Vores udsendelse i aften falder i tre dele. De tre dele er naturligvis indbyrdes forbundne, men første del er et klip fra et interview, som vores ven og kollega Jason Ross lavede med Ray McGovern, en CIA-veteran, der har været analytiker i 30 år, og som nu er medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.
Udsendelsens anden del er et klip fra en præsentation af Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der var et gennembrud i Stockholm, Sverige, i går (11. jan.), for et publikum, der bl.a. bestod af et bredt udsnit af det internationale diplomatiske samfund.
Og det tredje indslag i aften forfølger vores igangværende understregning af en intensivering af forståelsen af Lyndon LaRouches økonomiske opdagelser; og det vil omfatte en gennemgang ved Rachel Brown af en artikel, som hr. LaRouche offentliggjorde for nogen tid siden, med titlen, »In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton« (http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2017/2017_01-09/2017-02/pdf/32-42_4402.pdf) , som hun komplementerer med en gennemgang af noget af materialet fra hr. LaRouches opgradering og fordybelse af ideen om, ikke infrastruktur (i sig selv), men om økonomiske platforme. Disse tre dele vil udgøre vores udsendelse for i aften.
For at indlede vores første del, kan vi referere til et indslag på LaRouchePAC’s webside i dag. Titlen er, »The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain, Not Russia« (indholdet er dækket i Tom Gillesbergs indledning til Nyhedsorientering januar, læs: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=17270)¸og det handler direkte om de efterretninger, som vi vil få klarhed over i aften. At de, som virkelig intervenerer i amerikansk politik, ikke er de russiske efterretningstjenester, men snarere direkte er britisk efterretningstjeneste. Det 35 sider lange – hvad man vel må kalde et falsk dossier – om Trumps angivelige forbindelser med Rusland, og som blev citeret af CNN tidligere på ugen i en nyhedshistorie; og som dernæst blev offentliggjort eller lækket af Buzzfeed. Det afsløres nu, at dette blev forfattet af en fremtrædende, angiveligt pensioneret MI-6-efterretningsmand ved navn Christopher Steele; han blev først hyret af operatører fra det Republikanske Parti, der var modstandere af Trump i primærvalgene, og som dernæst blev hyret af Hillary Clintons kampagne for at udføre politisk kontra-research om Donald Trump. Det skulle bruges, ikke som en efterretningsfil, men til at tilsværte Trump under valget. Så dette er slet ikke en efterretningsrapport, som den blev præsenteret for at være af visse amerikanske medier, der lækkede den; men den var snarere blot en politisk misinformationsfil, der, som vi ser, kommer direkte fra britiske efterretningsoperatører. Nyvalgte præsident Donald Trump brugte igen her til morgen twitter til at udfordre dette. Han sagde: »Det viser sig nu, at de falske anklager imod mig blev sammensat af mine politiske modstandere og en mislykket spion, der er bange for at blive sagsøgt. Totalt fabrikerede fakta fra foragtelige politiske operatører, både Demokrater og Republikanere. Falske nyheder. Rusland siger, at der intet findes; det er sandsynligvis udgivet af ’efterretningstjenester’, vel vidende, at der intet bevis findes, og aldrig vil findes.«
Det, der står klart, er, at efterretningssamfundet har erklæret krig mod USA’s nyvalgte præsident, der vil blive indsat om under en uge fra i dag. Dette er en situation uden fortilfælde; og briternes rolle er klar, som det ses af denne mand, Christopher Steele. Som jeg sagde, så, på trods af den narrativ, at det skulle være russerne, der kører en eller anden enorm indflydelses-kampagne for at forsøge at intervenere i og influere de amerikanske valg, så begynder det at se ud som om, at den virkelig misdæder her, var briterne.
Med denne indledning vil jeg nu gerne vise et klip fra interviewet med Ray McGovern. Som sagt har han 30 år som CIA-veterananalytiker bag sig; han var i sin tid ekspert i Rusland eller Sovjetunionen, da han var dér. Han var ansvarlig for at udarbejde nationale efterretningsestimater, og en daglig brief til præsidenten. Efter sin tid i CIA blev han medstifter af en organisation ved navn Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, der nu har omkring 50 medlemmer, pensionerede efterretningseksperter, der for nylig udstedte en erklæring, der satte seriøse spørgsmålstegn ved den narrativ, der blev offentliggjort om russisk indflydelse og russisk hacking. Hele interviewet vil være tilgængeligt fra søndag (15. jan.), på LaRouchePAC websiden og LaRouchePAC YouTube kanalen; og vi har udlagt andre uddrag af dette interview hen over de seneste par dage. Det uddrag, vi bringer her, er begyndelsen af interviewet, der blev udført af Jason Ross, med hr. Ray McGovern.
Jason Ross: Det er den 10. januar, 2017; jeg er Jason Ross fra LaRouchePAC. Vi er meget glade for i dag at have Ray McGovern med os i studiet, en veteran, der har været i CIA i årtier, og som i 2003 var medstifter af Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Mange tak for at være med os i dag, Ray.
Ray McGovern: I er meget velkomne. Jeg er glad for at være her.
Ross: Lad os springe direkte til ét af de store spørgsmål, vi hører så meget om i medierne i øjeblikket – spørgsmålet om den angivelige russiske hacking af de amerikanske valg. Jeres gruppe, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, udstedte en pressemeddelelse den 12. december, der sagde, at alle beviser pegede på en læk snarere end et hack. Siden da er to rapporter kommet frem; en fra DHS (Department of Homeland Security) og en, der hovedsagligt er forfattet af ODNI, Director of National Intelligence, og som siger, at her er beviset. Vi ved, Rusland gjorde det. Det var tvivlsomt, hvor brugbar denne rapport var. Og for et par dage siden var du så medforfatter af en kronik i Baltimore Sun sammen med William Binney, hvor du gentog dit standpunkt; at alle beviser peger på, at dette er en læk snarere end et hack, og under alle omstændigheder er der ikke blevet fremlagt nogen beviser for, at det skulle være et hack. Hvorfor har du dette standpunkt?
McGovern: Først må jeg sige noget om Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. Vi oprettede vores organisation, da vi så, at vore kolleger – de kolleger, vi havde arbejdet sammen med – havde ladet sig forlede til at skabe, til at fabrikere efterretninger med det overlagte formål at franarre vore valgte repræsentanter deres forfatningsmæssige, særlige rettigheder til at erklære eller på anden vis bemyndige krig. Det var før Irak; og det kan ikke blive værre.
