunden til, at hele kampagnen imod Trump findes. For i de seneste 25 – 26 år har City of London og Wall Street troet, de kunne bygge en unipolær verden, og nu er det forsvundet ud af vinduet. Dét paradigme er allerede gået ned, med Brexit, den italienske folkeafstemnings ’Nej’, og med Trumps valgsejr. Pointen nu er derfor at konsolidere dette og sikre, at de folk, der ved alle midler forsøger at stoppe denne forandring, ikke får held til det.«
 
Helga Zepp-LaRouche konkluderede, at der er enorm grund til optimisme. 
»Men $8 billion i infrastrukturinvestering kan ikke mobiliseres med det nuværende, bankerotte finanssystem. Men det kan fint gennemføres, hvis man skaber en nationalbank, hvis kineserne kan indsætte deres amerikanske statsobligationer i denne infrastrukturbank (nationalbanken), og hvis man har koordineret, produktiv investering efter en gennemførelse af Glass-Steagall og LaRouches tre andre love.
Løsningen ligger virkelig lige for hånden. Så vi må få folk til at være optimistiske og sige til dem: ’Tiden er inde til at lette bagdelen; tiden er ind til, at man ikke sidder på sidelinjen, for jeres skæbne kan på kort sigt vendes til en langt bedre situation. Men, vi har brug for, at I handler sammen med os, nu’.«      



Hvorfor briterne hader Trump
– og nu er den nye rapport fra LaRouchePAC udgivet!
Leder; LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
10. marts, 2017

Jeg tænkte, jeg ville præsentere min fremlæggelse under titlen, »Hvorfor briterne hader Trump«. Dette er meget vigtigt – Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi ikke vil vinde det her, med mindre vi forstår, at vi har med Det britiske Imperium at gøre – at vi altid har haft med Det britiske Imperium at gøre. Mange mennesker har ment, at LaRouche enten overdrev eller ikke har erkendt, at Det britiske Imperium er brudt sammen for længe siden, men det står nu meget, meget klart, hvad det er, han har refereret til i fyrre år eller mere, og som er, at vi har med et Amerika at gøre, som i vid udstrækning er blevet overtaget af Det britiske Imperium, til en vis grad via Wall Street, men også i nogen udstrækning gennem efterretningsvæsenets og andres operationer.

Jason Ross: Godaften! Det er i dag den 10. marts, 2017.

Med mig i studiet i dag har jeg lykkeligvis Mike Billington, en af redaktørerne på Executive Intelligence Review, og vi springer direkte til en diskussion med Mike om, hvor vi står lige nu i verden, og hvad mener briterne om det?

Mike Billington: Jeg tænkte, jeg ville præsentere min fremlæggelse under titlen, »Hvorfor briterne hader Trump«. Dette er meget vigtigt – Lyndon LaRouche har understreget, at vi ikke vil vinde det her, med mindre vi forstår, at vi har med Det britiske Imperium at gøre – at vi altid har haft med Det britiske Imperium at gøre. Mange mennesker har ment, at LaRouche enten overdrev eller ikke har erkendt, at Det britiske Imperium er brudt sammen for længe siden, men det står nu meget, meget klart, hvad det er, han har refereret til i fyrre år eller mere, og som er, at vi har med et Amerika at gøre, som i vid udstrækning er blevet overtaget af Det britiske Imperium, til en vis grad via Wall Street, men også i nogen udstrækning gennem efterretningsvæsenets og andres operationer. Beviserne herfor hober sig nu op – det er ikke længere sådan, at vi ligesom taler sort sprog om Det britiske Imperiums rolle. Vi ser beviserne vælte frem, ikke kun gennem implikation, men i deres eget navn – briterne indrømmer nu, i eget navn, at de er ude på at rive USA’s regering ned; at gennemføre et kup mod USA’s demokratisk valgte regering under Donald Trump. Der er mange eksempler på dette; jeg vil nævne nogle få for at give jer en smagsprøve. Londonavisen The Guardian har etableret en website, med navnet, »Modstand nu«, som opfordrer alle de amerikanere, der er oprørt over de forfærdelige begivenheder i Amerika; som er ude at demonstrere og måske kaster molotovcocktails; som fodrer pressen med historier om russisk overtagelse af Amerika, som kan gå direkte ind på vore websider og indsamle alle disse informationer for at forbedre folks kendskab til alle disse rædsler med Donald Trump. Alt dette begyndte naturligvis, i offentlighedens øjne, med MI6-agenten Christopher Steeles udgivelse af det 35 sider lange, nu berømte dokument, fuld af absolut sindssyge, opdigtede historier om, hvordan Donald Trump blev afpresset af russerne, fordi de tog ham på fersk gerning boltre sig med prostituerede, urinere på prostituerede og Gud ved ikke hvad. Og denne Christopher Steele, en MI6-agent, var blevet hyret af det Demokratiske Parti, Obama/Hillary Clinton-netværket, til at udføre dette bedrageri, som de begik; dernæst trådte FBI til og ønskede at fortsætte processen; de tilbød at hyre ham og gjorde det tilsyneladende, betalte ham for et eller andet, vi ved ikke med sikkerhed, hvad. Men dette dokument blev overgivet til FBI og andre efterretningstjenester; de erkendte, at der absolut ingen beviser fandtes for noget af det, men ikke desto mindre lækkede de det; det kom ud i pressen. Det blev grundlaget for at lancere denne, værre end McCarthy, heksejagt, dette kupforsøg, baseret på den idé, at det på en eller anden måde skulle være ikke alene forkert eller upassende, men decideret ulovligt at have nogen som helst kontakt med Rusland. En fuldstændig absurd idé. Som Trump selv mange gange har sagt, det er en god ting at være venner med russerne; tror I, vi ønsker en krig? Det ville blive en atomkrig; er det, hvad I promoverer?

Vi har altså en situation, hvor denne Steele, på trods af miskrediteringen, stadig skal afgive forklaring for Kongressen. Vi har det samme FBI, som grundlæggende set lækkede dette materiale til pressen og ganske åbenlyst siger, vi fik dette materiale fra GCHQ, det statslige britiske kommunikationshovedkvarter; det britiske NSA (overvågningstjeneste); så dette er alt sammen offentligt, ikke længere en hemmelighed; briterne gør, hvad briter gør. Vi skal se på, hvorfor? Hvorfor hader de Trump så meget?

Jeg vil minde folk om, at vi den 20. januar udgav en artikel i EIR af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med titlen, »The Foreign Power Corrupting U.S. Politics Is London, not Moscow« (dansk: »Den britiske efterretningstjeneste afslører sig selv i sine operationer mod Trump«); og der er nu definitivt blevet demonstreret. Vi har nogle kongresmedlemmer, der tager dette alvorligt; senator Grassley, en af de mest seniorsenatorer, Republikaner fra Iowa, der leder justitskomiteen i Senatet, har krævet, at FBI udleverer al deres korrespondance, deres efterretninger, alle dokumenter, de har om deres forbindelse til britisk efterretningstjeneste. Dette er vigtigt; jeg vil oplæse, hvad han skrev i sit brev til Comey (direktør for FBI):

»Den idé, at FBI og folk associeret med Clintonkampagnen, skulle betale Christopher Steele (denne MI-agent) for at efterforske den Republikanske nominerede kandidat til præsidentskabet i opløbet til valget, rejser yderligere spørgsmål om FBI’s uafhængighed af politik, så vel som også Obama-administrationens brug af lovens håndhævere og efterretningstjenester til politiske formål.«

Dette er alvorligt; dette er alvorlige anklager. Kongresmedlem Nunes, den Republikanske leder af Husets Efterretningskomite, har krævet en høring den 12. marts, der som sine vidner vil have James Comey fra FBI; Mike Rogers fra NSA; John Brennan fra CIA og James Clapper, direktør for den Nationale Efterretningstjeneste. Det bliver ret interessant, for det her er forræderi, vi ser på. Vi ser en udenlandsk regerings samarbejde med korrupte lag i efterretningssamfundet om at gennemføre et kup imod vores valgte regering. Dette er ekstremt alvorlige anklager i stil med forræderi.

Jeg vil nævne endnu en ting. Greb Rusland ind i vores valg? Lad os antage, at det skulle være sandt, hvad det næsten sikkert ikke er, at russerne skulle have været involveret i hackingen af DNC og Podesta-e-mails; hvis de var involveret, hvad gjorde de så? For det første, så er dette ikke national sikkerhed; dette er et partis private e-mails, ikke spørgsmål om national sikkerhed. For det andet, som Robert Parry, en meget erfaren, ret berømt undersøgende journalist, mest berømt for sin afsløring af Iran/kontra-fupnummeret; som han sagde, enhver ægte journalist ville savle over den kendsgerning, at offentliggørelsen af disse dokumenter, uanset, hvordan de blev offentliggjort, er sande (dokumenterne) – der er ingen, der afviser, at dette virkelig er de e-mails, der viser, at det Demokratiske Parti på ulovlig vis, eller i det mindste imod dets egne regler, manipulerede valget til støtte for Hillary Clinton mod Bernie Sanders, samt andre, alvorlige uoverensstemmelser. Ingen benægter dette; det er alt sammen sandt, det er ikke falske nyheder, men ægte nyheder. De falske nyheder er, at dette ikke bliver grebet af journalisterne som eksempel på den demokratiske proces med at få sandheden ud til det amerikanske folk. Næh, næh; det er en indgriben for at ødelægge den demokratiske proces fra en udenlandsk nation, russerne. Det er ironisk; det er sindssygt, men ironisk.

