Nyhedsorientering maj/juni 2017

18. juni, 2017 – Schiller Instituttets 4 mand store delegation fik skabt en del opmærksomhed ved at synge tostemmig kanons, som fik mange mennesker til at stoppe op, og vi uddelte Schiller Instituttets Nyhedsorientering, der handler om den historiske konference i Beijing, “Bælte & Vej Forum”. På vores plakat stod der, »Fremtiden ligger i Kinas Bælte & Vej«, med et billede af infrastruktur, der binder verden sammen.

Vi deltog i debatmøder, hvor vi kunne stille relevante spørgsmål. Vi uddelte over 900 eksemplarer af Nyhedsorientering og kom i samtale direkte på stedet med mere end halvdelen af de mennesker, der tog vores materiale. Vi har bl.a. talt med folk, der har været i Kina og er meget begejstret for den udvikling, der er i gang dér. Mange af de mennesker, vi talte med, kunne huske os fra før. En dame kom op til os og sagde, »Det er jo jer, der har talt om Silkevejen, før det blev til Kinas politik«. Hun var meget imponeret over, at Kina har vedtaget den Nye Silkevej, og hun tog vores materiale med stor interesse. En bornholmer stoppede op, da han kendte os fra før og i mange år havde støttet os. Han var glad over at se, at hans støtte har båret frugt.

Vores sang fik mange mennesker til at komme op til os. Mange stoppede op for at lytte, fordi, som nogle sagde, det varmede deres hjerte. Flere klappede og andre kom op til os for at rose os for at synge så dejligt.

Den første dag var det hovedsaglig sang og uddeling; de andre dage deltog vi i flere debatter og blandede os med spørgsmål.

På Folkemødets anden dag deltog Schiller Instituttets repræsentanter i et politisk møde, der fandt sted i Akademikernes Hus, organiseret af DJØF’erne. Emnet var »Verdensordenen efter Trump og Brexit«, hvor Mogens Lykketoft (S), Storbritanniens ambassadør til Danmark Dominic Schroeder og USA’s fungerende ambassadør Laura Lochman talte.
Diskussionen var meget baseret på den forandring, der er i gang omkring den kendsgerning, at Donald Trump er blevet valgt til præsident, hvilket Mogens Lykketoft ikke var så glad for. Mogens udtrykte mest sin bekymring for, at USA har trukket sig ud af Paris-klimaaftalen, og at Trump ikke vil samarbejde med Kina. Vi benyttede muligheden for at stille nogle spørgsmål.

Feride på Folkemødet 2017

Feride I. Gillesberg fik stillet første spørgsmål, hvor hun bl.a. sagde:

»For en måned siden var der ’Bælte & Vej Forummet’ i Beijing, hvor USA havde en særlig udsending, Matthew Pottinger.  Konferencen skulle konsolidere Kinas politik for Bælte & Vej, der omfatter hele verden; ikke kun Kina. Bælte & Vej er allerede nu omkring 30 gange større en Marshallplanen (for Europa efter krigen). Den amerikanske præsident er åben over for samarbejde omkring det. Det andet, vigtige spørgsmål er samarbejdet med Rusland … De amerikanske medier har kørt en kampagne for at begå karaktermord på præsidenten, lige siden han blev valgt, i bl.a. New York Times, og med et teaterstykke, ’Julius Cæsar’, der spilles i New York Central Park, og som går ud på at myrde den amerikanske præsident. Der er et billede i omløb, hvor præsidenten har fået skåret hovedet af … Scenen er sat til at myrde præsidenten. Det gamle paradigme med Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, briterne, MI6 og de britiske imperialister vil have en unipolær verden. Den nye præsident er åben over for en multipolær verden … Medierne skulle jo netop dække, at det, præsidenten vil, er en positiv, og ikke en negativ ting.«

Derefter blev der taget tre andre spørgsmål, hvor Lissie Brobjerg fra Schiller Instituttet kom til som den sidste. Hun understregede følgende i sit indlæg:
»Lyndon LaRouche siger, at kuppet mod Trump vil føre til generel krig; hvad skal vi gøre for at forhindre det, således at Trump kan opbygge USA og skabe samarbejde med Rusland og forhindre en verdenskrig og skabe fred?«.

Lissie Folkemødet 2017

Ordstyrerne prøvede at underspille de to kontroversielle kommentarer. Den fungerende britiske ambassadør sagde straks, at han ikke har tænkt sig at svare på 90 % af de ting, der blev taget op i diskussionen.
Mogens Lykketoft, der stod og sagde, han er bekymret over Trumps forhold til Kina, ignorerede totalt, hvad der blev taget op; han skiftede emnet tilbage til den gamle verden med Paris-aftalen og klimaforandring.
Vi delte på dette debatmøde vores Nyhedsorientering ud til flere deltagere, der gerne vil læse vores materiale.

Kort efter fik vi mulighed for at tale på »speakers corner«, der er et åbent forum til korte taler, som Bornholms Tidende organiserer, så andre holdninger end de officielle også kan komme til udtryk.
Feride I. Gillesberg fik ordet og benyttede chancen til at fortælle om den historiske konference, »Bælte & Vej Forum«, der fandt sted i Beijing.

»Vesten burde deltage i det paradigmeskifte, som »Bælte & Vej Initiativet« repræsenterer for udvikling af hele verden. Det er kampen mellem på den ene side dem, der vil have en unipolær verden og dem, der er for en multipolær verden. Obama, Hillary, MI6 og det Britiske Imperium kæmper for at bevare den gamle, unipolære verdensorden. Det er årsagen til angrebene på den amerikanske præsident, som skal stoppes. I stedet skal vi tilslutte os det nye paradigme.«
Feride sluttede talen med at synge den kinesiske sang, »Kangding Lovesong«. Flere af tilhørerne ville gerne læse Nyhedsorientering om Bælte & Vej Forum, og en mand kom senere op til os for at sige, hvor bevægende den kinesiske sang var.

Schiller Instituttet fik mulighed for at deltage i en anden debat med Rasmus Jarlov (Konservativ; formand for Folketingets Forsvarsudvalg), Nick Hækkerup (næstformand, Socialdemokratiet) og Marie Krarup (Dansk Folkeparti) om »Truslen fra Øst«. Der var 80 mennesker til stede. De to førstnævnte mente, at Ruslands Putin var en trussel, og at han havde manipuleret det amerikanske valg, hvilket sidstnævnte ikke mente. Alle mente dog, at der var brug for øget forsvar.

Lissie Brobjerg fik det første spørgsmål:

»Hej, jeg er Lissie fra Schiller Instituttet. Trump siger, at han vil samarbejde med Rusland, da han ønsker at forhindre en atomkrig, og han sagde til et NATO-møde, at han ikke betragter Rusland som sin nummer 1 fjende; skulle vi ikke hellere samarbejde med Rusland i stedet for at opspinde historier om, at de vil erobre verden? Det var jo faktisk Obama, som støttede neonazister i Ukraine og væltede regeringen«.

Dette skabte tumult, hvorefter Lissie refererede til Stepan Bandera-folkene (i Ukraine). Marie Krarup tog Lissies spørgsmål op. Bagefter uddelte vi vores Nyhedsorientering til deltagerne, der var interesseret i at læse vores materiale.

Christian Folkemøde 2017

Christian Olesen fra Schiller Instituttet talte efter debatten med Rasmus Jarlov, der under debatten havde beskrevet begivenhederne i Ukraine fra en meget propagandistisk vinkel. Christian sagde til Jarlov, at han havde et meget unuanceret syn på Ukraine, hvortil han svarede, »Det kan man altid sige, når man ikke har nogen argumenter«! Til det svarede Christian, at de søde og venlige demonstranter, Jarlov havde beskrevet, havde brændt folk levende i Odessa. Det fik Jarlov til at vende ryggen til og skynde sig væk.

Til en debat ved Femerns venner, hvor man diskuterede fremtidsperspektiverne for tunnelen (Femern Bælt-forbindelsen), fik Lissie Brobjerg det første spørgsmål:

»Hvad tænker I om ideen om, at Danmark går med i Kinas Nye Silkevej? De vil forbinde hele verden med store infrastrukturprojekter, højhastighedstog, tunneller og broer, og projektet er nu 30 gange større end Marshallplanen.«

Responsen fra den ene taler var, at hvis Kina havde stået for tunnellen, havde den allerede været færdig i går, men at, i Danmark har vi dog en demokratisk proces, hvilket han foretrækker. Flere mennesker kom bagefter op til Lissie for at få en Nyhedsorientering, inklusive ordstyreren og den anden taler, der glad modtog en Nyhedsorientering.

Feride diskuterer

Den tredje dag på Folkemødet begyndte med et debatmøde, der fandt sted i Enhedslistens telt over emnet, »Russerne kommer«. Talerne var lektor ved Forsvarsakademiet Peter Viggo Mortensen, forfatter Jens Jørgen Nielsen og Nikolaj Villumsen (Enhedslisten). Man diskuterede faren for krig med russerne. Jens Jørgen forsøgte at give deltagerne en idé om, hvordan russerne tænker, mens de andre analyserede Rusland baseret på, at Rusland agerer ud fra stormagtspolitiske interesser.

Feride intervenerede blandt andet ved kort at fortælle om den historiske konference, der fandt sted i Beijing, og om, at Europa ikke ’skyder sig selv i foden’. Rusland har tilsluttet sig et samarbejde med Kina omkring Bælte & Vej Initiativet, som Vesten aktivt burde være en del af. Feride tog spørgsmålet om NATO’s rolle op, om det ikke er en forældet institution, og at man skal forstå, at Rusland har set, hvad der er sket med de nationer, hvor man har lavet regimeskifte, der har efterladt lande i kaos og elendighed; og at russerne ser Vestens politik, med regimeskifte i Ukraine og udvidelsen af NATO, i denne sammenhæng.