Bush, Cheney og de andre sagde alle sammen, »Åh, det var en frygtelig fejltagelse.« Det var ikke nogen fejltagelse; det var slet og ret bedrag. Da vi så dette finde sted, dannede vi en lille gruppe – vi var fem til at begynde med – og vi begyndte at gå offentligt. Vi udgav tre memoranda før krigen, hvor vi advarede præsidenten. Vores første memorandum blev udgivet samme dag, som Colin Powell (udenrigsminister 2001 – 2005) holdt sin tale – den 5. februar, 2003 – og vi gav ham et C- for indhold. Og vi advarede præsidenten (George W. Bush), »Efterretningerne bliver manipuleret, og de bør virkelig udvide kredsen af Deres rådgivere«, sagde vi mod slutningen, »til at omfatte andre end dem, der tydeligvis er opsat på at få en krig, for hvilken vi ikke kan se, der skulle være nogen tvingende grund, og de utilsigtede konsekvenserne af hvilken sandsynligvis vil blive katastrofale.« Den kendsgerning, at vi havde ret, fryder os ikke; der var et par andre personer, der sagde det samme, men der var ingen, der kom igennem til de etablerede medier.
Hvis vi spoler lidt frem, så ser vi, at de daværende NSA-folk ikke alene var rystede over, hvor mange penge, der blev smidt ind i programmer, som de vidste, aldrig ville virke; men de var også oprørte over et billigere program, som de selv havde udarbejdet – som blot kostede $330 mio. at indføre. Det andet program, som general Hayden støttede, kostede $3 mia. med et ’b’; så der var ingen sammenligning. Bortset fra, at det ene ikke fungerede; det gjorde dette her. Grunde til, at jeg nævner dette, er, at dette havde masser af beviser for, hvad der ville ske under 11. september; det lå i det. De gik tilbage og så efter; de lukkede dette hovedprogram ned, og da Tom Drake, som stadig var ansat der, gik ind og så efter, så fandt han masser af beviser, der ville have – hvis det var blevet omdelt – forhindret 11. september. Så man var dobbelt oprørt, og Bill Binney havde været teknisk direktør i NSA før han trådte af kort tid efter 11. september. Han tilsluttede sig så os, som så mange andre vidunderlige folk har gjort; og da dette kom på nettet online, dette her med den russiske hacking, så var det mest naturlige for mig at sige, »Hej, Bill. Vi har brug for et memo fra dig; vi har brug for, at du laver et udkast. For du designede de fleste af disse systemer, og du ved, hvad Ed Snowden har afsløret. Disse billeder? De ser virkelig interessante ud for os, men vi har brug for nogen, der kan gennemgå dem for os.« Så sagde han, »Helt i orden«. Så gav han os et udkast, og det, vi typisk gør, er, at vi cirkulerer det blandt de fem, seks eller syv personer, der har særlig interesse i det, eller særlig erfaring; og mellem os fandt vi ud af det rigtige. Vi var én af de første, der kom ud af starthullerne og sagde, »Jo, dette er en spand (lort)! Hvorfor? Af tekniske grunde.« Der var masser af andre grunde, men nogle folk – til deres ære, mener jeg – de er teknisk orienteret, og de vil vide, »Er dette muligt? Kunne russerne have gjort dette?« Svaret er, »Ja, men NSA ville have vidst besked med det.«
Det er chokerende, Jason, det er chokerende. Men NSA sporer alle e-mails på denne planet. Hvis disse går til udlandet, så har de samarbejdende tjenester og regeringer. Ikke blot seks, men de har 13 af dem. Hvis de går igennem USA, så får de dem; hvis de kommer udefra, får de dem alle. Og de kan spore dem; de har disse her små sporingsmekanismer forskellige steder i netværket. Så de ved, hvor hver eneste e-mail kommer fra, og hvor den ender.
Føj hertil den jernovervågning de har af den ecuadorianske ambassade i London, hvor Julian Assange er; og jeg er sikker på, at de overvåger hans kolleger også, uanset, hvor de er. Lad os nu sige, de russiske hack, og de fik det frem til Julian, og til en af hans medarbejdere. »OK, russere er virkelig dårlige mennesker«, siger folk; »Vis os meddelelserne.« »Åh, det kan vi ikke; vi har ikke meddelelserne. Men vi kigger på det.« De fik så præsidenten til, før han tog på ferie på Hawaii, at pålægge sanktioner, baseret på disse flygtige beviser, som de ikke kan vise os. Disse memoer – min første reaktion var at le ad dem, men det er meget sørgeligt at se, hvad efterretningssamfundet er blevet til; meget, meget sørgeligt. For dette er et vigtigt spørgsmål.
Hvad gjorde præsidenten så? Han slog ned på sanktioner; han smed 35 diplomater ud. Alt sammen ud fra hvis udsagn? John Brennans. Hvordan fik så New York Times al denne information? John Brennan. Det ved vi, fordi Wall Street Journal blev lidt sur over det, og de siger, »Ja, det er John Brennan, der taler med de andre fyre; han taler ikke med Wall Street Journal.« Hvad har vi så? Vi har en præsident, der tager en chance på lemfældigt grundlag og forårsager en endnu større fare, mere aggressiv kritik, flere spændinger i vore relationer med Rusland. På baggrund af hvad? Lad mig sige det sådan; jeg vil måske sige det sådan: Jeg sad og så på nogle YouTube-klip; og jeg faldt over et af Christiane Amanpour, der sendte fra London. Hun er i færd med at interviewe Lukyanov, en af de russiske guruer. Hun siger, »Hr. Lukyanov [imiterer Amanpours stemme] De siger, at der absolut ingen beviser er, ingen, siger De. Jamen, når der ikke findes beviser, hvorfor har USA’s præsident så smidt sanktioner på Rusland?«
Ross: Den er god.
McGovern: Jeg husker, at jeg fik stillet det samme spørgsmål omkring masseødelæggelsesvåben. [Imiterer igen Amanpours stemme] »Hr. McGovern, hvis De siger, at der ikke findes beviser for masseødelæggelsesvåben, hvorfor startede Bush og Cheney så en krig mod Irak?« Tja, svaret er det samme, det samme! Det er virkelig et dårligt flashback, for det, de må gøre, er at komme frem med beviserne. Det er min stærke opfattelse, at det vil de ikke gøre; ikke pga. kilder og metoder, men fordi, der ikke findes nogen.