Jeg vil også nævne, at Lyndon LaRouche og vores organisation er ganske bekendt med denne proces. I en meget virkelig udstrækning, så får Trump ’LaRouche-behandlingen’. Vi kender disse korrupte lag i FBI; vi ved, hvordan de ulovligt og hemmeligt samarbejder med briterne, for sådan var den operation, der blev kørt mod LaRouche tilbage i 1980’erne, som førte til hans, og min og andres, fængsling, på vegne af Bush-administrationen, og af de præcis samme årsager: Lyndon LaRouche havde fremlagt, og Reagan havde vedtaget, et forslag til udvikling af et ’stråleforsvar’ (Det Strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ) i samarbejde med russerne, for at gøre en ende på galskaben med Kissinger og briternes MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction (doktrinen Gensidigt Garanteret Ødelæggelse), som gik ud på, at russerne og amerikanerne begge havde atomvåben, rettet mod hinanden, parat til omgående at blive affyret; og det er sådan, vi holder verden sikker, ikke sandt? Hvilket vil sige, at vi ikke går i atomkrig med hinanden, for vi ved, at den anden side – at vi også bliver sprængt i luften. Og i mellemtiden kan Det britiske Imperium og dets dumme kæmpe i Amerika gå rundt i verden og føre kolonikrige, som i Vietnam, i hele Afrika og andre steder, hvor vi stopper, før det når fasen med atomkrig. Pointen med dette er selvfølgelig, at det holder verden opsplittet, og dét er Det britiske Imperiums hensigt. Kernen i det er at forhindre USA i at samarbejde med Rusland; at forhindre Europa i at samarbejde med Rusland; for Imperiet er afhængigt af »del og hersk«, at holde verden opsplittet.

Så den samme proces, der blev udløst imod os, af de samme årsager, udløses nu imod Trump. Som I nok ved, så publicerede vi for nylig et dossier, på treårsdagen for Maidan-kuppet i Ukraine, (»Obama-Soros ’farvede revolutioner’; Nazi-kup i Ukraine, 2014; USA, 2017?«) hvor et neonazistisk kup åbenlyst blev støttet af Obama og Soros og Obamas agent dér, Victoria Nuland, som pralede med, at de havde brugt milliarder af dollar på at skabe anti-russiske NGO’er, på trods af det faktum, at de ledende elementer i demonstrationerne ikke var de fredelige demonstranter, men de nynazistiske grupper, der bar svastika-symboler på tøjet og viftede med portrætter af Stepan Bandera, Hitlers allierede i Ukraine under krigen (2. verdenskrig), og som kørte nedslagtningen af jøderne og polakkerne og russerne. Så dette var altså et kup, der skulle sætte nazister ved magten, støttet af Obama, Soros og andre; og præcis de samme personer er i dag involveret i operationen for at fælde USA’s regering, den ’farvede revolution’ imod Trump. Og igen, af den præcis samme årsag. I begge tilfælde skete det for at forhindre samarbejde mellem Europa og Rusland; for at forhindre samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland; for dette er kernen i Imperiet, Det britiske Imperium og i realiteten alle imperier, som på sæt og vis blot er ét og samme imperium, lige fra tiden med Det romerske Imperium, Det venetianske Imperium, Det byzantinske Imperium og sluttelig Det anglo-hollandske Imperium; det er i virkeligheden den samme kernegruppe, bestående af finansiel magt over finanserne og handelen på globalt plan ved at holde folk i krig med hinanden, så de ikke gør indsigelse, så ingen kommer sammen om at gøre oprør mod imperiepolitikken, der kontrollerer de globale finanser og den globale handel.

Det jeg ville frem til, er, at kuppet imod USA igen sker af disse samme årsager. For i den ultimative opdeling af verden, bruger imperiet etniske opdelinger og religiøse opdelinger, og kamp om territorier og den slags ting, for at holde folk opdelte. Men den helt store opdeling er Øst imod Vest; den store opdeling er at bevare det ’demokratiske, frie Vesten’, og det stadig ’diktatoriske, kommunistiske Øst’ med Rusland og Kina; hold dem adskilte for enhver pris. Dette er grundlaget for, at vi kan forhindre, at nationer kommer sammen, hvilket én gang for alle kunne tilintetgøre selve ideen om imperium.

Hvad er så ’ideen om imperium’? Det er begrebet ’del og hersk’, det er geopolitik versus win-win; dette er sandt nok. Men det er faktisk mere fundamentalt end som så. Det er grundlæggende set en opfattelse af mennesket som værende dyrisk af natur. Det er opfattelse af mennesket, der følger den darwinistiske idé om, at mennesket ikke er forskelligt fra dyrene; og Darwins teori om, hvordan dyr udvikles, er også forkert. Hans argument om, at dyreverdenen kun kan overleve gennem den bedst egnedes overlevelse, er forkert; men ikke desto mindre sagde han og hans samfundsdarwinistiske venner – Spencer osv. – grundlæggende set, at dette er menneskets natur. Dette er det menneskelige samfunds natur – den bedst egnede overlever; nogle mennesker fødes stærke, og disse stærke mennesker må kunne overvinde de svagere. Så kan de overleve i en verden med én imod alle; et eksistentialistisk helvede med én imod alle andre. Dette er kernen i Det britiske Imperium; de afviser totalt ethvert begreb om, at der kan findes fælles mål for menneskeheden, at der kan findes en win-win-politik, som Xi Jinping siger. Eller menneskehedens fælles mål, som Helga Zepp- LaRouche ynder at kalde det. Det bliver afvist. Hvis man tænker på Darwins ideer om evolution, så er de tydeligvis forkerte, først og fremmest, fordi de er baseret på ideen om, at ting udvikles ved at overvinde, besejre, nogen, der udgør en trussel mod én.

Men, hvor kommer evolutionen fra; hvad er den oprindelige forandring, som dernæst skaber den bedst egnedes overlevelse? Det er ubesvaret; og dette er naturligvis noget, som hr. LaRouche i mange, mange år har talt om, og han har i særdeleshed refereret til den russiske videnskabsmand, Vernadskij. Som påpegede, at det biologiske univers blev foregået før livet, før biotiske handlinger, af et univers, som ikke desto mindre var under udvikling. Hvad fik det til at udvikle sig? Det var ikke den bedst egnedes overlevelse. Var det jerns overlevelse på bekostning af stål eller guld? Der findes en lovbundethed i universet, der tenderer mod udvikling hen imod højere og højere koncentrationer af energi; energigennemstrømningstæthed, der skaber betingelser, ved hvilke love af en højere orden kan finde sted. Hvilket sluttelig, med klorofyl, førte til fremkomsten af liv, og sluttelig, på samme måde, gennem positiv udvikling, ikke ud fra den negative udvikling med den bedst egnedes overlevelse, men en positiv udvikling, der, med den sluttelige fremkomst af dyr, og især af mennesket, går frem mod højere og højere koncentrationer af muligheden for at få en forøgelse af den relative befolkningstæthed, baseret på en højere evne til at organisere universet omkring visse principper (love). Og, hvad der er vigtigere, når man når til menneskehedens trin, så har man her at gøre med en art, der er i stand til at undfly det, Darwin så på; for vi er, ulig dyrene, ikke bundet og må leve inden for de begrænsninger, naturen frembyder, og den føde, som står til rådighed for os. Men vi har faktisk et intellekt. Vi er i stand til at se fremtiden, hvilket dyr ikke kan, og vi er i besiddelse af den kreative evne til at opdage universets love, hvilket gør det muligt for os dernæst at organisere dette univers; at skabe betingelser, hvor vi har højere og højere levestandarder med en større befolkningstæthed, og så fremdeles.

Dette er, hvad briterne afviser. De kunne muligvis acceptere det for sig selv, for at bevare deres egne udviklinger; men selve ideen om – for eksempel Malthus’ argument – endnu en britisk, »genial«, sindssyg tilhænger af folkemord – hvor han siger, at der er en grænse for den menneskelige befolkning, fordi vi vil løbe tør for resurser. Men vi vil aldrig løbe tør for resurser! Enhver opdagelse, mennesket har gjort, det være sig elektricitet af Ben Franklin, eller stråling af parret Curie, eller kernereaktioner, som Einstein opdagede; hver af disse opdagelser omdefinerer, hvad vore resurser er. Det eksempel, vi altid bruger, er, at, med fusionskraft bliver havvand en resurse. Og endnu bedre resurser såsom helium-3 på Månen, der kan sikre menneskeheden brændsel i al evighed, stort set. Vi omdefinerer vores egen eksistens. Og dette er en human idé om mennesket, i modsætning til det britiske, dyriske imperiebillede af mennesket, der retfærdiggør, at man, ikke alene mand og mand imellem, men nationerne imellem, har ret til grundlæggende set at have et slavesystem, et imperiesystem.

For at vende tilbage til den politiske side af dette, så, som jeg sagde: Det britiske Imperiums grundlæggende opdeling [af verden] har, rent historisk, været opdelingen af Øst vs. Vest. Rudyard Kipling, en af den britiske imperieperiodes genier, havde et berømt mundheld, der lød, »Øst er Øst, og Vest er Vest, og aldrig skal de tvende mødes«. De er nærmest to forskellige arter. Man kan selvfølgelig ikke tale om en underlegen art, i Asien, iflg. Rudyard Kipling, der faktisk lovpriste den britiske Rajah for at »bringe civilisationen« til inderne.

Jeg vil gerne påpege, at en ny bog er blevet udgivet inden for de seneste dage eller uger af Shashi Tharoor. I har sikkert hørt om ham. Han er en meget fremtrædende person, der i øjeblikket er parlamentsmedlem i Indien, en diplomat, en meget veluddannet mand, der har lanceret et totalt angreb mod briterne. Han har netop udgivet en bog med titlen, Inglorius Empire: What the British Did to India (Skammelige Imperium: Hvad briterne gjorde mod Indien). Han påpeger, blandt andet, at ideen om, at briterne [med britisk accent] i det mindste bragte en statsforvaltning og civilisation til de tilbagestående indere. Tharoor påpeger, at i 1700, før den totale, britiske overtagelse, var Indien den rigeste nation i verden. Landet havde, iflg. ham, 27 % af verdens globale BNP; hvorimod briterne havde 1,8 %. Jeg ved ikke, om dette er sandt; jeg har endnu ikke læst hans bog. Men, han påpeger imidlertid noget, jeg ved, er sandt, nemlig, at, under briterne, sultede 35 millioner mennesker ihjel [i Indien] på ét år, i 1837, alt imens briterne udskibede hvede og andre fødeemner ud af landet, tilbage til Storbritannien. Det britiske argument var, at »vi ikke griber ind over for udbrud af hungersnød, for udbrud af hungersnød er naturens måde at give udtryk for grænserne for befolkningsstørrelsen. De er blevet overbefolket, og naturen trådte til for at udtynde den menneskelige hjord. Vi er trods alt moralske mennesker i Det forenede Kongerige, og vi tror på det moralske i kontrakter. Og at bryde en kontrakt om at sende hvede tilbage til Det forenede Kongerige ville være absolut umoralsk, blot fordi 35 millioner mennesker er ved at sulte ihjel.« Dette er ægte citater. Det er ikke noget, jeg finder på. For øvrigt påpeger Tharoor også, at 3,4 million mennesker døde under Winston Churchill. Han sammenligner Churchill med Adolf Hitler – en meget passende sammenligning.[1]

Så er der Opiumskrigene; jeg behøver ikke at gennemgå det. Jeg tror, at folk ved, at de forsøgte at formidle rent historisk, at Opiumskrigene handlede om, hvem, der kontrollerede opiummet. Langt fra. Dette var krige, som briterne lancerede for at ødelægge den kinesiske regering, der modsatte sig, at de bragte opium fra deres (englændernes) indiske rajaher, for at ødelægge Kinas befolkning, med det formål dér at gennemtvinge en lignende magt.