Lissie fik nummer to spørgsmål og sagde:

»Trump har gjort det klart, at han vil samarbejde med Rusland, og der har allerede været en koordinering med russerne. Effekten har dog været, at New York Times og britiske medier skriver om en mulig afsættelse af eller mord på Trump, og flere Hollywood-skuespillere har været ude og fremvise Trump med et afskåret hoved eller er kommet med voldelige udtalelser imod ham. Ligger faren for 3. Verdenskrig ikke nærmere i faren for, at briterne/ Obama/ Hillary og FBI skal lykkes med at få ham afsat, da de ønsker krig med Rusland?«

Den sidste del af debatten handlede om, hvordan man kunne løse konflikten mellem Rusland og Vesten. Peter Viggo Mortensen indrømmede blandt andet, at politikken for regimeskifte har slået fejl, og at den Nye Silkevej er en naturlig udvikling, som lande vil gå med til. Den anden del af diskussion handlede om løsninger. Da fik Christian det sidste spørgsmål og pointerede blandt andet, at en del af løsningen ligger i, at man begynder at tale ærligt omkring, hvad Rusland er og gør, bekyndende med, at Rusland ikke invaderede Ukraine.

I en debat hos Informationen, »Will Trump Last the Entire Presidential 4 Year Period?«, talte den tidligere amerikanske ambassadør til Danmark, Rufus Gifford, om sandsynligheden for, at Trump kunne blive afsat gennem en rigsretssag (impeachment) gennem det 25. Forfatningstillæg, eller evt. selv gå af. Han mente ikke, at det var sandsynligt, omend han ønskede det. Hvis en rigsretssag skal være mulig, kunne det være pga. ’forhindring af udøvelse af retten’ (obstruction of Justice), men ellers skulle man bruge kræfterne på demokraternes mærkesager. 300 mennesker deltog, det foregik i centrum og den generelle konsensus var, at Trump er forrykt. Lissie kom op til ambassadøren bagefter og sagde, at Lyndon LaRouche havde sagt, at, hvis Comey og Co. lykkedes med et kup mod Trump, ville det føre til generel krig, og at briterne var efter Trump, fordi han vil samarbejde med Rusland, medens Obama derimod forsøgte at starte en atomkrig med Rusland. Han skyndte sig blot væk efter at han blev noget chokeret over det, Lissie sagde.

Vi intervenerede også i et andet møde med titlen »Atomkraft, ja tak! Hvor skal fremtidens energi komme fra?« i Dansk Erhvervs telt. I panelet deltog en repræsentant for Greenpeace, en repræsentant for Århus Universitet og Villumsen fra Liberal Alliance. Kun hr. Villumsen mente, at man måtte søge nye energikilder inden for nye teknologier og understregede, at vindmølle-fanatikerne var religiøse og foruden ræsonnement. Én fra publikum spurgte ind til thorium-reaktorer, hvor Villumsen havde en god respons, mens ham fra Greenpeace ævlede om, at det var dyrt og tog lang tid. Lissie stillede det sidste spørgsmål, hvor hun sagde:

»Nu har vi en situation i verden, hvor man, siden Kinas Bælte & Vej og BRIKS-projektet, er begyndt at bygge en masse atomkraftværker; i Sydafrika har man planlagt 11, Bolivia skal have et atomkraftværk, Kina planlægger at udvinde helium-3 på Månen til fusionsbrændsel, så verdens fremtid er faktisk atomkraft. Skal vi ikke hellere gå med dér, da energigennemstrømningstætheden er meget højere, og med 30 tønder olie har man, hvad der svarer til få gram fusionskraft. Desuden har Henrik Svensmark (astrofysiker) lavet forskning, som viser, at solpletter og kosmisk stråling skaber klimaforandring.«

Repræsentanten fra Greenpeace sagde blot, at ingen tager Svensmark seriøst, og at 97 % af alle klimaforskere er enige. Villumsen svarede positivt og udtrykte respekt for, at nogen tør tage diskussionen op i et sådant forum.
Bagefter delte vi ud til alle, og mange var interesserede.

Alt i alt var vores tilstedeværelse på Folkemødet på Bornholm en fantastisk mulighed for at nå ud til så mange borgere, politikere, akademikere og eksperter med vores ideer, der dækker politik og fremtidens verden med Bælte & Vej Initiativet.

– Feride I. Gillesberg; Lissie Brobjerg; Christian Olesen.

Titelfoto: Feride I. Gillesberg i diskussion med en borger på Folkemødet. På plakaten står der, »Fremtiden ligger i Kinas Bælte & Vej«.

Matthew Ogden: … Jeg vil gerne begynde i dag med direkte at referere tilbage til lederartiklen, der blev udgivet på larouchepac.com sidste lørdag, og som fortsat er meget relevant og har vist sig at haste mere og mere, som ugen er skredet frem. Jeg viser den på skærmen. Som I kan se, var artiklens overskrift, »Lyndon LaRouche: Stop FBI’s bedrageri; Stop kuppet mod præsidenten – Hvad de løgnagtige medier ikke fortæller«

Hr. LaRouche kom med en meget klar advarsel.

Lyndon LaRouche lancerede en appel til det amerikanske folk om at stoppe det igangværende kup imod præsident Trump, som torsdag fik yderligere næring gennem den fyrede FBI-direktør, James Comeys løgnagtige vidneforklaring for Senatets Efterretnings-Udvalgskomite. LaRouche sagde, at kuppet er en FBI-operation, der forsøger at ødelægge USA, og hvis det ikke standses, vil verden stå over for generel krig.

Som I husker, så forklarede artiklen yderligere:

»Den 7. juni afslørede tidligere direktør for Nationalt Efterretningsvæsen, James Clapper, den faktiske motivation for kuppet imod Trump, med bemærkninger i Australien. Han sagde, at Trumps åbenhed over for fred med Rusland – det valprogram, som Trump blev valgt på af det amerikanske folk – i sig selv var totalt imod USA’s sikkerhedsinteresser og i realiteten at sidestille med forræderi. Det var allerede før valget almindeligt kendt i det officielle Washington, at præsident Obama, i aftalt spil med briterne, kandidat Clinton, DNI-chef Clapper, CIA-chef Brennan og FBI-chef Comey, havde styret USA på en kurs for krig med Rusland og Kina, som efter planen skulle aktiveres fuldt ud med valget af Hillary Clinton. I stedet blev Trump valgt, hvilket udløste kuppet, der fulgte.« 

Hr. LaRouche kom med en meget afgørende pointe:

»Præsident Trump har holdt sit løfte og etableret bedre relationer med både Rusland og Kina, der begge søger samarbejde med USA omkring udvikling af verden, baseret på store infrastrukturprojekter. Det er det virkelige, og eneste, spørgsmål her.«

Jeg har gentaget vores reference til denne artikel, for det er en meget afgørende advarsel fra hr. LaRouche, Og som jeg sagde, er den kun blev mere relevant og mere presserende, som ugen er skredet frem. Som I måske har set, udlagde vi også en video på LaRouche PAC’s webside, med titlen, »Stop kuppet mod præsidenten«, som allerede cirkleres temmelig vidt omkring og bør fortsætte med det.

[https://larouchepac.com/20170614/stop-coup-against-President]

Men, præcis som hr. LaRouche advarede om i denne erklæring, jeg netop oplæste, så, hvis denne kampagne mod præsidenten ikke stoppes, kan det føre til meget alvorlige konsekvenser for USA, og for verden.

(her følger resten af udskriftet på engelsk):