(Engelsk udskrift af hele webcastet):
The Crucial Point Is that Our Common Interest As Mankind Is Man's Progress
LaRouche PAC Friday Webcast January 13, 2017
MATTHEW OGDEN: Good evening; it's January 13, 2017. My
name is Matthew Ogden, and you're joining us for our regular
Friday evening webcast from larouchepac.com. I'm joined in the
studio today by Megan Beets from the LaRouche PAC Science Team;
and via video by two members of our LaRouche PAC Policy Committee
— Michael Steger, joining us from San Francisco, California; and
Rachel Brown, joining us from Boston, Massachusetts.
We have a three-part show for you today. The three segments
will obviously be interrelated, but they will feature first a
clip from a feature interview that our friend and colleague Jason
Ross did with Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA professional analyst
for 30 years, and now the co-founder of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity. We have a second segment which
features a clip from a breakthrough presentation that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche made in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday to an
audience comprised of a large cross section of the international
diplomatic community. And then a third segment tonight which
pursues our ongoing emphasis on deepening the understanding of
Lyndon LaRouche's economic discoveries; and that will include a
review by Rachel Brown of a paper that Mr. LaRouche published a
while ago, called "In Defense of Treasury Secretary Alexander
Hamilton", complemented by a review of some of the material from
the last few years of Mr. LaRouche's upgrading and deepening of
the idea of not infrastructure, but economic platforms. So, that
will be our three part show from this evening.
To begin our first part, I think that we can refer to an
item that's posted on the LaRouche PAC website today. The title
of that is, "The Foreign Power Corrupting US Politics Is Britain,
Not Russia"; and this goes directly to the intelligence that
we're getting clarity on today. That the ones who are in fact
interfering in US politics, are not the Russian intelligence
services, but rather, directly, British intelligence. The
35-page — I guess you could call it dodgy dossier — on Trump's
supposed connections with Russia that was cited by CNN earlier
this week in a news story; and then published or leaked by
Buzzfeed. This is now being exposed as being authored by a
prominent supposedly-retired MI-6 officer, a man named
Christopher Steele; who was hired first by Republican Party
operatives who were opposing Donald Trump in the primaries, and
then was rehired by Hillary Clinton's campaign to do political
opposition research on Donald Trump. To be used not as an
intelligence brief, but to politically smear Trump in the
election. So again, this is not an intelligence report at all,
as it was represented by certain US media outlets that leaked it;
but rather merely a political disinformation brief, coming
directly from, as we see, British intelligence operatives.
President-elect Donald Trump took to twitter again this morning
to call this out. He said, "It now turns out that the phony
allegations against me were put together by my political
opponents and a failed spy afraid of being sued. Totally made-up
facts by sleaze-bag political operatives, both Democrats and
Republicans. Fake news. Russia says nothing exists; probably
released by 'intelligence', even knowing there is no proof and
never will be."
What is clear is that the intelligence community has
declared war on the President-elect of the United States, who is
due to be inaugurated in less than one week from the present
moment. This is an unprecedented situation; and the role of the
British in this is clear, as can be seen by the role of this
character Christopher Steele. As I said, despite the narrative
that the Russians were running some huge influence campaign to
try to interfere and influence the American election, it's
beginning to look like the real culprit here was the British.
With that said as a matter of introduction, I'd like to play
a clip of this interview that we did with Ray McGovern. As I
said, he's a 30-year veteran analyst with the CIA; he was a
Russia or Soviet Union specialist at the time he was there. He's
responsible for preparing national intelligence estimates and the
Presidential daily brief. Now, since his time at the CIA, he has
become the co-founder of an organization called the Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, which now has about 50
members, retired intelligence specialists who recently put out a
statement seriously calling into question the narrative being put
out about Russian influence and Russian hacking. The full
interview will be available beginning on Sunday on the LaRouche
PAC website and the LaRouche PAC YouTube channel; and we have
released other excerpts of this interview over the past few days.
This excerpt you're about to see is the very beginning of the
interview, which was conducted by Jason Ross, with Mr. Ray
McGovern.
JASON ROSS: Hi! Thanks for joining us. It's January 10,
2017; I'm Jason Ross here at LaRouche PAC. We are very happy to
have in the studio today Ray McGovern, multi-decade veteran of
the CIA and the co-founder in 2003 of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity. Thanks very much for coming today,
Ray.
RAY McGOVERN: You're most welcome; I'm glad to be with you.
ROSS: So, let's jump right into one of the big issues that
we're hearing about so much in the media today — the issue of
purported Russian hacking of the US elections. Now your group,
the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity released a
press statement on December 12th, saying that all evidence
pointed towards a leak rather than a hack. Since then, two
reports have come out; one from the DHS and one primarily
authored by the ODNI, the Director of National Intelligence,
saying here's the proof. We know Russia did it. The report was
of questionable usefulness. Then just a few days ago, you
co-authored an op-ed in the {Baltimore Sun} with William Binney,
where you restated your position; that all evidence points toward
this being leak rather than a hack, and in any case, evidence of
a hack is not been presented. Why do you take that position?
McGOVERN: Well, I need to tell you something about Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity first. We established
ourselves when we saw that our colleagues — the colleagues with
whom we had worked — had let themselves be suborned into
creating, into fabricating intelligence for the express purpose
of deceiving our elected representatives out of their
Constitutional prerogatives to declare or otherwise authorize
war. That was before Iraq; and that's as bad as it gets.
Bush, Cheney, and the others all said, "Oh, it was a
terrible mistake." It was not a mistake; it was out and out
fraud. When we saw that happening, we formed a little group —
there were five of us in the beginning — and we started
publishing. We published three memoranda before the war, warning
the President. Our first one was on the day of Colin Powell's
speech — the 5th of February, 2003 — and we gave him a C- for
content. And we warned the President, "The intelligence is being
manipulated and you really should widen the circle of your
advisors," we said at the end, "beyond those who are clearly bent
on a war for which we see no compelling reason, and from which,
we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be
catastrophic." We take no delight in the fact that we happened
to be right on that; there were a couple of other people saying
that, but nobody got into the mainstream media.