I dag ser vi præcis det samme. Vi kan ikke tænke på dette som tørre historietimer. Jeg ville have medbragt en bog, Dope, Inc., men det glemte jeg – den bog, som vi første gang udgav i 1980’erne, ved navn Dope, Inc.: The British Opium War against America. Den er udkommet i flere udgaver, med den sidste, Britain’s Opium War Against the World. De samme banker, der blev etableret i Hongkong for at køre opiumskrigene – Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, Standard and Chartered, Jardine Matheson-bankerne – disse samme banker gør det stadig i dag. Da HSBC blev taget i at hvidvaske narkopenge for et titals milliarder af dollars fra Colombia og Mexico ind i USA, sagde Obama-administrationen, »Der er ingen, der skal i fængsel. Vi smækker dem over fingrene, en lille bøde, og så kan de fortsætte deres arbejde med at handle med dope«; for dope er den største forretning i hele verden. Her i denne udsendelse har vi tidligere diskuteret det faktum, at lederen af FN’s afdeling for narkotika [Eksekutive direktør for FN’s Afdeling for Narkotika og Kriminalitet (UNODC)], Antonio Maria Costa, har fastslået den pointe, at, i disse kriseperioder, var disse banker afhængige af likviditeten fra narkohandelen; og i realiteten, hele tiden. Det er den største forretning i verden.

Som I ved, så, mens Obama legaliserede narkotiske midler i hele USA, støttede han åbenlyst både de nationale regeringer, der støttede narko, som i Colombia, hvor de underskrev en såkaldt »fredsaftale« med FARC, der ikke var andet end et kokain- og marihuanakartel; men han sørgede også for, at bankerne fik lov at fortsætte med uformindsket styrke, for det er dér, dope-forretningerne rent faktisk køres.

Nu har vi Trump, der fører en krig mod narko; endnu en årsag til, at briterne hader Trump, som de hadede LaRouche. Som I ved, så lancerede LaRouche en organisation ved navn Anti-Drug Coalition, der udgav et blad, der hed War on Drugs. Nu har Trump erklæret krig mod narko. Han har sat en general, general John Kelly, som chef for Homeland Security, og som er meget godt bekendt med narkokrisen og har aflagt forklaring for Kongressen om, at kun 20 % af den narko, der krydser grænsen fra Mexico, tages på dette tidspunkt; og en justitsminister, Jeff Sessions, der har tilbragt hele sit liv med at kæmpe imod denne legalisering af narko. Dette falder ikke i god jord hos briterne, kan jeg love jer for.

Til sidst vil jeg nævne, hvad Jason vil fortsætte med, og som er, at, på hele banksiden af dette, så foragter de britiske, monetære systemer Hamiltons kreditsystem, som beror på kredit [modsat penge]. Penge er dumme; og det er, hvad briterne ønsker, folk skal være, dumme. De vil have et system baseret på penge, så bankerne kontrollerer strømmen af penge, og så pengene kan bruges til hvad som helst, der skaber profit, det være sig kasinoer eller horehuse. Ulig kreditsystemet, der blev etableret af Aleksander Hamilton og brugt af vore bedste præsidenter, kredit, der har en vision, der har en idé om fremtiden, hvis formål er at skabe noget, at skabe en bedre verden, at rent faktisk have blikket rettet mod fremtiden og forandre nogle ting på en måde, der er til gavn for befolkningens almene vel.

Jeg tror, at dette ligesom udstikker et miniaturebillede af Det britiske Imperiums Helvede, hvorfor de hader Trump. Netop nu er vi, måske for første gang i historien, i en position, hvor imperium kan afskaffes; muligvis for altid, hvis det lykkes os at skabe den form for kreative betingelser for menneskeslægten, der er baseret på menneskehedens fælles mål.

Og nu over til Jason. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spicer: Ja.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Har du noget at tilføje?

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

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

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

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

Se digital brochure: LaRouche's Four Laws and Americas Future on the Silk Road                           

 1] Se: TEMA: BEFOLKNINGSREDUKTION: »Briterne sultede flere end 60 millioner indere ihjel, men hvorfor?« 




Hvad der står på spil med Obama/briternes kupforsøg mod Trump

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 8. marts, 2017 – I et ekstraordinært velkomment syn siden tirsdag er amerikanske og russiske militærstyrker mødtes og har patruljeret næsten side om side – tydeligvis koordineret – uden for byen Manbij i Syrien, hvor de har sikret roen omkring denne by, mens russiske styrker leverer nødhjælp til byen. Denne begivenhed følger efter samtidig russisk og amerikansk bombning af ISIS uden for Palmyra, mens syriske styrker drev ISIS ud af samme by; samt et trevejsmøde mandag mellem amerikanske, russiske og tyrkiske stabschefer og deres stabe, om krigen i Syrien.

Amerikansk-russisk samarbejde imod international terrorisme finder sted i virkeligheden i Syrien; en begyndelse.

Det er ironisk, at den mest prominente mediedækning af udviklingen i Manbij – med fotos og et billede fra 1945 af amerikanske og russiske tropper, der hilser hinanden ved Elben ved besejringen af Hitler – kom i Londonavisen The Times. Det er dette samarbejde, ikke alene mod terrorisme, der har gjort det britiske sikkerheds- og efterretningsestablishment, og de politiske kredse omkring Obama, rasende. Det har fået dem til at forsøge at tvinge præsident Trump ud af embedet »ved tilbagetrækning eller rigsretssag«, som en ven til Barack Obama sagde til Londonavisen Daily Mail. Det har endda ført til, at nogle britiske, tyske og franske »ledende medier« offentligt har diskuteret et mord på Trump. Og det har fået nogle Demokratiske ledere – dem, der nægtede at tillade snak om rigsretssag, da Cheney og Bush havde kastet sig ud i en katastrofal Irakkrig ved at lyve for Kongressen og FN – til at arbejde på at anlægge en rigsretssag mod præsident Trump, for at have modsat sig krigskonfrontation med Rusland.

Det, der står på spil, er et langt større løfte end samarbejde imod terrorisme. Kinas udenrigsminister Wang Yi udtalte atter den 7. marts, at hans lands mål er samarbejdet mellem USA, Rusland og Kina om, ud over at stabilisere verden, at skabe en global, økonomisk, teknologisk og videnskabelig udvikling. De moderne infrastrukturprojekter, som Kina har initieret i 60 lande langs den »Nye Silkevej«, tilbyder en »platform for de mest lysende udsigter i verden«, sagde Wang, hvis de største magter går sammen om dem. »Bælt & Vej-initiativet tilhører verden.«

Det er her, at det »store program for opbygning af infrastruktur«, som præsident Trump taler om, finder sin drivkraft. Det er udsigten til dette nye paradigme, som Obama/briternes kup mod Trump har til hensigt at stoppe.

Det er britisk efterretningstjeneste, der har udført hemmelig research og anklager om »Trumps aftalte spil med Rusland« i løbet af det seneste år, og som har ført til de seneste to måneders åbne McCarthyisme og Obama-krig mod Trump.

Men det amerikanske folk stemte for en ny retning, og frem for alt for en genopretning af en produktiv økonomi, bedre levestandard og produktiv beskæftigelse. Deres respons til EIR’s og LaRouchePAC’s mobilisering for dette nye paradigme – selv i alle offentlige medborgermøder og møder, der er arrangeret omkring tilsyneladende partiske linjer – viser, hvordan Obama og hans britiske bagmænd skal besejres.

Foto: Præsident Trump, 6. marts, 2017. [facebook/DonaldTrump] 




Neokonservative, medierne og liberale
Demokrater – ikke umage sengekammerater,
men forenede britiske agenter

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 6. marts, 2017 – To betydningsfulde dokumenter blev udgivet den 4. marts, om den ekstreme krigsfare, der bliver anstiftet af den hysteriske og absurde dæmonisering af alle amerikanske kontakter med russiske diplomater og regeringsfolk. Et af disse dokumenter er af pensionerede ambassadør Jack Matlock, USA’s ambassadør til Rusland fra 1987-91 og en af USA’s førende eksperter og diplomater. Det andet er af Robert Parry, den undersøgende journalist, der er mest berømt for sin afsløring af Irankontra-operationen og CIA-kontra kokainhandelen i USA i 1980’erne.

Ambassadør Matlock skriver, at den aktuelle formodning om skyld i de amerikanske medier og politiske kredse udgør »holdningen i en politistat«. Han advarer om, at »atomvåben er en eksistentiel trussel mod vores nation«, og at en forbedring af relationerne med Rusland må »lovprises, ikke gøres til syndebuk«.

Parry forklarer sammenkomsten af tre, tilsyneladende uensartede kræfter: de neokonservative (senator John McCain et.al.); de liberale Demokrater (Obama/Hillary/Soros-netværkerne); og de etablerede medier, der alle tilsigter at forhindre Trumps bestræbelser på at forbedre relationerne med Rusland. Parry advarer om, at disse handlinger »kunne skubbe de to lande ud i en krig, der virkelig kunne blive krigen, der afslutter alle krige – samtidig med at afslutte den menneskelige civilisation. Men Demokrater, liberale og de etablerede nyhedsmedier synes at hade Trump så meget, at de er villige til at løbe denne risiko«.

Det, der mangler i denne analyse – og som er fundamentalt og afgørende for at besejre den – er, at disse tre elementer ikke er »umage sengekammerater«, som de synes at være, men de fungerer snarere som redskaber for Imperiet og City of London.