Although the very disgusting
propaganda and even direct threats against the life of President
Trump began very early on in his administration — practically
immediately after his inauguration, as we saw with the article in
the German news magazine {Der Spiegel} — over the last week and
a half, we saw a very alarming escalation of such threats in
increasingly explicit form.  Such as comedienne Kathy Griffin
holding an image of President Trump’s severed head, or the
ongoing production of {Julius Caesar} in Central Park which
depicts a caricature of President Trump and his wife, First Lady
Melania Trump.  These threats are serious; they should be stopped
immediately.  They’re very dangerous.  They create the
environment, as is characterized correctly, “a climate of
violence” in which very deranged and disturbed individuals such
as the shooter in Alexandria act out this kind of propaganda and
act on those threats.  Thanks to the Capitol Police detail of
Rep. Steve Scalise, a massacre was thankfully averted at that
Republican baseball practice on Thursday. But responsible parties
in this country must recognize Lyndon LaRouche’s warning that
this coup attempt and this climate of violence must be stopped
immediately, or it will lead to chaos and even general war.
As Mr. LaRouche said later in that same statement, “[I]t is
time for the people to speak and end this disruptive and highly
dangerous attempted coup.”  We are seeing a shifting attitude
among certain sectors of the population around the United States,
due to the very vocal and direct intervention by LaRouche PAC and
the LaRouche movement; including in New York City and elsewhere.
A push-back against this propaganda campaign, including an
increasing recognition that the never-ending, round-the clock
Russia-gate hearings happening practically every day in the U.S.
House and Senate are, in fact, nothing more than a McCarthy-ite
witch-hunt —  President Trump correctly used that term; and have
been ongoing now for several months with unlimited resources
invested in them, and have turned up zero evidence so far.
What the American people {do} want to hear about is not this
fabricated media narrative, but rather how their duly elected
government — be it Republicans or Democrats — but the people
who they voted to represent them plan to solve the truly urgent
life or death issues that are facing the American people every
single day.  Collapsing infrastructure.  As we know, we have the
so-called “Summer of Hell” coming upon us in New York City;
collapsing living standards; collapsing wages; a failing health
care system; epidemic proportions of drug addiction and drug
overdose deaths.  A Wall Street bubble which is about to explode,
which would have consequences worse than 2008.  It’s exactly
those issues which the Trump administration was elected to
address; but the Trump administration must now begin to deliver.
It’s not a question of piecemeal form, a little fix here, a
little bit there, but it’s a national mission which we require
from the U.S. Presidency which will mobilize the American people
in the way that Franklin Roosevelt did; in the way that John F.
Kennedy did that.  Getting this infrastructure project moving in
a very big way and really delivering on this front is crucial for
the President, as we’ve made the point over recent days; not to
mention making good on his campaign promise to restore
Glass-Steagall.  Frankly, if there’s anybody who this President
should be firing right now, it should be this clown, Treasury
Secretary Steve Mnuchin; who is repeatedly going in front of
Senate committee hearings and lying through his teeth that the
Glass-Steagall that Trump was talking about, was not the
Glass-Steagall that was in the Republican platform, is not the
Glass-Steagall that is called the 21st-Century Glass-Steagall.
This has been called out correctly by a number of sitting U.S.
Senators; Senator Warren, Senator Sanders.  But these are
concrete steps which must be taken immediately, if President
Trump is to mobilize the American people and to effectively
counter this mass propaganda assault and recruit the citizens to
mobilize behind the duly elected Presidency of the United States.
One thing that I know we’re going to address in the course
of the discussion in this show today, is Mr. LaRouche’s
{emphatic} point that what we need now is directed, Federal
credit on a massive scale in a Hamiltonian form.  Helga
Zepp-LaRouche has reiterated that point several times in
discussions this week.  What keeps coming up in discussions
around so-called infrastructure, including a major event that
Diane Sare attended up in New York City a few days ago, is this
question of privatization of major infrastructure and funding new
infrastructure through so-called private investment.
As Helga LaRouche said, this is not only grossly inadequate
and will never work, but it is also criminal in fact. As we saw
in the very real criminal privatization after the collapse of the
Soviet Union, the mass privatization of state-owned utilities
there in Russia and the former Soviet countries and privatization
of infrastructure; which plunged the population there into a
demographic collapse and a real dark age while a few criminal
oligarchs looted the entire region. What we need is not that, but
what we need is the American System; as President Trump himself
referred directly earlier during his administration.  That is,
Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln; that is the American System
which built the United States.
What I want to shift to right now, before we get into a
deeper discussion on that, is what Mr. LaRouche also made a very
strong point about in that warning that I referred in the
beginning of the broadcast.  He said the fact that Trump was
elected, triggered this kind of coup from these factions which
had been trying to keep him out of office and escalate the war
confrontation between the United States and Russia and China.
Instead, you’ve seen President Trump reach out to China, continue
to reach out to Russia despite massive pressure not to.  And you
see these countries seeking cooperation with the United States on
developing a new paradigm, a new international system based on
great projects and development.  That is what the underlying
issue here is; and nothing else.  Do not get distracted.
What I want to do right now, before I get into the
discussion with Michael, is to share with you a little bit of
footage; some excerpts from a dialogue that President Putin of
Russia had with the people of his country and also with people
internationally on his annual direct webcast call-in show. This
lasted over four hours.  I’m going to put up on the screen for
you a couple of pictures from these and I’m going to read some
questions and then the answers that he had, because these
statements from President Putin are directly addressing this
question that Mr. LaRouche just raised.  What is the perspective
for a peaceful relationship between the United States and Russia?
So, as you’ll see, this is a picture of President Putin
[Fig. 2]; this was a call-in show where he received questions
live.  This was the first question from an American.  It said,
“Greetings, Mr. Putin!  My name is Jeremy Bowling.  I live in
Mesa, Arizona in America.  I’m a big supporter of you.  I am very
pro-Russian, and I wish you much health and success in your life.
My question to you is this.  As an American who sits here in
America and sees the racist Russian phobia running crazy in my
country, what advice would you give me to help set the record
straight, to help my fellow Americans understand that Russia is
not the enemy?”
President Putin replies: “To begin with, I am very grateful
to you for this call.  I can tell you as the current head of the
Russian state, that I know the attitudes of our people.  We do
not consider America our enemy.  Moreover, twice in history when
we were going through very rough times, we pooled our efforts; we
were allies in two world wars.  In the past, the Russian Empire
played a substantial role in helping America gain independence
and supported the United States.  We see that Russo-phobia is
running high in America, and think this is primarily a result of
the escalating political infighting.  I do not think I have the
right to give you any advice.  I simply want to thank you for
this stance.  We know that we have very many friends in the
United States.  My American colleagues tell me so, and public
opinion polls show the same results.  At any rate, those polls
taken a month ago, show that we have many friends there.  True,
regrettably, such hysteria is bound to affect the frame of mind,
but let me assure you that there are also very many people in
Russia who have deep respect for the achievements of the American
people and are hoping that eventually our relations will get back
on track, in which both we and the United States are extremely
interested.”
So, that was his answer to the first question, and then
coming up next, he had a question from an editor of a
Moscow-based Russian-language newspaper, who also asked about the
same question.  He said “One of the current trends is that
bilateral relations are deteriorating and there is Russo-phobia,
along with daily reports about new anti-Russian initiatives
including sanctions.  At the same time, there is a growing demand
not only for stabilizing, but also for improving Russian-American
relations.  At a Senate hearing the day before yesterday, U.S.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said something to the effect
that every time he meets with his foreign colleagues since his
appointment, they have asked him to stabilize relations with the
Russians.”  He went on to say, “In three weeks’ time, the G20
will convene in Hamburg, where you are to meet with U.S.
President Trump.  Is it possible that these talks will help prod
this negative trend towards a more positive one, and possibly
even towards a radical improvement in our relationships with the
United States?  In what areas and on what issues can Russian-U.S.
cooperation be productive and mutually beneficial?  I believe
these questions are of concern not only to people in Russia and
in the United States, but many other countries as well.”
President Putin answered as follows: “You know as well as I
do the areas in which we can work together with the United
States.  This includes above all control over non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction.  We are the biggest nuclear
powers and so our cooperation in this area is absolutely
natural…. Cursing and trading barbs and insults with the U.S.
administration would be the worst road to take…. We must work
together to fight poverty in the world…. There is a disastrous
situation in many parts of the world, and this is one of the
sources of radicalism and terrorism, this poverty around the
world; and we must decide together how to address this problem.”
Then President Putin continued by saying: “By the way, we worked
together with the United States to resolve the Iranian nuclear
issue, and we did reach an agreement, we did find a solution.
There are positive examples of cooperation, then.  The previous
U.S. administration directly recognized the substantial role that
we played in resolving this issue.  We can reach agreements and
work together then.  Of course we can.  On the Syrian problem and
Middle East in general, it is clear to all that no progress will
be made without joint constructive work.  We hope greatly too,
for the United States’ constructive role in settling the crisis
in southeast Ukraine.”  Then he said, “A constructive role as I
said.  You see then that there are many areas in which we must
work together.  But this depends not only on us.  We see what is
happening in the United States today.  I have said before and say
again now, that this is clearly a sign of an increasingly intense
domestic political struggle, and there is nothing that we can do
here.  We cannot influence this process, but we are ready for
constructive dialogue.”
So again, this was from a four-hour dialogue that President
Putin engaged in with the Russian people and people
internationally.  But it’s a very important point that he makes
there, that the Russians are ready for a constructive dialogue.
Obviously, President Trump has a very good opportunity now in
three weeks’ time with the G20 summit which is coming up, to sit
down directly with President Putin and engage in that dialogue
directly.
I also just want to point out that during the course of this
week, there was a real blockbuster feature presentation on
Showtime, of a four-part series of interviews that were produced
by the film director Oliver Stone.  This was based on interviews
with President Putin which occurred over the last two and a half
years before the election, and then a final one that occurred
after the election.  There’s far too much to go through, to
summarize these interviews in any detail.  But it really is a
chance that Americans rarely get, to hear President Putin in his
own words talk about how we reached this point; his view of
perspective points of collaboration with the United States; the
Russian view of what has been done to encircle and threaten
Russia over the recent 10-15 years; and his understanding of what
the strategic necessities and the strategic realities are, not
only of the present moment, but as he repeatedly said, there are
very few people who have the ability to think 25 or even 50 years
in the future.  And to see the present from what the challenges
are that the future generations will have to resolve together.
At one point, he even calls for a “new paradigm of international
relations”; very similar to what the LaRouche movement has been
calling for, for several years.

II        With that said by way of introduction, let me just invite
Michael to come in, add a few points here, and then I think we
can get a little bit more going in terms of the discussion.