So, if you fast forward now, you see that the NSA people who
were in place at the time, not only were appalled at how much
money was being thrown at programs that they knew would never
work; but were outraged when they found out that a cheaper
program that they devised themselves — which only cost $330
million to emplace. The other one that General Hayden went for,
cost $3 billion with a "b"; so no comparison. Except that one
didn't work; this one did. The reason I mention that, is this
had plenty of evidence what was going to happen in 9/11; it was
in there. They went back and they looked; they closed that main
program down, and when Tom Drake, who was still employed there,
went in and looked, he found plenty of evidence that would have
— had it been shared — prevented 9/11. So, double outrage
here, and Bill Binney had been the technical director at NSA
before he left shortly after 9/11. So, he joined us, like so
many other wonderful people have; and when this went viral, this
business about Russian hacking, it was the most natural thing for
me to do to say, "Hey, Bill. We need a memo from you; we need
you to do a draft. Because you know, you designed most of these
systems, and you know what Ed Snowden has revealed. Those
slides? They look really interesting to us, but we need somebody
to take us through them." So, he said, "Sure." So, he gave us a
draft, and what we typically do is, we circulate it around the
five or six or seven people who have special interests in that,
or special experience; and we got it right together. We were one
of the first ones off the block saying "Yeah, this is a crock!
Why? For technical reasons." There were plenty of other
reasons, but some people — and I think it's to their credit —
they're technically oriented, and they want to know, "Is this
possible? Could the Russians have done this?" Well, the answer
is "Yes, but NSA would know about it."
Now, it boggles the mind, Jason, it boggles the mind. But
NSA traces {all emails on this planet}. If they go abroad, they
have cooperating agencies and cooperating governments. Not only
six, they have about 13 of them. If they go through the United
States, they get them; if they come from outside, they get them
all. And they can trace them; they have these little trace
mechanisms at various points in the network. So, they know where
each and every email originates and where it ends up.
Now, add to that the ironclad coverage they have of the
Ecuadoran embassy in London, where Julian Assange is; and I'm
sure that they monitor his colleagues as well wherever they
happen to be. So, let's say the Russians hack, and they got it
to Julian, they got it to one of his associates. "Well, OK,
Russians are really bad people," people say; "Show us the
messages." "Oh, we can't; we don't have the messages. But we'll
look at it." Now, they got the President, before he went on
vacation to Hawaii, to impose sanctions based on this elusive
evidence that they can't show us. These memos — my first
reaction was to laugh at them, but this a very sad thing to see
what the intelligence community has become; very, very sad.
Because this is an important issue.
So, what did the President do? He slapped on sanctions;
threw out 35 diplomats. All on whose say-so? John Brennan's.
Now, how did the {New York Times} get all this information? John
Brennan. We know that because the {Wall Street Journal} was a
little ticked off about it, and they said, "Yeah, it's Brennan
that's talking to these other guys; he's not talking to the {Wall
Street Journal}." So, what do we have here? We have the
President going out on a limb, causing even more danger, more
flak, more tensions in our relationship with Russia. On the
basis of what? Well, let me just say this; maybe I'll put it
this way: I was looking at some YouTube clips; and I happened
upon one of Christiane Amanpour, broadcasting from London. She's
interviewing Lukyanov, one of the Russian gurus. She says, "Mr.
Lukyanov, [imitating Amanpour’s voice] you say there's {zero}
evidence, you say {zero}. Well, if there's zero evidence, why is
it that the President of the United States has slapped sanctions
on Russia?"
ROSS: That's good.
McGOVERN: I remember being asked that question about
weapons of mass destruction. [Again imitating Amanpour’s voice]
"Mr. McGovern, if you say there's no evidence of weapons of mass
destruction, why did Bush and Cheney start a war on Iraq?" Well,
same answer; same answer! It's a really bad flashback, because
what they need to do, is come up with the evidence. My strong
view is that they're not going to do that; not because of sources
and methods, but because there isn't any.
OGDEN: Well, as I said, that's part of a much longer
interview, and part of it has already been posted on YouTube
under the title "Sources and Methods Versus National Interests";
and you can expect the full interview to be posted and available
coming Sunday, the day after tomorrow.
But I would like to just use that to invite the other
members of the broadcast here today to just open up a bit of a
discussion on this subject.
MICHAEL STEGER: In all of this discussion, apparently some
people are not pulling back over so-called "Trump's ties to
Russia." What this whole situation now makes clear, is that the
entire attack on the Trump campaign and the President-elect's
policy towards Russia, has been the target explicitly of British
Intelligence the entire time. The report that was released, this
35-page dodgy dossier, starts in June once Trump consolidates the
nomination, essentially, for the Republican Party, and doesn't
stop until mid-December of this just past year. And so, it's
clear that British Intelligence were the ones pushing this the
entire time. It's clear that Christopher Steele was close friends
with now-head of MI-6, Alex Younger. The British media are
panicking. A former Secretary General of the NATO, a British
Lord, came out and said this is a total panic. We could be
sleepwalking into a complete catastrophe.
It's clear the British had an explicit intent to manipulate
the U.S. elections, to fabricate false intelligence on a major
candidate, to drum up a conspiracy — so-called "hacking" by the
Russians to disrupt U.S. foreign policy and U.S. interests —
against the welfare of the American people. To those who know
history, and know Mr. LaRouche's role in the last 40-50 years of
American politics, this role of British Intelligence, includes
people who represented British outlooks, like Henry Kissinger, a
public advocate of British foreign policy against the American
outlook; the British hand, not just in an attempt to destroy and
manipulate the Presidential election and alter U.S. foreign
policy changes, but the direct role of the British in support of
the terrorists in Syria, via Saudi Arabia, and other nations; the
direct role of the British, such as David Cameron, who just
high-tailed it out of Downing Street and the British Parliament,
because he was directly exposed in a fraudulent-led campaign
against Libya; the false intelligence of Tony Blair on the Iraq
war, which Ray McGovern was just referring to.
Besides that, you've got then the international drug trade,
which we documented beginning in the 1970s, with {Dope, Inc.},
and the international drug trade run by Her Majesty, Queen
Elizabeth. Who, by the way, could be on her death-bed; and that
wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
You've got an international drug trade, and international
war program, international terrorism, and, of course, the
Wall-Street/London nexus of international finance, which has run
this absolute cult of financial policy for decades, for
centuries, in essence. This is the same institution which was
responsible for the assassination of Alexander Hamilton, Abraham
Lincoln, William McKinley, the attempted assassination of FDR,
the backing of Hitler. By the way, I think the Russian Embassy
in London made it clear that it was the Brits, such as the
Cliveden set, who were responsible for backing Hitler. That
they're coming out now and targeting the potential policy changes
in the United States, one towards Russia, potentially towards
China — to end the threat of nuclear world war.