Det britiske Imperium er stadig i høj grad i live, selv om det har brugt USA som en »dum kæmpe« i løbet af de seneste 16 år med Bush’ og Obamas præsidentskaber til at udkæmpe sine kolonikrige. Imperiet kan ikke overleve, hvis dets »del og hersk«-opsplitning af verden mellem Øst og Vest blev tilintetgjort. Det er præcis, hvad Trump truer med at gøre gennem sin offentligt erklærede hensigt om at etablere samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland, så vel som også med Kinas »win-win«-fremgangsmåde med udvikling af hele verden gennem den Nye Silkevej – Ét Bælte, én Vej. I det britiske finansoligarkis og det britiske monarkis øjne må dette stoppes med alle midler, helt frem til og inklusive atomkrig.

Verden befandt sig på randen af netop en sådan eksistentiel katastrofe under Obama og hans klon Hillary Clinton. Selv om denne umiddelbare fare blev undgået gennem Hillary Clintons valgnederlag, så advarer både Matlock og Parry rettelig om, at denne fare er i færd med at blive genoplivet og forværret af den nye heksejagt i McCarthy-traditionen på enhver drøftelse med Rusland.

Som Lyndon LaRouche sagde i dag: »Briterne er medierne, med en hensigt om at ødelægge nationer. Det er før blevet gjort, og nu forsøger man igen. Vær agtpågivende.« Briternes rolle, sagde han, må bringes i fokus. »Vi kan forpurre dem ved at gøre det.«

Kendsgerningen med det vestlige banksystems totale bankerot (en afgørende årsag, i Imperiets øjne, til at få startet en krig hurtigt) blev i dag pointeret af Deutsche Banks chef John Cryans meddelelse om, at den 17 måneder lange bestræbelse på at genoprette stabiliteten i den bankerotte institution var mislykkedes. Banken tabte endnu $1,5 mia. i 2016, for det meste på derivathandel, og de står over for milliarder i bøder fra USA for deres kriminelle handlinger under boblen med subprime-ejendomslån, der førte til krakket i 2008. Cryans nye plan for Tysklands største bank omfatter at rejse $8,5 mia. gennem udstedelse af nye, diskonterede aktier samt fokusere på udlån til industrien og skære ned på spekulativ handel og værdipapirmanagement.

Det lyder fornuftigt, men LaRouche bemærkede, at de blot »fjoller rundt« og må »gøre regnskabet op gennem virkelighed, og ikke numre«. I juli 2016, hvor Deutsche Bank næsten kollapsede, krævede LaRouche en engangs-genkapitalisering af banken, men på betingelse af, af den vendte tilbage til traditionen efter sin tidligere formand, Alfred Herrhausen, en tradition for bankpraksis for industriel og samfundsmæssig udvikling, ikke spekulation. Herrhausen blev myrdet på det tidspunkt, hvor Berlinmuren faldt i 1989, præcis på grund af sin vision.

Men LaRouches forslag blev ikke fulgt. EU og den tyske regering forsøgte at lappe på Deutsche Banks derivatbeholdninger til $55 billioner med nye numre, og nu forsøger de endnu et nummer. Den »virkelighed«, som LaRouche refererer til, er, at der ikke er nogen måde, hvorpå man kan undvige det uundgåelige kollaps af derivatkontrakter til næsten $2 billiard, der suger livet ud af det transatlantiske finanssystems produktive økonomier, undtagen gennem en Glass/Steagall-reorganisering i FDR-stil – hvor man afskriver den værdiløse, spekulative boble og dirigerer nye kreditter ind i produktiv aktivitet.

Hvis verden vælger at sidde krisen ud, vil det ikke alene skabe en finanskrise, der overgår enhver forestilling, men også en global krig. Tiden er inde til at handle.




De transatlantiske nationer konfronteres
med finanssammenbrud og borgerkrig
– Trump må gå ind for Glass-Steagall
og tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 5. marts, 2017 – Alt imens hysteriet med den »farvede revolutions« angreb på Donald Trump fortsætter i hele Europa og i USA, så er sandheden bag denne »nye McCarthyisme« også ved at komme frem.

Udtalelser om et muligt mord på Trump er fremkommet i flere europæiske pressemedier og i blogosfæren. Obamas justitsminister Loretta Lynch, der nægtede at fængsle bankiererne for deres forbrydelser med hvidvask af narkopenge og med at ødelægge den amerikanske økonomi, har nu offentligt opfordret til voldelige demonstrationer og bemærker, at, i tidligere tider, »blødte folk og ja, nogle af dem døde. Dette er hårdt. Alt, hvad der er godt, er hårdt. Vi har gjort dette før. Vi kan gøre det igen.« At sammenligne det Obama/Soros-anførte kupforsøg med borgerrettighedsbevægelsen er både en løgn og en afskyelighed. Den eneste, legitime sammenligning er med det voldelige kup i Ukraine i 2014, anført af nynazister, som EIR har dokumenteret, blev kørt af netop de selvsamme agenter (Se EIR's rapport, »Obama-Soros ’farvede revolutioner’; Nazi-kup i Ukraine, 2014; USA, 2017?«)

Det er ikke det indbildte angreb på »vore vestlige værdier«, der er drivkraften bag dette kupforsøg, men snarere det desperate Britiske Imperium og dets aktiver i USA, der er rædselsslagne over, at imperieopdelingen af verden, der er afgørende for at opretholde deres bankerotte, vestlige finanssystem gennem krige og nedskæringspolitik, trues af Trumps bestræbelser på at bringe USA ind i et samarbejde med Rusland og Kina. Et sådant samarbejde, der vil forene verden gennem et nyt paradigme, baseret på fred og udvikling, vil ikke have plads til de spekulative finansinstitutioner, hvis fremgang beror på hasardspil, narkopenge og krige. Trump gør forberedelser til at mødes med både Putin og Xi Jinping i de kommende måneder. Samarbejde omkring bekæmpelse af terrorisme og USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevejsproces ville betyde enden på Imperiet – måske for altid.

Men Trump har endnu ikke opfyldt sit kampagneløfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall for at afslutte det tyranni, der begås af Wall Streets »for store til at lade gå ned«-banker, der har suget kreditten ud af hele det transatlantiske finanssystem for at nære deres derivatboble. Denne boble er nu en halv gang større end den, der eksploderede i 2008 som følge af den sindssyge genforsikring af subprime-ejendomslån og andre værdiløse, spekulative værdipapirer. Hvis præsidenten skal lykkes med at genopbygge den amerikanske økonomi og gøre en ende på den værste narkokrise i nationens historie, må han omgående genindføre de finansielle principper, i Hamiltons tradition, som har været drivkraften bag alle amerikanske perioder med fremskridt.

Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-angreb på Wall Street er modellen – den eneste model – der kan forhindre den langt værre, finansielle nedsmeltning, der nu truer det europæiske og amerikanske banksystem. Kun ved hjælp af dette indledende, første skridt vil en genindførelse af solide og fornuftige principper for bankpraksis – som dirigerer statslig kredit til industri, landbrug, infrastruktur og en genindførelse af videnskabeligt fremskridt – atter være i stand til at gøre Amerika stort igen. Det er den effekt, som LaRouches Fire Love har. 

Muligheden for en sådan revolutionær transformation af nationen og verden har aldrig været større end den er i dag. Kampagnen, der har til hensigt at bringe Trumps præsidentskab til fald, har ikke held til at overbevise det amerikanske folk. Efter at Trump anklagede Obama, og Obamas »oversiddere« i efterretningssamfundet, for at køre løgnekampagnen, der anklager Trump for ulovlige bånd til Rusland, måtte New York Times indrømme præcis dette. I en artikel fra 2. marts forklarede NYT Obama-administrationens anbringelse af hemmelige (og falske), udokumenterede efterretninger i officielle dokumenter, hvor de sænkede hemmelighedsgraden med det formål at maksimere disses cirkulering og forberedte efterforskninger for kriminelle handlinger, baseret på disse løgne.

Nu har Trump anklaget Obama for at aflytte hans kontorer i Trump Tower under kampagnen og tilføjet, at »dette er Nixon/Watergate« og »dette er McCarthyisme«. Han har krævet, at Kongressen udfører en tilbundsgående efterforskning. Obamas chef for den nationale efterretningstjeneste, James Clapper – bedst kendt for sin løgn over for Kongressen i 2013, hvor han benægtede, at efterretningssamfundet overvågede millioner af amerikanere (afsløret som løgn af Snowden-afsløringerne) – optrådte i dag på NBC’s »Mød Pressen« for at benægte, at der fandt en sådan aflytning af Trump Tower sted (selv om han denne gang var lidt mere forsigtig og sagde, »så vidt jeg ved«). Vi får se.

Aktivistteams fra LaRouchePAC deltog i pro-Trump møder i hele landet søndag, hvor de både oplevede en høj grad af anerkendelse af LaRouches år med at afsløre Obamas forbrydelser og også en åbenhed over for bestræbelserne på at få Demokrater og Republikanere til at kræve, at Trump går frem med sit løfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall. Men aktivisterne bemærkede, at befolkningen, ligesom Kongressen, er selvisk optaget af partiske angreb uden meget hensyn til, eller blot begreb om, afgørende politiske spørgsmål. Indgriben med LaRouches Fire Love har aldrig været mere presserende. Med det transatlantiske banksystem, der er rede til at sprænges, og de hektiske bestræbelser på at fremprovokere en borgerkrig eller et kup i USA, har vi ikke tid til mangel på klarhed.

Som Helga Zepp-LaRouche i dag sagde til medarbejdere: »Dette er vores livs største kamp. Folk bør ikke opføre sig dumt.«

Foto: New Yorks Børs.      




Vi må gå frem med vores
kampagne for de Fire Love!
LaRouchePAC Internationale Webcast,
3. marts, 2017; Leder

Dette er en aktiv, igangværende kamp; og efter en række diskussioner med hr. og fr. LaRouche i løbet af de seneste par dage, har vi nu gen-optrappet og gen-understreget en ny kampagne for dette initiativ. Dette vil omfatte en ny appel; den forrige havde fokus på denne tale til Kongressen. Denne nye appel er lidt mere åben og skal være et nyt samlingspunkt for en national, og international, kampagne for at få USA til at vedtage dette program.