MICHAEL STEGER:  OK, sure.  It’s probably worth to start
from where you left off, Matt; which is this interview between
Oliver Stone and Putin.  There are a number of layers to the
interview.  It’s 20 hours of recording, only 4 hours are
presented, edited down.  But what you see from the discussion —
and it’s useful because it’s not simply an interview with
Vladimir Putin; but what Putin does provide — as you referenced
— is a 25-50-year perspective.  He captures a sense of
leadership in a way that’s unseen in American culture for some
time, except for probably Lyn.  It recognizes that what governs
an individual’s value and life is a sense of immortality.  He
references the 25-50 years; he discounts the questions of money
and power and says the reason he continues to be President is not
that he’s gotten so accustomed to power that he couldn’t do
without it, but that he’s committed to a single objective of the
economic development of his country.  That really does capture on
that 25-50-100-year perspective, a sense of immortality of an
individual.  What are we contributing our lives to?  That’s
actually the basis of political leadership.  That’s why Putin has
become so successful on the world stage; why he’s been able to
handle the failures of leadership from Clinton — especially from
the end of his term — but more so obviously Bush and of course,
Obama.  And why he’s able to deal with the insanity inside the
United States today.  But the other layer which is important to
point out, is that Oliver Stone has clearly made a shift in terms
of his intervention.  He recognized at some point, that we were
converging again on another potential nuclear annihilation and
nuclear war.  There’s a courage and a vulnerability in Oliver
Stone himself in the intervention; because he’s there to have a
very open and vulnerable dialogue with Putin. And he’s intending
to make a political intervention into the United States.  I think
people have to realize this:  He’s taking on what’s become this
kind of perverse political culture in the United States; this
so-called Obama left wing, which is now calling for a coup by the
CIA and FBI, war with Russia, police state-like measures,
complete control of the media, assassination of the President.
This is the Obama left now; it’s just fascism, as Lyn had said in
the last couple of days.  But he’s intervening on that, but on
the entire culture; a certain kind of courage is expressed by
this interview and by what he’s presenting.  Clearly, people
should engage it, watch it, find ways to access it.  Hopefully,
it becomes more public.  There is footage on YouTube that people
can capture.
But there is an intervention, and I think it makes it clear
what kind of intervention is now necessary.  Lyn has set the
standard on this kind of political intervention in the United
States.
Let’s put it in context.  As you mentioned, there is an
ongoing coup against the United States Presidency.  This is
something that was stated clearly after President Trump was
elected.  That either he is going to have to resign, be
impeached, or assassinated.  And you have the {Weekly Standard},
a number of publications throughout Europe — especially Great
Britain — who are very focussed on Trump’s removal by any means
necessary.  I think what we’ve seen over the last seven months is
a very sad attempt at trying to link Trump’s campaign to Russian
collusion.  The enemies targetting Trump knew the entire time
there was no collusion with Russia; this entire thing is a
made-up fraud.  But what they did hope for was that, one, they
could either prevent him from taking the oath of office.
Remember, soon after he won, there was attempt to prevent him
from even taking the oath because of allegations and concerns
that maybe he was a Russian agent.  That didn’t prevent him from
taking the oath.  Since then, we’ve seen an escalation towards
this so-called Russian collusion question.  They attempted to
capture the Presidency with an attempted coup run through the
National Security Council, as we saw with the Syria attack; but
that also then failed.  So, you’re now beginning to see a
regurgitation of the same stories.  Jeff Sessions was called in
to testify in the Senate; it went nowhere.  He called out; you’re
calling me, who served this country for 35 years?  Regardless of
where Jeff Sessions stands on policies, he served the country for
35 years; he’s not a Russian agent, he’s not a traitor to the
country on behalf of Russia.  These allegations are just wild;
they’re almost inconceivable, if you didn’t understand the
broader context. And so, this Russia-gate story is dying.  The
independent counsel that was appointed when Trump fired Comey is
now not event investigating Russian collusion per se, it’s now
just investigating obstruction of justice.  And President Trump
has been sharp on this with his Twitter account, and pointed out
that since there’s no Russia story, so now it’s just obstruction
of justice on the Russia story. It doesn’t add up.
In that context, what do we see happen?  As they continue to
push this — and they will continue to push it; they’re now going
to bring in other former Obama people, Jay Johnson, Homeland
Security Secretary; they’ll continue to regurgitate or hold
hearings, to keep the media story going.  But clearly what we’ve
seen over the last couple of weeks, you see it in the New York
play of {Julius Caesar}, where a Donald Trump character, or
Julius Caesar dressed as Donald Trump, is ritually stabbed, night
after night after night on the stage in New York City.  This is
backed by CNN, this is backed by the {New York Times}; it’s
backed by other media companies [“Shakespeare in the Park”]; it’s
backed by the City of New York. You see the Kathy Griffin ISIS
pose with the beheaded Trump mask.
So you see there is an intention to escalate the violence.
And then you see a mass murder attempt against up to 15 people,
members of Congress, Senate and House, House leadership; all of
the Republican Party, targetting them because they {are}
Republican.  And this [the shooter] is a guy who apparently left
his wife and his home, to live in a van for two months in
Alexandria, Virginia, well-known for targetting the LaRouche
organization and falsely targetting us for prison sentences in
the so-called “rocket docket.”  So, of course, swarming with FBI,
CIA, swamp-like creatures. This guy sets up camp for two months,
targets Republicans for mass murder, and simply perhaps because
of just circumstances, that there were a couple of Capitol Police
members there because the gates were locked on one side of the
ball field, it didn’t end up in a full massacre.  And hopefully,
everyone recovers; two people are still in critical condition.
But that’s a clear message:  You are associated with Trump,
you’re associated with Trump’s Republican Party; a Republican
Party, by the way, that Trump took over, away from much of the
Republican establishment.  But yet, now you’re Republicans
associated with Trump, you’re now targetted for mass murder.
This is an assassination attempt directly targetting the
Presidency of the United States.  Not surprising, because they
stated this is where they were going to go.  I think the fact
that’s shown by all of this is the desperation and panic and
hysteria by our enemies, by a British Empire, is increasing.  The
panic is increasing, the desperation is increasing, for the very
reasons we’ve covered on this website and in these discussions.
Because the Belt and Road paradigm, a growth paradigm between
Russia and China, is now becoming consolidated throughout
Eurasia, in Africa.  There were attempts by the U.S. Senate, just
the last couple of days to increase sanctions on Russia,
targetting even their oil and natural gas exports.  Germany, the
foreign minister and the Austrian Chancellor Kern, who have been
opposed to Trump on everything, have now just come out and backed
Trump and Secretary of State Tillerson in opposition to these
sanctions, because, one, it hurts Germany; it also hurts the
United States and it hurts the world.
So there is a constantly changing situation, and yet the
people in the U.S. Congress are rabidly off.  They’ve gone rabid
on this Russia question.  They’re being pulled by the nose by the
media on this question.
The question is, what do the American people do?  What do
you do in the face of an attempted coup by the FBI, CIA, Wall
Street, British Empire factions, and now, an outright call for
murder and violence on anyone associated with Trump, including
the President himself, or the direct overthrow of our government.
This is why it’s so important to understand what Putin
presents in these interviews, and what he and China and Belt and
Road Forum present.  There is an option.  And the main reason
this coup is taking place is because there is a threat from the
Trump Presidency to go with the full LaRouche option: not just to
work with Russia and China, not just to take away the threat of
war — that was a critical factor, in the entire Obama
Presidency, especially in the second term.  But not just to end
the danger of war, but to create an all-out collaboration of
these nations around a paradigm of growth and development,
something Putin himself is committed to growing and developing
the Russian people, the Russian economy; the same thing China is
committed to, growing more people.  You see this in Africa:
Africa is burgeoning with new levels of growth because of Chinese
investments.  We could do a whole show, and maybe we should, on
just the developments in Africa alone: The Congo Basin is facing
huge potential developments to provide electricity to all of
Sub-Saharan Africa.  So there’s real growth potential.  There’s
an option in the United States to do the same thing.  That’s the
LaRouche program.
Now Donald Trump has raised much of these issues for the
U.S. economy, the space program, infrastructure, there’s been a
whole week on infrastructure; job training programs,
apprenticeship programs, an entire week this week, on
apprenticeships in jobs training programs.  He’s called for the
Glass-Steagall fight.  But what we don’t see, with all of this
talk of infrastructure, even from Democrats who have commended
Donald Trump for his commitment to infrastructure, but nobody’s
presenting the question of how do you finance these projects?
How do you develop the country?
We are, personally, as an organization; Elliot Greenspan
gave a very thorough briefing last night on the Thursday night
Activists’ Call on this website
[http://action.larouchepac.com/fireside_chat_june_15], on the
event that we attended in New York City:  There is a lot of
discussion and we can go through more of that, Matt, if you want
to in a second.  But the point is this:  There is a chance to go
with the full LaRouche program, to create the public credit, to
create the national banking system, to shut down this Wall Street
fraud, to shut down the bail-in orientation; and to go with the
program of unleashing trillions of dollars of U.S. credit,
immediately.  Staged over time, but trillions of dollars to begin
to rebuild and develop the country.
What this will accomplish, if Trump moves on this, the
LaRouche program, Glass-Steagall, the National Bank, it will
eliminate the artificial political divide of the country.  It
focusses the nation on the nation’s potential for development,
pulling people out of poverty, giving young people a sense of a
future, and it puts us directly in coherence with Russia and
China on a growth perspective.  That’s how Trump can outflank
this attempted coup, that’s how the American people can
participate in this kind of historical fight.
And it takes courage, but there’s a pathway by which we win
this fight, with an enemy that is increasingly panicked and
desperate by any means possible to shut down what is a very
viable LaRouche option.  And I think that really captures where
we are today, and why we have to be so aggressive, joyfully
aggressive, about the potential mankind has if we can win this
fight in the United States, because it’s certainly winnable
today.
So I’ll add that, and see what else we have to discuss.