They're also attempting to disrupt what could be a very
important — as I think we'll see from Helga Zepp LaRouche's clip
— relationship between the U.S., China, and Russia, on an
economic policy; and, as we know it to be very important that
we'll get to later as well, a fundamental change in U.S.
financial policy. This British nexus is targeting the Trump
campaign and targeting this entire change in U.S. policy. This is
British imperial tactics. This is what they do; they are at the
source of it. If there's going to be a Congressional
investigation of any foreign nations' or foreign agents'
involvement to manipulate U.S. democracy, I think first and
foremost, it has to be the United Kingdom.
RACHEL BRINKLEY: The fact that on page 15 of these 35 pages,
it attacks LaRouche by name, saying that there were Trump
factions travelling to meet with Putin factions, as part of this
alliance in the summer of 2016. They cite LaRouche directly in
this report has having representatives that went to Russia as
part of this discussion; which did not happen. As this was
authored by the British, this is just the British Empire freaked
out about LaRouche's policies taking over, and the potential of a
United States/Russia/China alliance, especially the Russia/U.S.
cooperation.
I think it is notable that if you have the United States,
Russia, and China working together, there's no problem on the
planet that can't be solved. That's an unstoppable alliance. I
think the British are desperate, and that's what we're seeing.
OGDEN: That's exactly what Helga LaRouche presented at this
conference that happened in Stockholm, Sweden just yesterday.
This was an extraordinary conference, and I'm going to play a
clip of her opening speech to you right now. This was a
standing-room-only capacity audience that included 17 diplomats,
a cross-section of the entire planet, including seven
ambassadors. She delivers her analysis of what we've really seen
behind this showdown, as we've been discussing, of the British
and American intelligence establishment vs. the incoming
President-elect. She highlights, towards the end of these
excerpted remarks — and again, this is only an excerpt, in bits
and pieces — the whole speech contains a lot more substance in
terms of what you just said, Rachel.
The motivation behind ending this confrontational policy
towards Russia and towards China, is that if Russia, China, and
the United States were to join, in a grand alliance, around what
is now a concrete policy initiative coming out of China — the
One Belt, One Road, or New Silk Road project — to bring
development to the interior of not only Eurasia, but also Africa
and the North and South America landmass, and were to reorganize
our relations around what's now being called the "win-win"
paradigm among nations — then everything is possible. She
explores a lot of these questions in the {full} speech, which
will be available in video form in just a few hours.
In what you're about to hear, she touches on what must be
done, both strategically and economically, to shape the policy of
this incoming new Presidency. I apologize for the quality of the
audio. It was not the best audio recording, but again, in just a
few hours, we will have the full video that will be available.
This is just a taste:
HELGA ZEPP LAROUCHE (Audio excerpt): … Let me start with
the Trump election. Now, I have in my whole political life, which
is now becoming quite long, several decades — I have never in
my whole political life, seen such hysteria on the side of the
neo-cons, on the side of the mainstream politicians, on the side
of the liberal media, as concerning Trump…. But what was caused
Trump, is that he simply promised end the political paradigm
which was the basis of eight years of George W. Bush and eight
years of Barack Obama, which was a direct continuation of the
Bush-Cheney policy.
And it was a good thing, because it was very clear that if
Hillary Clinton would have won the election in the United States,
that all the policies she was pursuing, including an no-fly zone
over Syria, and an extremely bellicose policy towards Russia and
China, would have meant that we would have been on the direct
course to World War III.
The fact that Hillary did not win the election was
{extremely} important for the maintenance of world peace. And I
think that of all the promises that Trump made so far, the fact
that he said … that he will normalize the relationship between
the United States and Russia, is, in my view {the most important
step}. Because if the relationship between the United States and
Russia is decent, and is based on trust and cooperation, I think
there is a basis to solve all other problems in the world. And if
that relationship would be in an adversary condition, world peace
is in extreme danger.
So from my standpoint, there is reason to believe that this
will happen. The Russian reaction has been very moderate, but
optimistic that this may happen. If you look at the appointments,
you have several cabinet members and other people in other high
posts who are also for improving the relationship with Russia,
such as Tillerson who is supposed to become Secretary of State;
General Flynn, who is a conservative military man but also for
normalization with Russia, and many others, so I think this is a
good sign.
Now, if you look at the reaction of the neo-con/neo-liberal
faction on both sides of the Atlantic to this election of Trump,
you can only describe it as {completely} hysterical. The
{Washington Post} today has an article "How to Remove Trump from
Office," calling him a liar, just every derogative you can
possibly imagine, just on and on unbelievable….
And then naturally, you have the reports by the different
U.S. intelligence services, Clapper, Brennan, Comey from the FBI.
They all put out the fact that that it was Russian hacking of the
emails of the DNC and Podesta which would have stolen the
election, because they would have shifted the view of the
Americans to vote for Trump.
Now, I think this is ridiculous. Not only have many cyber
experts, in Europe but also in the United States, already said
that all the signs are that it was not a hacking but an insider
leak giving this information out, which is more and more likely,
and there's absolutely {zero} proof that it was Russian hacking.
Naturally, what is being covered up with this story is what was
the "hacking" about? It was "hacking" of emails that proved that
Hillary Clinton manipulated the election against Bernie Sanders!
That is not being talked about any more….
The real narrative is that it was the injustice of the
neoliberal system of globalization which has violated the
interests of the majority of the people, especially in the "rust
belt." Hillary Clinton in the election campaign was so arrogant
that she didn't even go to Ohio or some of the other states which
were formerly industrialized. You have to see that the United
States, contrary to what mostly is reported in the Western media
in Europe, is in a state of economic collapse….
[T]here is one indicator which shows if a society is doing
good or bad, and that is if the life-expectancy increases or
shrinks. In the United States it's shrinking for the first time
for both men and women. In the period of 16 years of Bush-Cheney
and Obama, which you can take as one package, the suicide rate
has quadrupled in all age brackets; the reasons being alcoholism,
drug addiction, hopelessness, depression because of unemployment.
There are about 94 million Americans who are of working age who
are not even counted in the statistics, because they have given
up all hope of ever finding a job again. If you have recently
travelled in the United States, the United States is really in a
terrible condition; the infrastructure is in a horrible
condition, and people are just not happy.
So the vote, therefore, the narrative, was that the reason
why Hillary was voted out because she was being perceived as the
direct continuation of these 16 years, and so the attempt to
change that narrative by saying it was "Russian hacking" is
pretty obvious….