Benjamin Deniston: Vi skriver i dag den 3. marts, 2017, og dette er vores ugentlige fredags-webcast på larouchepac.com. Med mig her i studiet har jeg Paul Gallagher, økonomiredaktør for Executive Intelligence Review; og via video, Bill Roberts, medlem af LaRouchePAC Policy Committee.

I dag annoncerer vi lanceringen af nogle nye initiativer, der er direkte affødt af den meget succesrige kampagne, vi har ført i januar og februar for vores appel for Glass-Steagall. Over 3.000 underskrifter, inklusive både online appeller og skrevne underskrifter, er blevet overgivet til præsident Trump og mange kongresmedlemmer. Andre organisationer, der støtter et lignende initiativ, har også indsamlet tusinder af underskrifter. Antallet af underskrevne appeller lyder måske ikke af så meget, sammenlignet med andre appeller, men dette reflekterede en meget effektiv og vigtig kampagne. Blot i år har 14 delstatskongresser introduceret resolutioner, der enten kræver, at USA’s Kongres støtter Glass-Steagall alene, eller også Glass-Steagall og en eller anden variant af Lyndon LaRouches Fire Love. Vi så spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall komme i front og centrum under senatshøringen for godkendelse af den person, der blev finansminister, Mnuchin; hvor han blev konfronteret direkte med spørgsmålet om Glass-Steagall. Vi har set en række mediedækninger, der har indikeret, at Wall Street har holdt vejret for at se, om dette bliver spørgsmålet eller ej. Så enhver med forstand indser, at dette er blevet til en central kamp. Wall Street er rædselsslagen over dette spørgsmål; de ved, at der stadig er seriøs støtte til det. Alt imens Trump ikke støttede det i sin tale om unionens tilstand (28. feb.), så er tiden ikke til, at vi klapper hinanden på ryggen over den effekt, vi har haft, eller læner os tilbage og opgiver; tiden er for en optrapning.

Dette er en aktiv, igangværende kamp; og efter en række diskussioner med hr. og fr. LaRouche i løbet af de seneste par dage, har vi nu gen-optrappet og gen-understreget en ny kampagne for dette initiativ. Dette vil omfatte en ny appel; den forrige havde fokus på denne tale til Kongressen. Denne nye appel er lidt mere åben og skal være et nyt samlingspunkt for en national og international kampagne for at få USA til at vedtage dette program. Jeg vil gerne oplæse denne appel. Den vil snarest blive udlagt på hjemmesiden; og alle, der underskrev den aktuelle appel (som var stilet til Donald Trump, -red.), vil omgående modtage den. Så hvis man endnu ikke har underskrevet appellen, så sørg for at gøre det nu. Så vil man være med i vores kampagne og vil modtage opdaterede rapporter – dagligt, ugentligt eller når som helst, der er nye udviklinger i dette spørgsmål, vil man modtage opdateringer. Man vil vide, hvad der foregår, og man vil blive en del af vores orientering for handling.

Vi beder ikke om, at folk bare efterlader et navn og et nummer, og det er så det; vi beder folk om at gå med i kampen. Som man kan se her på skærmen, kan man tilmelde sig; man kan få informationerne via sms på sin telefon, ved simpelt hen at skrive bogstaverne »GSACT« til nummeret 52886. Alene denne handling vil indlede den proces, hvor man kan læse og underskrive appellen og gå med i kampagnen. Hvis man har underskrevet (den tidligere appel, -red.), vil man omgående modtage udgivelsen af vores nye appel, som jeg nu vil oplæse en kopi af, og som meget snart vil blive udgivet. Det nye udkast lyder:

»Præsident Trump og den 115. Kongres: USA har brug for win-win-udvikling; vedtag LaRouches Fire Love og gå med i Kinas Nye Silkevej.

»Underskriverne af dette erkender, at det transatlantiske finanssystem er på randen af en ny nedsmeltning, der er værre end den fra 2007-08. Livsbetingelserne for det store flertal af amerikanere er støt og roligt brudt sammen i løbet af de seneste to årtier. USA’s økonomiske politik har fokuseret på at beskytte Wall Streets spekulative boble i stedet for at beskytte det almene vel og det amerikanske folks fremtidige velfærd. Vi erkender, at der nu må træffes nødforanstaltninger for at komme en ny finanskrise i forkøbet, og for atter at sætte amerikanere i arbejde for at genopbygge vores nation og vores fremtid.

For at opnå dette, anmoder vi præsident Donald Trump og den 115. Kongres om at vedtage og implementere programmet for LaRouches Fire Love for Økonomisk Genrejsning, som en hasteforanstaltning; og at tilslutte sig Kinas program for en Ny Silkevej for globalt samarbejde og storstilede infrastrukturprojekter og økonomisk udvikling.

De Fire Love definerer et sammenhængende program for økonomisk genrejsning, der har sine rødder i det Amerikanske System for økonomi:

  1. Genindfør Franklin Roosevelts oprindelige Glass/Steagall-lov; som adskiller kommercielle udlånsaktiviteter fra Wall Street spekulation.
  2. Vend tilbage til et nationalt banksystem i Hamiltons tradition.
  3. Direkte statslig kredit til projekter og initiativer, der skaber stigende niveauer af produktivitet og indkomster.
  4. Lancér et forceret program for udvikling af fusionskraft og en hurtig udvidelse af vores rumprogram.

USA’s økonomiske genrejsning vil blive meget optrappet, hvis USA tilslutter sig den globale udvikling af infrastruktur og den økonomiske renæssance, der strømmer fra Kinas Nye Silkevejsprogram.«

Dette vil altså blive offentliggjort snarest; dette vil være det nye samlingspunkt omkring en appel, men er i virkeligheden en national mobiliseringskampagne om dette spørgsmål. Vi vil gå mere i detaljer med dette, men jeg vil også annoncere, at vi er i gang med at opdatere LaRouchePACs brochure/rapport om præcis dette spørgsmål – LaRouches Fire Love og USA’s tilslutning til den Nye Silkevej. Så i løbet af de næste par dage kan I se frem til udgivelsen af denne nye rapport; den er faktisk et supplement og en støtte til indholdet af denne appel. Og som sagt, hvis man allerede er indtegnet som en del af vores kampagne for appellen, vil man også modtage en annoncering, så snart dette ligger klart.

Vi vil diskutere lidt mere i dybden det nye indhold af denne rapport; men før vi kommer til det, mener jeg, at vi må diskutere modreaktionerne og kampen imod denne politik. Som det er blevet nævnt i noget af dækningen af kampen om Glass-Steagall i de seneste måneder, så indser Wall Street, London og det internationale finansapparat, der faktisk har kørt USA og Obama-administrationen, at Trump er tilbøjelig til at gå i denne retning; og de er rædselsslagne over, at USA skal vælte de seneste 16 års politiske skakbræt og rent faktisk arbejde sammen med Rusland, Kina og andre nationer på basis af gensidig udvikling og gensidigt samarbejde. Dette ville betyde enden på Det britiske Imperium; noget, vi alle ser frem til at fejre. Men de opgiver ikke; der køres en massiv operation imod USA’s præsidentskab, imod Donald Trumps administration; og dette må være et spørgsmål, som vi må yde modstand overfor, hvis vi skal have noget af dette gennemført.

 

(Fortsat engelsk udskrift):

        PAUL GALLAGHER:  Well, we're right now in the middle of a
fight in which it's become very well exposed that the past
President of the United States, Barack Obama, is trying to
overthrow the President who has just gotten elected.  This is the
situation.  He is not alone in this, quite obviously.  We've put
out a dossier recently on the collaboration between George Soros,
his money, his foundations, his forces around Europe in
particular, and the Ukraine revolution — which they pulled off
— and the attempt to do the same thing to Trump here in the
United States.  This is now becoming more exposed.  On the one
hand, the {New York Times} has just run an article today making
clear that the Obama administration took extraordinary actions in
its last days in order to disseminate what had been classified
information and make sure that it was widely spread throughout
the government; that its classification was lowered, and that the
National Security Agency's limitations on distributing its
intercepts against communications of all kinds, that the barriers
against its distributing this throughout other parts of the
government, other parts of the intelligence community were pulled
down so that — as some people called it — the "breadcrumbs"
which supposed represented Trump campaign team collaboration with
Russia would be everywhere.
        The {Daily Mail} in London today runs a story with an
unnamed source who they say is an Obama family friend, which says
that they have been told that Obama personally intends to lead
the drive until it's successful to get Trump removed from office,
either by impeachment or by resignation.  And that this is
something to which he was persuaded by a number of people,
including Valerie Jarrett; who stayed in Washington and set up
with Obama in that Kalorama mansion in Washington DC for that
purpose.  Obviously, the one other country in the United States
and Europe where this kind of furor to attempt to undo the
election has been in Britain; a furor both to try and undo the
Brexit vote and to try to undo the Trump election, although in
the rest of Europe as well, a lot of the elites are hysterical
against the Trump Presidency and are even calling for his
assassination.  This has gone even to the chief editor of {Die
Zeit}, one of the leading "liberal" newspapers in Europe, who —
on national television in Germany — suggested that Trump might
be assassinated.  What he said has been quite typical of exactly
that liberal elite.
        Now, what we're dealing with here is that voters around the
world, the public in nations around Europe, including Eastern
Europe and the United States, to a certain extent in southern
Asia, have been voting to reject the entire era of globalization
and deindustrialization of the last 30 years.  They've been doing
that for good reason, because it has lowered their living
standards, lowered their productivity, and has emasculated
government which otherwise would have been investing in their
manufacturing sectors and investing in their infrastructure; it's
prevented them from doing that.  It's produced a truly dismal era
of economy in which there was a crash unlike any since 1929-1931.
Why?  Because this era of industrialization produced tremendous
levels of debt, tremendous build-ups of debt relative to economic
product; and the securitization of that debt in order to try to
wave hands and say that that total debt build-up was not a
problem, securitizing it all.  When it reached the point of
securitizing unpayable debt in the US real estate household
mortgage sector, it blew up the entire global banking system as I
said, in a way not seen since 1929-31.

        DENISTON:  It's something we've never actually recovered
from.