OGDEN:  Great.  You mentioned this event up in New York
City, I think that also actually goes to the point, of, number
one, the LaRouche movement — Lyndon LaRouche, Helga LaRouche —
when it comes down to it are the leading authorities in the room,
and the representatives of the LaRouche movement are the leading
authorities in the room, on exactly this question: How would
Alexander Hamilton apply the American System in this present
situation?  But number two, it makes the point that the world is
a completely different place, following this Belt and Road Forum
that happened in Beijing.  One of the organizers of that event in
New York obviously had been at the Belt and Road Forum, changed
his attitude.  Helga LaRouche’s presence at the Belt and Road
Forum is a very key reference point; I think that this really
allows us to put two bookends on maybe the last 20 years of
history at least, from the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
proposal of the Eurasian Land-Bridge, this New Silk Road idea,
when it originally came out of the LaRouche movement in
1990-1991.  And then the adoption of that in 2013 by Xi Jinping,
and then this world-historic forum with Helga Zepp-LaRouche
herself, personally in attendance.
And so, she continues to make the point, the world has
completely changed.  The world is a different place, now that
this dynamic has begun to consolidate itself.  And this is the
reality which Americans continue to fail to recognize, and must
be presented with.  The opportunities are {so} strong for a
direct participation, by the United States in this initiative,
coming from China but also with strong support from Putin in
Russia, and it’s already changing the reality on the ground, as
you said, in places like Africa, has a strong potential to be the
key to peace in the Middle East and so forth.
But you made the point, there is nobody, even despite all
the best intentions to say “we need to build infrastructure, we
need to create jobs, we need to increase manufacturing,” there’s
nobody who understands the science of economics behind how you do
that, other than the leadership of the LaRouche movement right
now.  People should remember in the context, obviously, of what
we’ve been talking about with these threats against President
Trump — I mean, he did make these two speeches referencing the
American System, several months ago now, but they were a leading
feature of his economic initiative.  But who was the founder of
the American System?  It was Alexander Hamilton.  What fate did
Alexander Hamilton meet?  It was Aaron Burr, it was the duel
which killed Alexander Hamilton:  {This has been the fight in the
United States} since the founding of the United States, and
before.  Will the United States adopt a scientific approach to
economics as it was elaborated by Alexander Hamilton, which is
based on the recognition that the creative powers of the human
mind {are} what creates wealth?  This is what changes the
platform over time, as new technologies are introduced, step by
step; or, will the United States continue to be a satrapy of the
British Imperial system, as we’ve seen, increasingly over the
last 50 years.  This is the role that the United States has
played.
And now we have the opportunity from outside of the United
States, from elsewhere, from China and other countries who are
adopting exactly this kind of development perspective for the
United States to reclaim its birthright, and to become, again,
that Hamiltonian type of nation that we were founded to become.
So, as people continue to become disillusioned with the kind
of propaganda that they’re being fed, day in and day out, about
what this Russia-gate thing is all about, the proper perspective
is needed, and you need to be able to step back and say, “what’s
the real issue here? What is the conjunctural point in world
history that we find ourselves at? And what’s the decision-making
point, which we’re being confronted with?”
So that’s the kind of leadership I think, but it’s not just
a question of where does the United States go?  It’s a question
of do we recognize that the world has completely changed, and are
we at the point of saying, “Yes, that’s the change, that’s the
next 25 years, that’s the next 50 years, and we have to put
behind us the failed system which is now collapsing.”
I don’t know if you want to say a little bit more about the
change in the attitude of the American people, Michael. I mean, I
would like to see what the effect is if this Oliver Stone
interview receives more widespread circulation, what people’s
reaction to that will be, but even up to this point.

STEGER:  Yeah, we can say, we know for certain an increasing
number of the American people are getting fed up and frustrated
by the outright obstruction of the Trump Presidency.  I mean,
Trump does have a real base in the American people, and most
Americans don’t want to see their government overthrown by a
CIA/FBI/{New York Times}/Wall Street operation — they just
don’t.  They might be intimidated; there might be a {vox populi}
kind of French mob out there.  But most Americans are not of that
nature.
And they’re fighting back.  We see this in field squads in
New Jersey and throughout other parts of the country, that many
people are wanting to come over to the table and discuss it.  You
know, we have signs “Defend Trump, Stop the Coup, Support Trump.
Stop here.”  “End the British Empire, Arrest Obama.” So it’s very
clear that people are willing to fight if there’s a quality of
leadership.  But we have to make it very clear to the people
around President Trump and to him directly, you will not be able
to accomplish anything, if you don’t change the system.
Perhaps we put it in the form of an analogy:  You know,
Trump can change the building all he wants to — he can put in
new walls, he can expand it, he can build it taller, he can build
it bigger, he can change the electrical system, he can change the
plumbing system, he can do all those things if he wants to, to
the building.  The problem is, he’s not going to actually give
the building long-term survival if he doesn’t change the
foundation.
The foundation of a nation’s economy is the system which
allows it to grow and develop, it’s its credit system, and right
now our credit system is locked into Wall Street.  Just a couple
of numbers stand out:  $6 trillion was spent on the wars over the
alst 15 years, since we launched the war in Afghanistan.  There’s
$4 trillion apparently on the Federal Reserve books, largely from
buying junk speculative assets from Wall Street banks.  That’s
$10 trillion.  So the credit of our country has been locked up
for 15 years in these wars, in these bailouts,  — like you said,
20, 25 years, the American people have been living under a reign
of psychological and political terror for 20, 25 years.
Now, at the same time, China’s been creating this
development perspective.  So if Trump’s going to create a change
in the orientation, he’s really going to fulfill what he intends
to — and you see it, he references the Hoover Dam, the Erie
Canal, he talks about the big infrastructure projects that have
transformed the nation’s industry and its political direction,
like Roosevelt did, like Hamilton did.  But if he’s going to do
it, he’s going to have to change the fundamental foundations of
how that system is functioning.  He’s going to have to move the
nation’s credit back into the hands, of a focus of industry,
science, and agriculture of the country.  He’s going to have to
not just repair some infrastructure projects but set an entirely
new platform and let that platform, which will last for another
hundred years, it’ll be a century-long platform — much like our
infrastructure today is nearly a century old.  But upon that
platform will allow an understanding of how to make the immediate
repairs we need to.
This is what he’s got to do.  This is the LaRouche program,
the Four Laws. And I know from what Diane Sare and Elliot
Greenspan have described, we are clearly increasingly
collaborating with members and leadership from China; there were
leadership from China at this event in New York City just the
other day. We’ll be having further conferences with leading
figures from China on infrastructure.  We’re in discussion with
people throughout New York City.  There is a potential and Elliot
described it last night [on the Activitists’ Call]:  If we work
with the Chinese today, if we started today, within  just two
years we can resolve immediately the infrastructure and transit
crisis in New York City, as a first step move, setting a new
platform for every nation’s cities and the connection between
those cities on a regional and national basis.
There is an outlook we can take, but you have to change the
foundations of the system the way Hamilton established, the way
Lincoln and Roosevelt applied it.  And that’s critical.  The
American people see the coup.  They don’t like it.  They’re ready
if there’s leadership, but they also have to be given a direction
and they also have to be given a chance, to begin to build the
country.  And Trump’s really got to take on these big challenges.
And again, I think the question for Trump, as Putin himself
expressed, and as any real President — you maybe can say more on
this about John Kennedy, Matt, since his 100th birthday just
passed — but the question any true President faces is a question
of immortality.  Because what are you really there to do?  And
the tough questions challenge that sense, and I think the recent
political attack we saw in Virginia, the murder attempt, are
going to confront this Presidency, and the leadership around him,
to have to make a decision: Are they really going to fight for
the future of the American people?  Putin had to make the same
decision when he came into office in 1999-2000; every true
President, as Lincoln did, FDR did — he faced near assassination
before his inauguration; Kennedy certainly faced it, and knew it.
And that’s the question that Trump has to face, but the LaRouche
program provides the alternative link, not only to end this coup,
but to really launch a Renaissance for the United States.