I cannot tell you what this Trump administration is going to
be. I think I mentioned the one point, I'm pretty confident
about…. But there are other interesting elements, for example:
Trump had promised in the election campaign to invest $1 trillion
into the renewal of the infrastructure in the United States. That
is very good, as I said, because the United States urgently needs
repair. It will, however, only function if at the same time,
another promise by Trump, namely, what he promised in October in
North Carolina, that he would implement the 21st Century
Glass-Steagall Act, will also be carried out, because the
trans-Atlantic financial system remains on the verge of
bankruptcy. You could have a repetition of the 2008 financial
crash at any moment; and {only} if you have a Glass-Steagall law
in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, what Roosevelt did in
1933 by separation of the banks, by getting rid of the criminal
element of the banking system, and then replacing it by a credit
policy in the tradition of Alexander Hamilton, can you remedy
this situation. Otherwise, you cannot finance $1 trillion in
infrastructure….
OGDEN: Now, Helga continues from there to give a very
inspiring overview of the development projects from the last
three years that have been sparked by the initiative from China
on the One Belt, One Road or the New Silk Road initiative. But
she also gives an incredible history of the founding of the
Schiller Institute and the role and she and Lyndon LaRouche have
played over the last 30-40 years in the fight for a new, just,
international economic and strategic order. A fight which is now
coming to a certain point of culmination at least
internationally; but the urgency of winning this fight here in
the United States is something that she continued to emphasize,
and it's exactly what she ended with there in that excerpt.
Right now, we must have the most urgent mobilization; there
are no excuses for delay from {any} elected representative for an
immediate restoration of Glass-Steagall. We have now launched
and are in the midst of a national mobilization; we've talked
about this on previous broadcasts. But as you can see on the
screen right now, we're circulating a petition which is
collecting signatures; it needs to more rapidly accrue
signatures. But it's accessible at lpac.co/trumpsotu; and again,
this is a petition which originated from some citizen-activists
in Ohio, who are associated with the "Our Revolution" movement,
people who had been associated with the Bernie Sanders campaign
during the primaries. But who have now taken it upon themselves
to rally behind the initiative that LaRouche PAC has led; that we
must have Glass-Steagall, and we must hold Trump to his word,
when he called for a 21st Century Glass-Steagall at that speech
in Charlotte, North Carolina. As I said, this has bipartisan
support, and there are no excuses for delay. The only way this
is going to happen, is if citizens across the United States
decide to participate in this LaRouche PAC campaign and sign your
name onto this petition: lpac.co/trumpsotu — State of the Union.
Now, we did have a day of action in Washington this week.
The Congress is now officially back in session; they've been
sworn in and business is underway. There was participation from
many states up and down the East Coast in person.
Representatives coming in from Virginia, from Maryland, from
Pennsylvania, from Connecticut, from New Jersey, from New York.
But there was also a lot of other participation from across the
country in terms of pressure being put on representatives to meet
with members of the LaRouche PAC. There was a unique
representative from the Manhattan Project, Mr. John Sigerson,
who's the director of the Schiller Institute Chorus in New York
City; who's been participating in some of the recent choral
activities there, including the memorial at the Bayonne, New
Jersey 9/11 Teardrop Memorial, where members of the Schiller
Institute Chorus were joined by the PDNY Honor Guard and the
Honor Guard from Bayonne, New Jersey to honor the tragic loss of
the Alexandrov Choral Ensemble from Russia. This is just one
example of the kind of power that the music program from the
Manhattan Project, from New York City, has been able to play to
shape the political dialogue in the United States and also across
countries. In this case, the potential for a far-improved
relationship between the United States and Russia. So again,
this was a day of action in Washington, DC, but the mobilization
has to continue. We are in a countdown; it's now a 7-day
countdown until the inauguration. Then shortly after that, we
will have the State of the Union; and again, this petition is to
insist that Trump put a premium on highlighting the necessity for
a return to the 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act during that State
of the Union. This has to be one of the number one agenda items
of the first 100 days.
But, let's discuss a little bit more broadly what Helga
LaRouche brought up at the end of that discussion; that
Glass-Steagall is only the first step, and there's a much more
far-reaching and profound approach to a revolution in the
economic policy of the United States that's necessary and which
has been framed by Mr. LaRouche.
STEGER: Well Matt, I think it's important to start with how
Mr. LaRouche initially responded immediately after the Trump
election. His response was that this was global; and I think
that really does capture this. The political process that is
shaping the United States in contradiction to this British
intelligence operation to destroy the United States, is really a
global phenomenon; and I'll get to that in a second. But what
Mrs. LaRouche then touched on in her speech is something that
most Americans are experiencing, but because of that British
intelligence operation, because of this mass-lie campaign that
the American people have been living under; the official lie, in
essence, Orwellian policy that even the Russian Foreign Ministry
now refers to, that Americans have been living in since 9/11.
This has kept them from identifying what is now physically
identified; that the actual quality of life is collapsing at such
rates that life expectancy is now beginning to collapse.
We have officially, you might say, entered into a Dark Age;
a mini-Dark Age has begun in the United States. Now, this can be
reversed. But the level of drug addiction has more than tripled
under Obama's Presidency; the level of opiate addiction, the
abuse of drugs like marijuana has skyrocketed under an
Obama-supported legalization campaign. Which is of course,
backed by the same drug cartels which are providing the financial
backing to the banking institutions. This was Obama's program.
You've seen a massive level of homicides and crime and murder
rates escalating in severely impoverished areas, including
Obama's so-called "own neighborhood" of the South Side of
Chicago. This level of breakdown has never been seen in the
history of the United States; and it is only characteristic of
societies which are beginning to utterly break down. Long-term
survival is not even a question; what's at immediate risk for an
increasing majority of Americans is short-term survival. That's
what you see when you have decreasing life expectancy rates,
increasing numbers of people are dying faster and faster; largely
from things like alcohol addiction, drug addiction, diseases
related to despair, suicide and so on.
That's where Glass-Steagall comes in; and this is what
really has to be captured. And why it's not simply
Glass-Steagall, but the full Four Laws. I think Megan and Rachel
can say more, because we're currently working on a project to
make this clear. But the role of fusion and the space program
really captivate the fourth law in what direction our country has
to take to reawaken a sense of optimism, a sense of development
within the American culture. To break out, not just of disrepair
— breaking down of bridges, bad roads — we all know the bad
roads and highways, especially on the East Coast. But that's not
what we have to emerge from. Building better roads isn't
escaping from the clutches of a Dark Age; something greater has
to capture the real spirit of human identity and creativity.