        GALLAGHER:  Since that time, we have not recovered; we have
been characterized by rates of economic growth to 1% to 1.5%
throughout the Obama administration in the United States; 0% to
0.5% and in some cases negative growth for the entire period
throughout Europe.  The only way in which this globalization
elite in the United States, Britain, and Europe has kept itself
together, has been by trying to assert military dominance and the
right to overthrow governments anywhere in the world, and by
declaring virtual war against Russia in order to maintain a
situation of extreme hostility both to Russia and to China.  Why?
Because in China, in Asia more generally but in China in
particular, the alternative to this terrible stagnation which
voters have been rejecting in all these countries; that
alternative has been clearly emerging in the rates of investment,
overcoming of poverty, real progress, technological and
scientific leadership coming from China, and other Asian nations
to a significant extent as well. So that if we see now, all of a
sudden, the Democratic Party in the United States has become,
apparently, a McCarthyite policy, where…

        DENISTON: The Red Scare's back.

        GALLAGHER: … Yeah, where Schumer sits up there and says,
"Let me ask you, sir, have you ever, in any time in your past
life, known a Russian? Have you ever been in a room where a
Russian was present?" Where the Minority Leader of the Senate and
Leader of the Democrats in the Congress has turned into Joe
McCarthy, this is the reason. It's not his background as a
McCarthyite. It's this absolute refusal to accept the rejection
of this 30-year period of globalization, de-industrialization,
impoverishment of populations in the United States and Europe,
and throughout Eastern Europe.
        Just so that people understand what's going on here. In
every Eastern European government which has recently rejected,
or, the voters have elected it, to reject the bankers' socialism
of the European Union — in every one of those countries, the
same kinds of efforts with demonstrations, protests, funded by
George Soros, the same kind of effort to overthrow those
governments which have just been elected, is going on in
Macedonia, in Romania. Obviously it happened in Ukraine. In

Bulgaria, in all of these countries. In the attempts to fix the
French election, to knock out anybody in the French election who
isn't in this bankers' socialism league, by prosecuting them in
the middle of the election campaign — everywhere this is
happening at the same time.
        That's what we're seeing in the United States, but I think,
as the President said in the tweet, which I don't remember if you
mentioned at the outset, but what he said today about this latest
crazy Sessions business. Sessions, a senior member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, talked to the Russian Ambassador.
That's his job! And that's the Russian Ambassador's job, is to go
talk to him! And it was his job, as senior member of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, to talk to him! These are
absurdities, and, as President Trump said in responding to this
today, "The Democrats are overplaying their hand." They are so
desperate to find a way to reverse this entire movement
throughout the United States and Europe and Eastern Europe and
places like the Philippines; and, again, put Russia under the
pressure of confrontation again, develop a complete hostility and
encirclement of China. They're so desperate to get this back that
they've now, as he said, overplayed their hand, descended into
absurdity.
        What clearly was represented in the most recent speech that
he made, is that, as you said, he is open to this kind of thing.
It's ironic: the President, Trump, even before he was even
inaugurated, met with the Prime Minister of Japan. This is not
exactly an unusual thing — that an incoming President's team
would be meeting with foreign leaders. He met in New York with
the President of Japan in early January for the first time.
        In these countries, there is the obvious offer of what you
pointed to, there, that the United States can join a New Silk
Road which for three years has been the announced foreign policy
of China — the "win-win" policy of China. This economic belt
across Eurasia with rail lines of all kinds being built; and the
maritime belt going through the Indian Ocean, the Suez Canal, up
from Southern Europe into Central Europe, again, with ports, with
railroads, with power development. This all is effectively an
offer to the United States and it's an offer in the area where
President Trump and his team are clearly weakest. That is, how to
do what they're aiming for, which is to really get economic
growth and progress going in the United States for the first time
in decades. They are very weak on how to do that. This New Silk
Road policy, coming from Asia, in particular from the powers of
Asia, offers them a simple way to break through and do that. And
that's why we're seeing this hysterical apparent McCarthyism on
the part of the Democrats who made themselves into effectively a
party of war with Russia, and containment and potential war with
China. Not exactly what their voters wanted them to be at this
point either.
        I think we're in a situation now where it's become against
their wishes. It's become an extremely open political situation
for us to move with this idea of the United States joining the
New Silk Road, and using the actions that we call the Four Laws
of LaRouche, using those actions in order to do it.

        DENISTON: Bill might have more on this, but I think this
discussion is critical, because part of this whole "color
revolution" process in the U.S. is just this insane party-line
bickering. It really is surface level. If you're out there
talking to the American people, and you're out there talking to
people that voted for Trump or voted for Sanders or didn't vote
at all, there's a {clear}commonality in line for this program,
that permeates America as a whole.
        The idea of trying to get people caught up in this red vs.
blue, party-line debate on these issues, is really paper-thin on
the surface when you get to the actual substance. I know Bill's
been doing some work in the Midwest, the area where he's
centered, where you see a lot of this patriotic American
tradition coming back to ferment, in line for this kind of
program. Part of what we really have in this report that's going
to be coming out, is a further elaboration of what the United
States can do in this program. We can have all the kind of high
speed rail we need, we can have the water we need, we can the
power we need, we can have quality jobs for the American people.
Anybody who wants a quality job can get it. We have the program,
and it really is critical to organize on this level to get
support for this, to get this thing through.
        So, Bill, I don't know if you want to comment on the content
of the report, or some of the work you have been doing out there.

        ROBERTS: I would tend to agree with Trump that the Democrats
are really overplaying their hand on this question of demonizing
Russia, because the Democratic Party, a lot of Democrats don't
really like this idea that we're going to revive the Cold War
right now. I think this demonization of Trump on this Russia
question has tended to create, in Republican's minds, much more
of an openness to collaboration with Russia. Some of the
Republicans — they would tend to be the Heritage Foundation
types, the {Wall Street Journal} reading types — are probably
tending much and much more so to see that this is just a crazy
McCarthyite revival going on right now.
        A lot of Americans are simply going to reject {everything}.
This is what we saw in the election. People are going to tend to
reject everything that's been associated with the last 16 years
of the Obama and Bush administrations. We're seeing this develop
more clearly in terms of what Trump talked about in his address
to Congress. It was a very clear repudiation of this post-9/11
Bush "clash of civilizations" policy; that we {don't} represent
the world. We're not going to go abroad "searching for monsters
to destroy."
        I would say, one of the more interesting aspects of Trump's
address to the Congress, was this reference to Lincoln; not just
the reference to the protectionist policy — which, in its own
way, is part of the Hamilton credit system — but actually the
reference to the 1876 Centennial Celebration. He said we have the
250-Year Anniversary of the country coming up, and as they did
when the 100-Year Anniversary of the United States was being
planned, we should be thinking about the future; we should be
thinking about what kind of breakthroughs that {we} can create
that will represent real accomplishments, and work to get above
party divisions on small things. In this sense, he very much set
a kind of Lincolnesque and FDR tone in this discussion.
        But it's interesting that he referred to the 1876 Centennial
Exhibition in Philadelphia, because this was a real inflection
point of the spread of the American System to countries that the
British Empire had to later work very hard to turn against one
another. Japan, Germany, Russia — under the influence of Henry
Carey. China. The first half of the 20th Century was typified by
wars that the British, in manipulating these great nations that
had been influenced by the policies of the Lincoln American
System. And then, of course, in the second half of the 20th
Century, you had the Cold War. You had the British moving in
after the death of Roosevelt, to divide the war on the basis of
East vs. West.
        I think this reference to going beyond parties, looking at
the principle of this country, identifying a certain kind of
Promethean quality, is good; and you're going to have Americans
tend to become optimistic about returning to a space program.
You're going to have Americans obviously agree with the necessity
of building infrastructure; Glass-Steagall.
        But, there's definitely a limit there at the same time.
These potentials are obviously frightening to the Establishment
and represent something that they are clearly in a last-ditch
effort to try to destroy through this Obama/Soros/McCarthyist
revival. However, in terms of how you actually unleash a
Promethean economic environment, both culturally and in terms of
real increases of productivity, that is the principle that ties
Glass-Steagall to the issuance of credit and the way in which the
breakthroughs, the products of the human mind as a result of
those policies, bring about the upward transformations in
productivity. That's really uniquely something that no one
besides the LaRouche movement has worked through and developed a
very clear policy program for.
        I would just say that there are a number of rallies coming
up this weekend — pro-Trump rallies across the country. Keep an
eye out for notifications that we will be getting out to people
who have signed the Glass-Steagall petition. We will be
organizing a whole series of activities across the country in
support of activities to bring the Four Laws to this American
constituency, to this highly-energized American constituency that
is looking for solutions. I would urge people to find these
rallies and get on the megaphone, get on the microphone at these
events. Call up your city council, call up your state
representatives. This is a sort of unique situation in which
there is a kind of proper repudiation of the failed policies of
Obama and Bush — the geopolitics and so forth — but without a
real conception of how to replace a monetarist thinking in
economics with the kind of Promethean concept which Mr. LaRouche
has spent his life developing, this will certainly not come into
fruition. You will not see, it will not be possible for the
United States to find its place in terms of the unique role that
we have to play now in joining the New Silk Road in the future of
mankind. So, I would just urge people to be extremely active in
the next couple of days in finding ways to inject this unique
conception of LaRouche's Four Laws into the discussion process;
and I guarantee people will be in the state of mind of wanting to
work through and master these ideas, because it's really a
life-and-death question.