OGDEN:  About John Kennedy, he made numerous speeches which
addressed that question of the immortality of the leadership of
the country, in directly the terms of infrastructure.  He went
down to the Tennessee Valley Authority, and he said,  — this was
1961 or 1962 — and he said, it was because of the decisions that
Franklin Roosevelt took 30 years before, that we are able to even
stand here today and look at these wonderful projects and it
transformed this entire region of the country.  But it makes us
ask the question:  Thirty years from now, once we are out of
office and once we are dead and gone, what will future
generations say about us?  What great projects will we have
built, just as FDR did for us at that time; and in 1991 or 1992,
what will people living at that time say that we did for the
future of the United States and for the human race?
Obviously, Kennedy’s greatest legacy was the space program.
But it’s that same kind of question, which now must be asked, and
always must be asked by any great leader of any country.  So I
concur: That’s the kind of question which President Putin very
eloquently put on the table and repeatedly.  And he said,
unfortunately, there are very few people within the United States
who think in these terms — although there are some.  And I think
those are the people who are responsible for taking the
leadership of the United States and consolidating this, making it
work.
Michael, I think you make the point very clearly:  If
President Trump is going to outflank this coup attempt, not only
must it be exposed in no uncertain terms, head on; but also, he
must deliver on the vision and the campaign promises which the
American people elected him around. And it cannot be in a
piecemeal way, it has to be from the standpoint of a Hamiltonian
national vision, funded by, as you say, trillions of dollars of
direct Federal credit.  It can’t be done in any other way.  But
if he begins to deliver on that, the American people will be on
his side and will give him the backup which he’s going to need.
So:  Thanks a lot Michael.  We’re going to be circulating
even more — there was an email that went out to all of the
subscribers to the LaRouche PAC email list, on some of the
background material that you need to understand the timeline
behind this attempted coup against the Trump Administration going
all the way back to the inauguration, if not before.  And I think
we covered a little bit of that in detail.
And I continue to emphasize the importance of this statement
that Lyndon LaRouche put out now a week ago, last Saturday,
titled:  “Stop the FBI Fraud: Stop the Coup against the President
— What the Lying Media Are Not Telling You!”  We already know
that this has received pretty wide circulation, but it’s
something which can continue to be circulated.
Thank you very much Michael.  I think we can probably have a
countdown to this G20 summit which is coming up in less than
three weeks; and look forward to some real changes in the same we
had the relationship between the United States and China; now
some changes in terms of the potential for cooperation between
the United States and Russia.
I’d like to thank people for tuning in tonight.  Please
subscribe to our YouTube channel if you haven’t yet; subscribe to
our daily email list.  You can get active at the Action Center at
larouchepac.com, and join in what we’re doing here with the
LaRouche movement across the United States.  So thanks a lot, and
good night.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 15. juni, 2017 – Briterne har gentagne gange myrdet amerikanske præsidenter, efter at de først myrdede vort forfatningssystems fader, Alexander Hamilton. Men man skal helt tilbage til Abraham Lincoln for at finde den slags gentagne trusler mod en præsident, i særdeleshed trusler om mord, som nu fremsættes mod præsident Trump, mens dette læses – under britisk direktiv. En »komiker« cirkulerer et fotografi af sig selv på Internet, hvor hun fremviser en kopi af præsidentens afskårne hoved. Samtidig opføres jævnligt det langtrukne knivmord på præsident Trump foran stort publikum i New Yorks Central Park, stolt sponsoreret af, og med gentagen energisk støtte fra, forræderne i det britisk-elskende New York Times – under absurd forklædning af Shakespeares »Julius Cæsar«. »Skuespilleren«, der angiveligt portrætterer Julius Cæsar i denne blodige farce, er udklædt og udstyret til fuldstændigt at ligne præsident Trump – alt imens hans hustru taler med slavisk accent og ser ud som og klæder sig præcis som præsidentens kone, Melania. Der er selvfølgelig ingen, der tror på New York Times, at dette skulle repræsentere »ytringsfrihed«. Det repræsenterer overlagt ansporing til politisk mord, eller endda ’ret til at dræbe’ (license to kill) – og det endda samtidig med, at et uskyldigt amerikansk kongresmedlem, og endnu en uskyldig mand, befinder sig i kritisk tilstand på et hospital i Washington efter at være blevet skudt i går morges af en gal skytte, der leder efter »Republikanere« at dræbe.

Der kunne fremføres meget mere som dette, som I alle ved.

Det Britiske Imperium, hvis blodtørst står bag alt dette, har netop her til morgen opfordret til Trumps afsættelse ved en rigsretssag i deres flagskib, Londons Financial Times.

Årsagen til parallellen til det samme, morderiske hysteri, der blev pisket op mod Abraham Lincoln, er, at nutidens spørgsmål i realiteten ikke er mindre vigtige nu, end de var dengang. Dengang drejede det sig om spørgsmålet om denne Republiks overlevelse i lyset af dette samme, Britiske Imperium – et spørgsmål, der involverede fremtiden for hele menneskeslægten. Lyndon LaRouche har nu gjort det klart, at en sejr for Jim Comey og Bob Muellers FBI, med deres kupforsøg mod præsident Trump, ville kaste verden ud i atomkrig, der ville ødelægge vor civilisation, og muligvis vor art.

På den anden side, så bevæger fortsættelsen af den forfatningsmæssige institution, som er præsidentskabet under den legitime præsident Donald Trump – og retsforfølgelsen af og domsafsigelsen over de udenlandsk sponsorerede forrædere, der ønsker at ødelægge denne institution – USA ind i det »Nye Paradigme«, som Lyndon og Helga LaRouche har kæmpet for i næsten et halvt århundrede, gennem præsident Trumps åbne og oprigtige forpligtelse til fred og partnerskab med Rusland og Kina. Vi må genindføre Roosevelts Glass/Steagall-lov, som præsident Trump har lovet, som en del af Lyndon LaRouches »Fire Love« fra juni 2014, og som indbefatter statslig bankpraksis, massiv udstedelse af statskredit, udvikling af fusionskraft og et komplet rumprogram i en international samarbejdsindsats.

Valget ligger nu foran denne generation, foran hver enkelt af os, og foran dig, personligt.

Foto: Lincoln Memorial.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 14. juni, 2017 – I de seneste par uger har en teater/nyhedskommentator holdt et billede frem af præsident Trumps blodige, afskårne hoved; »Shakespeare in the Park«-teaterkompagniets opsætning af Julius Cæsar i New Yorks Central Park portrætterede Cæsar som Donald Trump, som dernæst blev udsat for en langvarig, brutal og blodig mordscene; og i dag åbnede en 66-årig mand fra Illinois ild mod et baseball-træningshold fra det Republikanske Parti i Alexandria, Virginia, efter en bekræftelse af, at de var Republikanere, og skød fire personer (inklusive det tredjehøjest rangerende medlem af det Republikanske Part i Repræsentanternes Hus), før han blev dræbt af politiet. Skyttens Facebook-side inkluderede: »Trump er en forræder. Trump har ødelagt vores demokrati. Tiden er inde til at ødelægge Trump & Co.«

Sindssyg handling, begået af en galning? Måske, men politiske mord bliver altid fremstillet som »enlige mordere«, og efterforskningerne bliver altid omhyggeligt kontrolleret for at opretholde sådanne dækhistorier – med JFK-mordet som blot det mest berømte, og mest åbenlyse, eksempel. I 2008 udgav EIR en brochure med titlen, »Hvorfor briterne myrder amerikanske præsidenter«,[1] og som rapporterede om briternes rolle og motivering bag mordene på præsidenterne Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley[2] og John F. Kennedy.

Husk, at det aktuelle McCarthy-hysteri, der forsøger at male præsident Trump som en naiv tåbe eller agent for russerne, medskyldig i angivelig underminering af amerikansk demokrati, osv., blev indledt af den britiske MI6-agent Christopher Steeles kompendium af vilde fabrikationer om Trump og russerne. Dette »uærlige og upålidelige dossier« blev dernæst brugt af den nu miskrediterede, tidligere FBI-chef, James Comey, i et selvudnævnt »J. Edgar Hoover-moment«, hvor han viste Trump Steele-dossieret og angiveligt antydede, at det ville blive offentliggjort, hvis Trump ikke bøjede sig mht. at stoppe oprettelsen af venligtsindede relationer mellem USA og Rusland. Dernæst lækkede han næsten sikkert dossieret, eller sørgede for, at det blev lækket, dagen efter.

De korrupte efterretningsfolk fra Obama-administrationens tid – James Clapper, John Brennan og James Comey – havde, selv før, de blev afskediget fra embedet, ført et korstog for at portrættere Rusland (og Kina) som fjender af Amerika; som militære aggressorer, og som en alvorligere trussel mod den vestlige verden, end ISIS! Disse løgne tjente som dækhistorie for, at præsident Obama og hans klon, Hillary Clinton, kunne bringe verden på randen af atomkrig og forsikre de bankerotte, vestlige finansoligarker, at USA aldrig ville gå sammen med Rusland og Kina i byggeriet af den Nye Silkevej og opbygning af en ny, global finansarkitektur. Sådanne revolutionerende skridt ville, til [City of] Londons og Wall Streets rædsel, give infrastruktur og industri til den Tredje Verden, og endda til de vestlige nationer, snarere end gæld og nedskæringer, påtvunget dem af Londons og Wall Streets spekulanter.

Men, oligarkerne havde ikke forudset, at det amerikanske folk havde fået nok af permanent krigsførelse, økonomisk disintegration, narkotika- eller opiatepidemien, der rammer stort set hver eneste familie i nationen, og massemedier, der vedholdende løj om stort set alt. Valget af Trump blev resultatet.

Foreløbig har Trump lovet at gøre mange af de ting, som Lyndon H. LaRouche længe har foreslået, som det fremlægges i LaRouches Fire Love , men han har ikke taget de fundamentale skridt, der er nødvendige for at gennemføre disse løfter. Han har aflagt løfte om at genopbygge den forfaldne, amerikanske infrastruktur, men har ikke handlet på sit løfte om at genindføre Glass-Steagall – det absolut nødvendige, første skridt til at skabe den nødvendige kredit til opfyldelse af sit løfte om infrastruktur og gen-industrialisering. Han har etableret samarbejdsrelationer med Kina, men har ikke fuldt ud tilsluttet sig Bælte & Vej Initiativet for atter at få gang i amerikansk industri omkring opbygning af verdens nationer, inklusive vores egen. Han har krævet en genopretning af amerikansk førerskab inden for rumforskning og -fart, og inden for videnskabelige opdagelser, men, igen, finansieringen af disse projekter kræver, at han omgående lukker den spekulative boble ned og genindfører statskredit i Hamiltons tradition.

Det er, fordi præsident Trump offentligt har forpligtet sig til disse ting, og til at gøre en ende på britisk imperieopsplitning af verden i »Øst vs. Vest«, at skydevåbnene nu trækkes for at fjerne ham fra embedet – eller, som det antydes gennem dagens skudepisode, fjerne ham fra Jordens overflade. Han må handle meget hurtigt for at sætte gang i den økonomiske genrejsning gennem statslig kredit; for at tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej og for fuldt ud at samarbejde med Rusland og Putin om at knuse terrorist-svøben.