Now, this is why it's so important to identify this global
phenomenon; because the steps of the Four Laws: Glass-Steagall
immediately; shut down this Wall Street banking cartel and
basically a drug operation. The second is the public credit of a
national banking system, which Paul Gallagher elaborated last
night; we could say more on. To consolidate, aggregate the US
debt that exists, as well as other financial resources towards
the most important projects of development for the country; the
most advanced levels of infrastructure, or the broader physical
platform of industry and production. And of course most
importantly, the fusion and space program.
This phenomenon globally is just somewhat breathtaking; and
Mrs. LaRouche touches on it directly. The Transaqua project in
Africa is something that we've been promoting for decades; this
is something which begins to take the sub-Saharan area of Africa
from the great lakes near the eastern part of Africa towards West
Africa and Nigeria, up into the southern border of the Sahara
Desert. It begins to look at how we use major infrastructure
projects of water transportation, the refilling of Lake Chad, and
the development of this central African area. There's also a
major rail line, which is not initiated — it's been inaugurated;
it's now running from Ethiopia to the coastline of Djibouti.
This rail line is one of the key continental rail passages that
the Schiller Institute and {EIR} have been fighting for, for
decades; to begin to integrate the full potential of Africa's
people and its resources and its industrial capacities into an
integrated economic breakthrough. A real shift in the
productivity and lifestyle and scientific potential of Africa.
Those things are now unfolding; these are coming from largely
Chinese investments, Chinese engineering companies are directly
onboard.
The same is true from another project, and I think it's
worth just highlighting, because we have gotten reports recently
that it's practically shovel-ready. This is Kra Canal. All this
contention over the South China Sea that everyone's heard about;
and the Americans remain, I'm sure, still somewhat confused.
What's the big deal about a couple of islands in the South China
Sea? As the President of the Philippines said, we're not going
to eliminate humanity over a couple of fishing spots in the South
China Sea. The real question is the Kra Canal; this is something
explicitly that the British Empire has prevented by diktat, to
shut down. Matt, you and others have been involved in video
production specifically on this project and the role of the
British to shut this down over centuries to eliminate this
project. The Chinese have said that they are ready to begin the
development of the Kra Canal. The Thai government, with a new
king, seems favorable; the military, the prime minister seem
favorable. The question of Japan's collaboration is something
that goes back to the 1980s; with Mr. and Mrs. LaRouche directly
involved in this project. The people we worked with then, in
Thailand, are again promoting and advocating for its initial
construction today.
So, these projects are transformative. We've gone through
more on that; I'm not going to give the layout of these projects.
But there are major development orientations taking place that
are gripping mankind. There was an offer today, apparently, in
the {Hindu Times} in India from a Chinese journalist, which said
"Will Donald Trump Participate in the Silk Road Conference in
China?" I think that really is the potential which we've got
today.
So, the Glass-Steagall fight, this question of the United
States deciding that we're going to build our nation again, we're
going to shut down this Wall Street racket and take on this kind
of potential; that's really what has to be ignited. And there's
no reason Donald Trump should not take that up at the
inauguration and the State of the Union.
BRINKLEY: Right! And on this question of the murder policy
of Obama, there's an attempt now to cover it up and make him the
cute President and Joe Biden getting an award. No, this is
flat-out murder, and if this mass movement across the world is
properly educated, it won't be stopped.
So, there was discussion recently around infrastructure, as
Helga brought up, from Trump. It's still not to the level of
LaRouche's conception of infrastructure. For example, here's
what Speaker Paul Ryan said about infrastructure: "In the spring
budget, we believe we will be able to address the infrastructure
issue." The chairman of the Republican study committee, Mark
Walker, says "I don't know that we've settled on $1 trillion. If
it's $1 trillion in infrastructure, that is something we'd have
to say, 'There's a portion of this that we're not comfortable
with and come back to the table.'|" And then Sam Graves, the
head of the Transportation Subcommittee, says "We just simply
can't afford it," adding that "It can't all be done through
public-private partnerships as the President-elect is talking
about."
They're still looking at this as an issue. LaRouche
developed this concept. Helga LaRouche made the point that 2017
should be the year of the rejuvenation or flourishing of
LaRouche's ideas. He wrote a paper in 2010 called, "What Your
Accountant Never Understood; the Secret Economy". He goes
through a universal history of the greater concept of
infrastructure. He starts with the question of transoceanic
travel; navigation across the oceans. He says, "For example,
look back to the approximately hundred-centuries of the Earth's
last great glaciation. While some part of the human population
had remained mired in the habits of life of some fixed,
relatively narrow regions free of glaciation, great transoceanic
maritime cultures were also developed. The requirement of a
stellar mapping for navigation for the existence of maritime
cultures, gave us the stellar notion of the efficient existence
of a functional form of an ontologically-actual universe; as
echoed by such great residual artifacts as the Great Pyramid of
Giza, and by the physical science of spherics. Now, into this
so-called Platonic long cycle, into the Pythagorean predecessors
of Plato."
So, you have the concept of how to travel on an ocean. How
do you navigate? By the stars. How do you map the stars? On a
flat plane? No, you find you have to use a spherical map; so the
beginning of this spherical foundation of a physical science of
the Universe was discovered. This was applied to navigate the
oceans. He says from there it goes on to the idea of inland
travel, not just oceanic, but inland via internal waterways. He
says this you saw developed with Charlemagne first. He says,
"Charlemagne's reforms served as a precedent for the development
and role of the great internal system of rivers and canals, which
provided the crucial steps toward modern European economy, and
the application of the same reform within our United States.
Those inland waterways prepared the leap toward the revolutionary
US trans-continental railway systems. First, inside the United
States; and in turn, the trans-continental rail systems of
Eurasia." So, this was John Quincy Adams uniting the country
with waterways and with the rail systems. He was the first to
fully unite the United States as a single territory. This was
followed by Bismarck in Germany and Mendeleyev in Russia. That
was the next advancement.
Then he says, "Now, the prospect of the combined effect of
magnetic levitation mass transport systems and rail, which will
connect the principal continents of the world, would render most
ocean transport of freight technologically obsolete; because the
modern successor of ordinary internal rail transport will have
rendered much of ocean freight technologically, and therefore
economically, obsolete." We are starting to see the beginnings
of this with things like the North-South transport corridor from
India to Iran to Russia; which cuts off the maritime route by
making it 40% shorter. There are also new rail lines developing
between China and Europe. The first train of which, for example,
just went from Beijing to London, starting January 1, 2017; the
first time ever in history. There are 39 various routes now
between China and Europe; inland rail following the route of the
old Silk Road, but with modern rail. As LaRouche says, if you
have high-speed magnetic levitation rail, that would be even a
further advancement.