        GALLAGHER:  Bill, I know that you did some organizing
directly with meetings that were taking place in the course of
this contest for who would be the new chairman of the Democratic
Party.  Some of them took place out there in your area.  That's
another matter in which it has become exposed just in recent days
that the person who initially seemed to be supported by most of
the party — Rep. Ellison of Minnesota — had put up against him
by the direct solicitation of Obama and Biden, Obama's former
labor secretary; and Obama, Biden, and others then did a lot of
telephone calling in order to make sure that this former labor
secretary, Perez, would beat Ellison and take over the chair of
the Democratic National Committee.  This was another instance of
what's been going on.  But I know that you saw that this was
something which was definitely non-partisan and definitely wide
open when petitioning at those meetings to decide the leadership
of the Democratic Party.  We found at the same time that at all
sorts of meetings, from the collaboration we had with people who
had supported Bernie Sanders in Ohio, all the way to the CPAC
convention — the conservative side of the Republican Party —
that people were signing these petitions specifically to get the
Glass-Steagall introduced again.  I think the total that we had
gathered, together with that parallel effort by people in Ohio,
it was certainly in the range of no more than 6-7000 signatures
overall; and yet, they were used by the key Congressmen and
-women who introduced Glass-Steagall back on February 1st, just
about a month ago.  Marcy Kaptur, Tim Ryan, Tulsi Gabbard, and
Walter Jones; they had those petitions when they had their press
conference introducing HR709, which is the current House
Glass-Steagall bill.  It has now gotten 30-some co-sponsors.
        Also, while that petition campaign was going on — again it
may seem modest — but while it was going on, we were also
contacting state legislators and state senators, particularly in
the so-called Rust Belt, the formerly industrial part of the
country.  The result of that, just in the month of January, is
that I think Ben, it's actually 15 if you count states in which
both houses introduced this; that resolutions in support of what
we're calling an American Recovery Program, which was essentially
the outline of the Four Laws.  Glass-Steagall; Hamiltonian
national bank; credit for high-technology infrastructure; and
space and fusion development.  Those resolutions went into nine
states — and I'll just mention, in three states, they went into
both houses during January; that was Rhode Island, Minnesota, and
Washington state.  In six other states, they went into either the
House or the Senate.  I'm sorry, Illinois is the fourth state in
which they were in both houses; it has already been passed in the
Illinois House, and introduced into the Illinois Senate.  Then
there were other states in which it went into just one house: the
Alabama House, the Iowa Senate, the South Carolina House, the
Mississippi House, the New Mexico Senate.  In addition to that,
there were three other states where resolutions simply naming
Glass-Steagall and calling on Congress to pass the Glass-Steagall
Act were introduced: Delaware, Virginia, and Maryland — where
there was a hearing this afternoon actually for which I prepared
testimony on that resolution, HJ4 in Maryland, calling on its
Congressional delegation to pass Glass-Steagall.
        So, this development which has occurred during January and
February while we've been on this petition and organizing drive
on a bipartisan basis, is also wide open or open-ended; because
anyone who has been a part of that, even just to sign the
petition, even online, anyone who has been a part of that from
any of those states or any other states which have come close —
particularly Ohio, New York state — these states are still in
session.  Anyone can make it their project with their state
legislator, to make sure that he or she co-sponsors this
resolution and contacts whatever Congressmen he usually deals
with.  And these state legislators do, so that we can really make
these legislatures in these Rust Belt states in particular, make
them boil with this campaign for the Four Laws, for the actions
that have to taken to be able to join the New Silk Road
development.  If we're doing that at that level, at the same
time, it's going to have a big impact on the Congress.  So, I
just wanted to point that out.

        DENISTON:  I think that's exactly the kind of initiative
that's going to continue and grow with this new petition, this
new campaign escalation.  And I think people should have no other
priorities at this point; we have this issue which is the
economic life or death of the United States, and we have — as
Paul, you mentioned — more material coming out on this whole
colored revolution policy.  I was glad you went through some of
the details; this is, I think, at least for generations, an
unprecedented level of attack on a US Presidential administration
from within.  It reminded me of some of the treasonous actions
that were done right before Lincoln came in, to try and set up
the South and their split for the Civil War before he came in as
President; just this outright treasonous sabotage of an incoming
administration; but the way we're going to cut through it is this
kind of mobilization.  Again, I would point people to also the
upcoming release of our new report, which will have a more
in-depth presentation of the principle of this recovery program.
And going also back to what Bill was saying, this is really the
way we're going to capture the spirit, the soul of the American
people again, by this returned commitment to the future
development, the future growth of our nation.  And getting people
rallied around the fact and out of this pessimism and cynicism
that just settled in over so long with Bush and Obama
emphatically; but going back even further, we've had this
terrible zero-growth economic policy that's affected people much
more deeply than they realized.  So getting a real, true
realization that we can again return to this level of growth;
just the basic idea that every generation is going to be a
revolutionary advance in the living standards, in the
opportunities, in the growth of the science, the capabilities of
mankind.  If people really get a sense that that's possible, that
that's what's represented by China's leadership in this New Silk
Road program, this returned orientation to space; I think that
will give people the level of fight they need to get this thing
through.  The kind of things Paul was just presenting in terms of
the top-down, Federal level, local level, also municipalities,
labor organizations; all of these groups should be organized and
we should just throw this party crap out the window.  It's an
issue of what is your commitment to the principles and the
policies the nation needs at this point.  If we can continue to
rally people around that, then we'll have a basis to actually get
this thing through and give Trump the support he needs to go with
these initiatitives that he's talked about.
        So Bill, I don't know if you have anything you want to add
from some of your work there.

        ROBERTS:  I would just point out that state representatives
and these local and state elected officials, these are the people
that the Congress goes to.  Because the Congress is inside the
Beltway; they're the most affected by the insanity of these last
two Presidents.  But the local elected officials, the state
representatives, these are the guys living through the drug
epidemic, the violence, the mass unemployment, the 94 million
Americans who are outside the workforce that Trump referred to in
his speech this past week.  Those are the constituents; those are
the people that these local representatives live with.  So, I
think these are the types of people to get to.  Radio stations;
this is the way we can effectively now very quickly make
LaRouche's Four Laws as much of a household word as
Glass-Steagall is.

        GALLAGHER:  Well, we also have other fronts that are going
to be dealt with specifically in the pamphlet.  One is the issue
of — which again, Trump brought up in the address to Congress —
of large-scale infrastructure development.  If you look at the
ground level of it, it appears that there's no direction there;
there was a meeting of the various members of the Cabinet
yesterday — and other staff.  But it was run by a Goldman-Sachs
guy, Gary Cohen.  But there was effectively an administration
meeting on infrastructure legislation; starting to move to
introduce legislation for this idea of a trillion-dollar
infrastructure bank.  At the same time, you have on the
Democratic side, already legislation which has been submitted.
But there is a complete barricade there in terms of knowing how
to finance it, knowing what the really transformative
infrastructure developments like a national — not East and West
Coast — but a national, 25-30,000-mile network of high-speed
rail and maglev rail.   This is nothing futuristic; this is
simply China.  This is exactly what they're building.  They're
building local subway lines now, local metro lines with maglev
technology in China, and putting them into operation.  So, if
you're going from the Bronx to lower Manhattan, on your 25 or 30
stops, you'd be going in between those stops in a completely
smooth and frictionless drive at up to 60mph in between each
stop.  Having already done this on the level of intercity, and
having already gone far to linking every city in the country —
and China has a very large number of significant cities —
linking every single one of them with true high-speed rail; now
they're down to the level of the subways and maglev metro
systems.  But this is the kind of thing that produces tremendous
increases not only in productive employment, but productivity.
        This idea has to be put into the discussions of
infrastructure in the United States, and so do Japanese and
Chinese methods and investments have to be put into this idea of
rebuilding the infrastructure of the United States.  They don't
have that idea now.  What's getting underway seems hopelessly
limited by the lack of any real idea of how to do it.  On the
other hand, you have the President talking about the 2026 250th
anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence as
a horizon point to which people should look; and think about how
the economy, the infrastructure, as he said, are "footsteps on
distant worlds is not too much to hope" in that 9-year period of
time.  Giving people a horizon to look at what actually {could}
be transformed during the period of the next decade.  That's the
kind of thing that puts Americans into the right state of mind in
thinking about being more open politically, being more open in
terms of what they think is possible.  In that sense, he
definitely did contribute to defining the right solutions which
he and his team clearly don't have at this point, in order to
make this kind of trillion or multi-trillion dollar
infrastructure bank investment work.  The same is true with
space; where there is clearly discussion in the administration —
and in NASA as a result — of trying more quickly to put
astronauts in orbit around the Moon, preparatory to beginning the
re-colonization and industrialization and development of the
Moon.  Something which had been completely wiped aside during the
Obama administration, which clearly wrote this off and said, we
don't need this.  We don't need fancy energy sources like fusion
energy, he said to one backyard group of Democrats in Virginia.

        DENISTON: He said you just need to insulate your windows.

        GALLAGHER:  Yeah, better insulated windows is our future by
the 250th anniversary of our Declaration of Independence.
        So, this is a different view, but one in which we have to
drive to a certain extent from the bottom up, as we've been
doing; as well as discussions with people in Congress and in the
administration in order to crystallize the right idea.  Also, so
that they see that Glass-Steagall, if it isn't passed now, the
next major bank failure — and there are plenty of them waiting
to happen in Europe in particular at any moment — the next major
bank failure is going to take the system down again like Lehman
did and AIG did, ten years ago.  If it isn't implemented right
now, the banks are going to continue not to lend to small- and
medium-sized enterprises which tend to have the new technologies
coming on line; and only to lend to the big bond issuers and the
largest corporations.
        One thing that I pointed out in the testimony today in
Maryland, is that JP Morgan/Chase and Citigroup each only lends
out loans and leases equal to about 65% to 66% of their deposits.
Whereas in the banking system as a whole, it's 80%.  That means
that if you take all the community banks and regional banks
around the country — 6000 of them — their lending is equivalent
to 90-plus% of their deposits.  And yet, this little group of six
or ten banks who control two-thirds of all the deposits, their
lending is very low; and that's going to continue to be the case.
If a real infrastructure development bank gets going, then this
lack of lending to the contractors for all those projects by the
private banks is going to be a real problem.  So, you're going to
have that problem if you don't implement Glass-Steagall now, and
separate out the commercial banks.  And in addition, of course,
we've had now these big banks have — according a report a couple
of days ago — now accrued $321 billion worth of fines since the
crash, for illegal, immoral, and otherwise non-banking despicable
activity; which is the way they've used these deposits.

        DENISTON:  And that's without an actual Pecora Commission or
any serious investigation.

        GALLAGHER:  Without ever a prosecution of a senior banker;
$321 billion worth of fines for violating banking practice and
violating the law.