Jo flere amerikanere, der følger med i serien af Oliver Stones fire timelange interviews med præsident Vladimir Putin desto hurtigere vil dæmoniseringen af Putin blive grinet ind i historiebøgerne og gøre den sorte historie med J. Edgar Hoovers beskidte tricks med den »røde skræk« og politiske mord, selskab.

Foto: Justitsministeren og FBI’s direktør på visit. Præsident John F. Kennedy, J. Edgar Hoover og Robert F. Kennedy. Det Hvide Hus, det ovale kontor, 23. februar, 1961.

[1] Se (engelsk): »Why the British Kill American Presidents«

[2] Se (dansk): »Londons mord på McKinley lancerede et århundrede med politiske mord«

Af Hussein Askary, EIR’s redaktør for arabiske spørgsmål.

13. juni, 2017 – Alt imens det er korrekt, at Qatar finansielt, politisk og logistisk har støttet terroristgrupper og ekstremistiske prædikanter og anstiftere af vold, så er den nylige kampagne for at hænge Qatar ud som de eneste understøtter af terrorisme ikke alene absurd, med også farlig. Det faktum, at denne kampagnes spydspids er Saudi-Arabien, den unikt farligste understøtter af såkaldt islamisk terrorisme, og verdens vugge for Wahhabi-takfiri-jihadisme, gør det endnu mere surrealistisk og farligt. Det faktum, at denne kampagne fulgte i kølvandet på den amerikanske præsident Trumps besøg til Saudi-Arabien, hvor han den 21. maj mødtes med statsoverhoveder fra 50 muslimske lande for at erklære total krig mod terrorisme og ekstremisme, har fået Saudi-Arabien til at se ud som lederen af global krig mod terror og hævet det over enhver mistanke. Dette vil sløre virkeligheden for de fleste af verdens nationer og gøre dem sårbare over for saudiskstøttet terrorisme, der er fuldstændig koordineret, og har været det i århundreder, med britiske efterretningsinstitutioner. Den er ofte koordineret med amerikanske efterretningsorganisationer, enten ved, at de vender det blinde øje til disse aktiviteter, eller også fuldt ud deltager i dem. Dette er, hvad der skete under præsident Obama med invasionen af Libyen og angrebet på Syrien, gennem en aktiv støtte til de samme islamiske terroristgrupper, såsom al-Nusra Front, Jaish al-Islam og andre, som Qatar nu anklages for at støtte, og ved at tillade ISIS at vokse og blive en betydningsfuld aktør i området og i verden.

Den britisk-saudiske involvering i angrebene på USA den 11. september, 2001, er velkendt, om end endnu ikke efterforsket til bunds, idet man afventer implementeringen af JASTA-loven [Loven om Juridisk Retsforfølgelse af Sponsorer af Terrorisme] ved de amerikanske domstole, for at stille saudiske regeringsfolk for amerikanske domstole.

Mange af de Qatar-baserede 59 personer og 12 grupper, der den 7. juni af Saudi-Arabien og dets allierede, de Forenede Arabiske Emirater (FAE), Egypten og Bahrain, blev opført på listen over terrorister, såsom den islamiske prædikant Sheikh Almed al-Qaradhawi, var hyppige besøgende i Saudi-Arabien og modtog rigelig støtte fra landet indtil for nylig. Alt imens Egypten og de libyske regeringer har legitime grunde til at støtte opførelsen af Qaradhawi og det Muslimske Broderskab (MB) på listen over terrorister, så spiller Saudi-Arabien og FAE til gengæld et skummelt spil. De to sidstnævnte støtter aktivt den yemenitiske gren af MB, al-Islah-partiet, der er kraftigt involveret i krigen mod Yemen i den saudiskledede koalition.

Saudi-Arabien er ligeledes et stærk støtte af det Syriske Muslimske Broderskab, der er den indfødte syriske hovedgruppe, efter al-Nusra og ISIS. Saudi-Arabien havde faktisk opført MB på terroristlisten i 2014, men fortsatte med selektivt at støtte dets forskellige grene i overensstemmelse med briternes og Obamas dagsorden for regimeskifte og destabilisering af hele regionen.

Hele denne situation bør ses i den større, korrekte sammenhæng for at forstå og håndtere denne ikke-lokale krise.

Der er et nyt paradigme, der udvikler sig i verden, og som anføres af Rusland, Kina og deres allierede i BRIKS-nationerne og Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen. Rent økonomisk repræsenteres dette nye paradigme af »Ét Bælte, én Vej-initiativet«, der er i færd med at revolutionere verdensøkonomien. Politisk og militært har Ruslands intervention i Syrien, siden september 2015, bragt en afslutning af de anglo-amerikanske doktriner for regimeskifte. De anglo-saudisk-qatarsk-amerikanske styrker (inkl. alle de ovennævnte terroristgrupper), der har hærget i Vestasien og Nordafrika, i det mindste siden invasionen af Irak i 2003, og udbruddet af det orkestrerede »Arabiske Forår«, er nu i færd med at miste deres fodfæste og de fleste af deres stillinger. ISIS er netop nu i færd med at blive systematisk elimineret i Irak og Syrien af to koalitionssammensætninger: 1. Den russisk-iransk-Hezbollah-støttede Syriske Nationale Hær inde i Syrien, med yderligere en amerikanskstøttet (under Trump) blanding af kurdisk-arabiske styrker i det østlige Syrien. 2. Af den iranskstøttede irakisk hær og militser på stedet i Irak, med en vis luftstøtte fra USA’s Luftvåben.

Saudi-Arabien og FAE har viklet sig ind ud i et sandt hængedynd i Yemen, i en krig, der har skabt en af de værste, humanitære katastrofer i dette lands historie, hvor de har begået krigsforbrydelser og støttet de samme, ovennævnte terroristgrupper i kampen mod den nationale hær i Sana’a og dens allierede, Ansarullah-bevægelsen (Houthier). Den saudisk-FAE-ledede koalition har ikke opnået nogen af deres mål i Yemen, og kan ikke trække sig tilbage. På den anden side, så oplever EU og den vestlige verden en af de største finansielle og økonomiske kriser, siden 1930’erne.

Det faktum, at præsident Trump har selv en antydning af overvejelser om at gå sammen med Rusland og Kina om udformningen af en ny, politisk og økonomisk orden, giver de imperialistiske fraktioner i USA, og i Storbritannien og dets satrapper i Golfen, mareridt. Med et Mellemøsten, som er den letteste region, i hvilken man kan begynde krige, er det saudiske træk ildevarslende.

Under Trumps topmøde i Riyadh med de muslimske ledere, blev Iran erklæret for at være hovedkilden til terrorisme og ustabilitet i området, og i verden. Den saudiske vicekronprins, Muhammed bin Salman, hævdede den 3. maj, at Iran har til hensigt at tage kontrol over de hellige steder i Saudi-Arabien, og at hans land i stedet ville føre krigen ind i den iranske lejr. Den saudiske udenrigsminister Adel al-Jubeir svor, under sit besøg i Frankrig den 7. juni, at straffe Iran. Selv samme dag angreb en gruppe, med forbindelse til ISIS, det iranske parlament og Ayatollah Khomeinis mausoleum i Teheran, den værste terrorhandling i Iran i mere end to årtier. Iranske regeringsfolk rettede omgående fingeren mod Saudi-Arabien som værende dem, der rekrutterede terrorister, selv om efterretningsminister Mahmoud Alavi senere sagde, at det stadig var for tidligt at vurdere, om Saudi-Arabien spillede en rolle i angrebene.

Hensigten synes at være den at trække USA ind i endnu en katastrofal konflikt i regionen på vegne af sine allierede, og at forhindre ethvert samarbejde mellem USA og Rusland. En anden, potentiel konsekvens af en dramatisk optrappet krigstilstand i Golfen kunne føre til en total katastrofe for de asiatiske, økonomiske giganter Kina, Japan, Sydkorea og Indien, der er stærkt afhængige af daglige udskibninger af olie og gas fra Golfen. Mellem 80 % og 85 % af alle de ca. 17 millioner tønder olie, der passerer igennem det meget lille Hormuzstræde hver dag, sejler til ovennævnte lande. Qatar og Iran er de største producenter og eksportører af naturgas til Asien, ud over Rusland. Enhver afbrydelse af denne strøm kunne betyde en ubeskrivelig krise for disse lande og verdensøkonomien. Dette er en af de største afpresningsoperationer, som de anglo-amerikanske styrker holder mod Asien.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 13. juni, 2017 – Mandag skar Lyndon LaRouche igennem al snak frem og tilbage om infrastruktur – og hysteriet omkring ’Russia-gate’ – og understregede: Statskredit! Se at få udbetalingerne i gang! Om nødsituationen i New York sagde han: »Der skal omgående udstedes statslig finansiering til byggeri af ny infrastruktur i New York City. Staten (i USA, ’federal government’, -red.) må gå ind og overtage krisen; det er den eneste kilde til en lovmæssig form for kredit til dette problem … Vi har hørt nok tale uden konkrete specifikationer, uden, at der kommer reelle betalinger på bordet. Det skal vedtages – både midlerne, og deres anvendelse – nu.«

Uden for New York City – som udgør en vigtig national krise, og hvis løsning hele nationaløkonomien afhænger af – indløber der dagligt anmodninger om indgriben pga. de forfaldne tilstande inden for transport, vand, elektricitet og alle andre nødvendige, offentlige tjenesteydelser.