Next, he says, "Changes such as those, illustrate a general
principle which will be expressed in certain nearby Solar System
locations. Now, we're going to go to the next step, such as our
Moon and Mars, when they will have come to be considered later,
as within the bounds of our presently still-young, new century's
plausible instances of work and habitation. Typical problems to
be overcome for the purpose of human transport and dwelling in
nearby solar space, and later beyond, must look to such future
developments already foreseeable for later in the present
century. We should then recognize that the development of basic
economic infrastructure had always been a needed creation of what
is required as a habitable development of a synthetic, rather
than a presumably natural, environment for the enhancement or
even the possibility of human life and practice at some time in
the existence of our human species."
So, he's bring up, one, this long-term conception; he says
later, three generations — 75 years — should be our orientation
for space. We have the questions of habitation and transport as
fundamental challenges; and this is the idea of the next phase.
But in general, also this last question of synthetic versus
natural; that these various new modes of habitation and travel
were based off of new discoveries that created a whole new
platform of existence, of habitation, of travel, where mankind
could reach through these advances. And those were all creations
of the human mind in the likeness of the Creator. Infrastructure
is not just making a bridge or something to get from here to
there; it's the question of a new advancement, of a new principle
that is applied throughout your entire society. So, it's not an
add-on to your economic policy as Paul Ryan was saying. "We'll
get to that; we'll figure out how to fit it in the budget." It's
the beginning of your notion of economy.
MEGAN BEETS: Yeah Rachel, I think what you just put forward
here from Mr. LaRouche's overview and what you were just saying,
it's a way of thinking that most Americans have forgotten about.
People have lost touch with the kind of big thinking about long
sweeps of human history, and I think that that way of thinking —
the idea that we can consider 50-100-year cycles of human
progress in general — flies in the face of the biggest British
Empire lie which has dominated for some time. The idea that
human growth is bad; human progress is bad; population growth
destroys the Earth and it's bad. We have to hold back
technological progress; we have to go backwards. Instead of
towards nuclear power, we have to go backwards towards solar
power, wind power; and reduce our impact and our presence on the
Earth. That lie is exactly what's being threatened with both the
rise of the New Paradigm being led from Eurasia and the
potentiality of Mr. LaRouche's ideas; which are really the most
advanced version of the American System ideas of Hamilton,
Franklin Roosevelt, and Lincoln, of putting the creative power
and really the responsibility of the creative human mind to
change nature. To alter nature to better support human life;
alter the biosphere to higher levels of productivity, as we do by
improving agriculture, for example.
I just think that what you're bringing up here really is the
crucial point; that our common interest as mankind is man's
progress. That right now dictates that we can't accept anything
lower than a long-term dedication to the highest forms of
technological advance and growth; which is nuclear fusion power
and its companion, a space program. The colonization of the Moon
and eventual colonization of Mars. That would really be a
beautiful renaissance expression of the American people working
with the rest of the world towards the uplifting of humanity
toward our real, true potential.
OGDEN: Well, as I said, we are going to continue the
discussion of the substance — this was, I think, crucial Rachel;
because it's exactly what you're saying. This insight into the
real meaning of something which has become banalized —
infrastructure; that's the key to all of economic science. If
humanity is going to make the shift into the next phase of our
global existence as a species, it's only going to be possible if
we have a flourishing of this kind of philosophical understanding
of the science behind real, true economics. It's a critical
ingredient of the ability of humanity to move forward. So, I
think we're going to continue this; and there are a lot of
interrelated works that Mr. LaRouche authored over the last
several years which explore this concept of the real meaning of
infrastructure, the idea of the economic platform, and the role
that Hamiltonian credit should play in facilitating all of that.
So, that said, that's the crucial insight and understanding
that you need to fight with us right now for the necessary policy
revolution here in the United States. This all revolves around
the initiation of Lyndon LaRouche's Four Economic Laws. Michael
went through them, but it's Glass-Steagall, number one. We need
to return to Hamiltonian national banking, number two. We need
an initiation as Franklin Roosevelt did it, of Federal credit
using that Hamiltonian national banking system to raise the
productive powers of labor of the workforce as a whole. And this
all has to be driven by a dedication to the breakthroughs in
science; most especially right fusion and space exploration.
So, there are two things that you need to do before this
program ends tonight. Number one, you need to immediately sign
the petition that's being circulated by LaRouche PAC. Again, the
address is: lpac.co/trumpsotu — all one word — trumpsotu for
State of the Union. If you've already signed this, then it's a
great opportunity for you to spread it to your entire network and
help us reach the goal. We've set the goal of 10,000 signatures
on this petition. We are increasing the number of signatures,
but it has to increase at a much more rapid rate. It's a perfect
opportunity to help us increase the outreach of the LaRouche
Political Action Committee. Then, number two; immediately
subscribe, if you haven't already, to the LaRouche PAC daily
email list. For two reasons: 1. in the 7-day countdown between
now and the inauguration, you need to have the daily marching
orders and the daily updates. This is a very fast moving
situation, as you can see from the intelligence situation that we
presented at the beginning of this show. Then after that, in the
critical first days of the new Presidency, as things change very
rapidly, you need to have the insight that only LaRouche PAC can
uniquely provide you. And then, another reason is, as we develop
more crucial and unique, exclusive content like what you got a
taste of here today, especially this interview with Ray McGovern,
the veteran CIA intelligence analyst and the co-founder of
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, you will receive a
notice in your email inbox and this is material that you can't
afford to miss. You really need to know as soon as we publish it
and as soon as we make it available. So again, you can look for
the full interview that Jason Ross did with Ray McGovern to be
posted on the LaRouche PAC website and our YouTube channel on
Sunday, the day after tomorrow. And you can also look forward to
the full speech that Helga Zepp-LaRouche delivered at this very
important, breakthrough diplomatic seminar in Stockholm, Sweden.
So, thank you very much for tuning in tonight. I think this
was a successful broadcast, and I'd like to thank Megan, Rachel,
and Michael for joining me in the discussion. Please stay tuned
to larouchepac.com and good night.
De kan i stedet igangsætte en mobilisering for at redde økonomien og nationen: for en genindførelse af Glass-Steagall; skabelse af en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, til produktiv kredit; byggeri af ny infrastruktur på teknologiens fremskudte grænser – såsom højhastighedsjernbaner og magnetiske svæve-jernbaner – i hele landet; genindførelse af NASA’s missioner til Månen og Mars og det dybe rum, og forfølgelse af gennembrud i fusionsteknologier.