        DENISTON:  They give them the fines, but they let them keep
doing it; so it makes you wonder if it's a fine or just a cut the
government's taking on the scam or something. That's good; I
think that really ties to the necessity of the Four Laws as a
whole.  To have a functioning banking system doesn't mean
anything without what you were raising about the issue of
productivity and investment.  It really is a question of what are
you doing to facilitate the investment of creating a higher level
of net productivity for the economy as a whole?  A higher level
of scientific, technological state for mankind as a whole?  Which
is something that mankind can uniquely do; that's our character,
to create those kinds of revolutionary advances.  That's the
secret of economics, as Mr. LaRouche has kind of uniquely
developed and discovered in a higher way than I think anyone
before him.
        Anyway, just take that as another teaser for the content of
this upcoming report; because that will be material presented in
there.
        Just to conclude, I would just re-emphasize that anybody who
has not signed on to the petition yet — even the old petition —
please do so; because you'll then be ready to be updated as soon
as the new petition is released, as soon as this report is
released, and any other relevant breaking developments on our
campaign which I think we've discussed rather thoroughly as a
good launch point.  We are in the footing for a rapid escalation;
and that's what's needed right now.  So, I think this served as a
good launch point for some more material we'll have in the coming
days and weeks.
        We thank you for joining us today, and we'll be back on
larouchepac.com with more.

        GALLAGHER:  Can I just remind people, before you sign off,
everybody watching this, that this online petition is still to be
signed.  What we're going to do, we will try then to involve
everybody who's signing it, in what we're going to do immediately
in the next week to ten days.  There are going to be — as Bill
mentioned — pro-Trump rallies tomorrow in quite a number of
places; we're going to be at all the ones we can reach.  In fact,
we're speaking at one of them up in the New York City area.  Then
our own rallies and lobbying both in Washington and in New York
on Thursday, and in other parts of the country next Thursday.
We're going to have rallies before that in New York, and what we
call a Day of Action, when we'll be going after all kinds of
elected officials at the local, state, and national levels next
Thursday.  Everybody who's been involved in this petition
campaign up to now — even if it's only been just to sign — the
targets are there; that's what we indicated.  We can move, and
{must} move, elected officials up to and including those in the
Trump administration in order to break this logjam.  I just
wanted to throw that in.

        DENISTON:  Thank you.  We have a clear path of action ahead
of us.  I encourage everyone to get directly on board with that.
If you want to take more action, email us on the website, get
directly in contact, and volunteer yourself for further action.
We have an action center on the LaRouche PAC website.  If you go
to the front page, you'll see it at the very top there on the top
menu banner.  So get active; get in contact with us there and
let's make this happen.  Let's not sit on our laurels and wait
here.
        Thank you for joining us here today.  Stay tuned for more from larouchepac.com.
 

 

               




Obamas nye desperate taktik dømt
til at mislykkes – Aktionsuge for
LaRouches Fire Love starter 2. marts

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 2. marts, 2017 – Nej, »himlen er ikke ved at falde ned« med de nye anklager, i McCarthy-stil, imod justitsminister Sessions – hvis nogen da ellers troede på, at himlen ville falde ned. Dette er snarere en desperat taktik, der kommer fra Obama personligt, efter den entusiasme, som præsident Trumps tale til Kongressen i tirsdags skabte.

Det er ganske udelukket, at det amerikanske folk vil vælge at følge kursen mod krig med Rusland nu, hvor så mange er blevet inspireret af håbet om en langt bedre fremtid forude.

Alligevel er Obama i færd med at omstille og udrense det Demokratiske Parti for at gøre det til sit personlige instrument for forsøget på at vælte den amerikanske regering. »Dette er præcis sådan, han ville bære sig ad«, sagde Lyndon LaRouche. I optakten til den Demokratiske Nationalkomites valg til formand den 25. feb. opmuntrede Obamagruppen den tidligere arbejdsminister i Obama-administrationen Tom Perez til at stille op mod favoritten, Glass/Steagall-tilhængeren, kongresmedlem Keith Ellison fra Minnesota. Dernæst ringede Obama personligt til medlemmerne af nationalkomiteen om, at de skulle stemme på Perez, og det samme gjorde hans bonkammerat Valerie Jarret, sammen med Joe Biden og andre af Obamas medarbejdere. Perez vandt en smal sejr. Der er nu tegn, der peger på, at Obama vil forsøge at udrense det Demokratiske partilederskab i Texas og Californien for elementer, der ikke vil samarbejde og droppe alt til fordel for hans anti-Trump-korstog.

Obama håber, at brug af tvang i det Demokratiske parti vil forhindre tværpolitisk samarbejde omkring LaRouches Fire Love, som vi så det med Marcy Kapturs pressekonference den 1. feb. for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall. Men her tager Obama fejl, som han gør med så meget. Faktisk vil vi, jo mere, han bruger sin indflydelse for at tvinge det Demokratiske Parti ind på hans plan, så meget desto snarere få mere handling af den art, vi nu har brug for, at se fra Demokrater og Republikanere.

Men selv om dette er vigtigt, så er det kun en mindre detalje i det større billede. Globale udviklinger, der kommer fra Kina og Putins Rusland, har været langt mere afgørende for skabelse af de nye omstændigheder. Hinsides og over alt dette, og som omslutter og former det alt sammen, er selve menneskets natur, som udtrykkes af hele ideen i LaRouches Fire Love, og som bliver eksplicit i hans erklæring i den Fjerde Lov.

Mange af vore senior LaRouche-medarbejdere rapporterer, at de er blevet stærkt påvirket af at læse rækken af Lyndon LaRouches ældre artikler, der, på foranledning af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, på det seneste er blevet udgivet i EIR. Det faktum, at de læser disse artikler, og den omstændighed, at de læser dem NU, får dem til, som aldrig før – eller i hvert fald ikke i den seneste tid – at føle, at de må hæve deres tankegang til Lyndon LaRouches niveau.

Medlemmer bør nu benytte chancen til at se, eller høre, en dybtgående, timelang diskussion med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche med Policy Committee i dag. Ingen improviseret opsummering her ville kunne yde deres argumenter retfærdighed, men vi vil indoptage dem helt i løbet af de forestående timer.

Efter denne diskussion lancerede Policy Committee en »aktionsuge« for LaRouches Fire Love, som begynder i dag, torsdag, med aktivist-telefonmødet torsdag aften, og som vil vare til næste torsdags aktivistmøde.

Der er planlagt arrangementer for weekenden. Næste udgave af vores avis, »The Hamiltonian«, vil udkomme tirsdag. Der vil være arrangementer på Capitol Hill. Der vil være et møde i New York City næste tirsdag. Alle vore kontakter og aktivister vil blive dirigeret mod omgående handling omkring de Fire Love og den nye digitale brochure, der er på trapperne, om disse Love. Yderligere detaljer vil blive kommunikeret på selve telefonmødet tirsdag.    




LPAC annoncerer National Mobiliseringsdag for LaRouches Fire Love

Leder fra LaRouchePAC, 1. marts., 2017 – »Jeg mener, den globale krise kan stoppes; vi må mobilisere for at gøre det«, sagde Lyndon LaRouche, da han vurderede præsident Donald Trumps politik efter hans tale til Kongressen den 28. februar, og de politiske handlinger, der nu må gennemføres, for at gå fremefter. Disse handlinger, som LPAC nu vil gennemføre, omfatter møder, lobbyvirksomhed, appeller og oplysende arbejde, der kræver, at præsident Trump omgående implementerer Franklin Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov som første skridt hen imod USA’s tilbagevenden til et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, der vil muliggøre finansieringen af en genoplivelse af den amerikanske økonomi, med videnskab som drivkraft – med andre ord, LaRouches Fire Love.

Trumps tale til Kongressen og det amerikanske folk den 28. februar opretholdt den internationale proces henimod skabelse af et globalt, nyt paradigme til erstatning for det katastrofale Britiske Imperium og dets politik med spekulation og folkemord – arven efter regeringerne Bush og Obama. Kinas og Ruslands uophørlige aktiviteter omkring opbygning af en Ny Silkevej for hele planeten, spiller fortsat den centrale rolle i dette paradigmeskifte.

I sin tale fremlagde Trump en håbefuld vision for USA’s fremtid, med året 2026, der vil markere denne nations 250 års jubilæum. Han genkaldte højtideligholdelsen i 1876 i Philadelphia, i anledning af hundredeåret for nationens fødsel, og hvor »landets byggearbejdere og kunstnere og opfindere fremviste deres skabelser«. Og han spurgte: »Hvilken slags land vil vi efterlade til vore børn?«, for blot at levere svaret: »Amerikanske fodspor i fjerne verdener er ikke for stor en drøm«.

Trump opfordrede også til at opbygge fred snarere end de nylige præsidentskabers endeløse krige. »Amerika er villig til at finde nye venner og skabe nye partnerskaber, hvor der er fælles interesser« – en klar reference til hans ofte udtalte villighed til at samarbejde med Rusland, Kina og andre nationer, til briternes og Obamas store rædsel.

Præsident Trump understregede ligeledes behovet for at genaktivere økonomien med hjælp fra en protektionistisk politik som den, der blev gennemført af Abraham Lincoln, der, mindede Trump tilhørerne om, med rette advarede om, at »den amerikanske regerings opgivelse af en protektionistisk politik [vil] frembringe afsavn og ødelæggelse for vort folk«. Trump fordømte og omtalte den ødelæggelse, som blev frembragt under Obama og Bush, især ødelæggelsen af bykernerne, og han lovede at vende det omkring.

Men, Trump veg tilbage fra enhver omtale af Glass-Steagall eller et kreditsystem i Hamiltons tradition, som faktisk kræves, for at hans erklærede planer kan blive til virkelighed.

Verden er endnu ikke i smult vande, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche under den omtalte diskussion. Nedsmeltningen, eller ’udblæsningen’, af det transatlantiske finanssystem er umiddelbart forestående; eurokrisen er fuldt ud tilbage på hovedscenen, og selve euroen kunne forsvinde, endnu inden Storbritannien formelt iværksætter Brexit. Det er således ekstremt presserende, at LaRouches Fire Love omgående vedtages af Trump-administrationen, og det er LaRouche-bevægelsens særlige ansvar, på internationalt plan, at sikre, at disse love bliver kendt, forstået i deres dybeste, videnskabelige betydning, udbredes vidt og gøres til landets lov.

Som Lyndon LaRouche skæmtende sagde: »Det er nogle af de bedste love, jeg nogen sinde har vedtaget.«   

Foto: Præsident Donald Trumps første tale om nationens tilstand for Kongressen, 28. februar, 2017.