I går var senator Bob Casey (Dem.-Pennsylvania) ved Monongahela-floden (nær Pittsburgh) for at opfordre Kongressen og præsident Trump til at finansiere restaureringen af tre gamle sluser, før der sker en fatal fejlfunktion. Disse strukturer daterer sig tilbage til 1917, på en vandvej, der endnu i dag, f.eks., fører 6 million tons kul om året til U.S. Steel koksovnene i Clairton til det, der er tilbage af områdets stålindustri. Restaureringen af sluserne begyndte for 25 år siden og er endnu i dag ikke færdig efter gentagne udskydelser. Senator Casey fremlægger imidlertid ingen overordnet plan for, hvordan de nødvendige arbejder skal finansieres.

Der er ikke muligt, at nogle af de punkter, der ofte tales om – det være sig partnerskaber mellem det offentlige og privatsektoren (PPP’er), lokal- eller delstatsfinansiering, og heller ikke ’frimarkeds-wing-dings’, kan, eller vil, finansiere en genrejsning af nationaløkonomien. Wall Streets krav om 10 + % i afkast, der skal komme fra bompenge, told, afgifter, billetter osv., er fuldstændig umuligt. »Få kendsgerningerne i orden« omkring dette, som LaRouche atter i dag understregede.

Vi må løfte folk op til den rette fremgangsmåde. Dette begynder med at genindføre Glass-Steagall til beskyttelse af gavnlig, kommerciel bankvirksomhed, og fryse spekulativ finansvirksomhed ud; etablér dernæst en statslig, national kreditinstitution og udsted statslig og privat kredit til storstilede, prioriterede projekter og aktiviteter, og lancér en videnskabsmotor til fremme af rumforskning og forskning i fusionskraft.

I New York City responderer ’folk på gaden’ med stor forbløffelse og lettelse til ideen, ’Vi kan gøre dette her!’ Til gengæld stikker fjenderne af denne fremgangsmåde så meget desto mere grelt ud.

I Senatet i dag var finansminister Steven Mnuchin ’en rotte i hjørnet’ mht. Glass-Steagall. Under en høring om statsbudgettet responderede han til spørgsmål fra senator Bernie Sanders (Uafh.-Vermont) ved at sige, at der er tre forskellige »Lovforslag til det 21. Århundredes Glass-Steagall«, og han er modstander af sen. Elizabeths Warrens lovforslag om genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, og også forslaget fra Republikanernes partiprogram. Mnuchin sagde, at der ikke bør være nogen tvungen adskillelse mellem kommerciel bankvirksomhed og investeringsbankvirksomhed: »Vi mener, det ville skade økonomien, at det ville ødelægge likviditeten på markedet.« Med andre ord, Mnuchin er en dræber. Han støtter med fuldt overlæg finansielle betingelser, der fører til tab af liv og tab af fremtid for nationen.

I direkte opposition så vi lidt af »ånden fra Silkevejen« i Iowa i går. Under et Iowa-Kina-symposium i Des Moines blev et forståelsesmemo underskrevet mellem repræsentanter for kinesiske og amerikanske tænketanke om at fortsætte med at udveksle ideer for sammen at fremme deres respektive økonomier. Den kinesiske generalkonsul fra Chicago rapporterede om kinesisk involvering i varefremstilling, handel og landbrugsanliggender i de ni midtvestlige delstater, som han relaterer til. Trump-administrationen annoncerede færdiggørelsen af Kina-USA-handelstraktaten, under hvilken amerikanske eksport af oksekød til Kina nu kan begynde. Xinhua, CGTN og andre kinesiske medier spørger, ’Er Iowa-Kina modellen for den nye amerikansk-kinesiske relation?’

Den 21. juni vil Trump tale i Cedar Rapids, Iowa, ved et møde i anledning af Terry Branstads, den tidligere guvernør for Iowa, udsendelse til Kina som den nye amerikanske ambassadør til Kina. Branstad er mangeårig ven til præsident Xi Jinping.

Vi opfordrer folk til at hæve sig op over, og besejre, Trumpgate/Russiagate-operationen og den onde, britiske imperieflok, der står bag den. Som Vladimir Putin sagde herom, i første afsnit af hans interview til Oliver Stone i går aftes: Den anti-russiske hype i USA er tåbelig. Det kan måske give dem en fordel på kort sigt, men problemet med dem er, at de nægter at se 25, 50 år ud i fremtiden og konsekvenserne af deres handlinger. Vi må have samarbejde.

Foto: Lyndon LaRouche, her i diskussion med Diane Sare og Michael Steger fra LaRouche PAC Policy Committee. 

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 12. juni, 2017 – I seks måneder har amerikanske vælgere ventet på, at præsident Donald Trump og Demokraterne skulle handle: Nu skal statskredit udstedes til fornyelse af nationens infrastruktur på et højere niveau. Der har været løfter, men ingen kredit, og ingen plan for, hvordan den skal anvendes.

Meget af Amerikas økonomiske infrastruktur fra begyndelsen af det 20. århundrede er ikke blot i færd med stille og roligt at »smuldre«; den er livstruende. Det farligste tilfælde er sammenbrudskrisen i transport, der rammer flere end 20 million mennesker i New Yorks storbyområde. »Helvedessommeren«, der er indledt i New Yorks transportårer, truer i realiteten hele den amerikanske nationaløkonomi.

EIR’s stiftende redaktør, Lyndon LaRouche, har bebudet pause i al »snakken« om infrastruktur:

»Staten må nu omgående udstede finansiering til bygning af ny infrastruktur i New York City«, sagde LaRouche. »Regeringen må gå ind og overtage denne krise; staten er den eneste kilde til en lovmæssig form for kredit for dette problem. Dette er en betydelig national krise, og USA’s nationaløkonomi er afhængig af, at den løses. Vi har haft nok snak uden konkrete detaljer, uden opfølgning af direkte handling.

Det skal på bordet – både finansieringen og en plan for dens anvendelse – nu.«

I mellemtiden har Demokraterne taget regeringens tid med »Russia-gate«, sammensværgelsen om at drive præsidenten ud af embedet for at ville have samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland. Den fyrede FBI-mand James Comeys vidneforklaring har gjort det meget klart, hvad dette gik ud på: et indstuderet forsøg fra efterretningssamfundets side på at opstille en fælde for præsidenten, og afsætte ham; med en politisk veterans ord, en »ynkelig, død sild« for en vildt distraheret Kongres.

Drop »Russia-gate«. Det Hvide Hus og Kongressen må komme i omdrejninger for at forhindre økonomien i at kollapse, og forhindre, at amerikanerne yderligere forarmes og dør. Genindfør Glass/Steagall-loven, så bankerne udlåner penge. Opret en statslig kreditinstitution til byggeri af det, der skal bygges; det være sig en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, til infrastruktur og vareproduktion; et nyt ’Reconstruction Finance Corporation, RFC’ – Finansieringsselskab til Genopbygning – baseret på Franklin Roosevelts oprindelige RFC; eller et bevillingskontor for statslig finansiering af projekter. Inviter til samarbejde med verdensmestrene i nye infrastrukturplatforme, Kinas »Bælte & Vej Initiativ«.

Uden at gennemføre disse skridt, sagde LaRouche, »er alle drømme om at genopbygge nationen døde«.

Foto: NTSB (National Styrelse for Transportsikkerhed) undersøger en bil, der var involveret i dødelig Metro North togulykke ved Valhalla, New York, 4. februar, 2015.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 11. juni, 2017 – Da Franklin Roosevelt døde før krigens slutning, var Lyndon LaRouche fortvivlet over, at en stor mand var gået bort og advarede om, at en meget lille mand tog over.

Indser amerikanere, med et tilbageblik på 1945 fra nutidens perspektiv, at USA vandt krigen baseret på FDR’s besejring af de britiske bankierer på Wall Street gennem at genindføre det Amerikanske System for kredit til udvikling, ikke spekulation, gennem Glass/Steagall-loven? Indser de, at »demokratiets arsenal«, der besejrede fascismen, udelukkende var muligt, fordi FDR havde skabt historiens største infrastruktur-boom på ganske få år og herved gav USA en overvældende førerposition inden for produktion og logistik? Indser de, at Roosevelts samarbejde med Kina og Rusland (det daværende USSR) var uundværligt for at redde verden fra fascisme? Eller tror de på myten om, at krigen blev vundet gennem Trumans forbrænding af japanske civile, og at den Kolde Krig var nødvendig for at redde verden fra »Gudløs kommunisme«?

Disse spørgsmål er af afgørende betydning for nutiden. Efter 16 års nedskæringspolitik, permanent kolonialistisk krigsførelse (»regimeskifte«) og kulturel degeneration under Bush, Cheney og Obama, truedes amerikanerne af død gennem pessimisme og fortvivlelse, gennem økonomisk forfald og deres menneskelige værdigheds kulturelle nedgørelse.

Men verden har nu forandret sig. Den Nye Silkevej har, siden den blev annonceret af Xi Jinping i 2013, på ganske få år, ligesom FDR gjorde det med USA, sat hele verden på en kurs for menneskelig produktivitet i hele verden og demonstreret, at fattigdom virkelig kan fjernes, over hele planeten, sådan, som kineserne næsten har gjort det med deres egen nation. Kina og Rusland forener Eurasiens nationer bag dette store foretagende og rækker hånden frem til hele Asien, Afrika og de amerikanske kontinenter om at tilslutte sig.

Der er nu i USA en præsident, der afviser hele denne imperieopsplitning af verden; der afviser regimeskifte og promoverer venskab og samarbejde med Rusland og Kina, både for at besejre terrorisme og for at samarbejde om Bælte & Vej Initiativet med det formål at imødekomme menneskehedens fælles mål.

Imperiet har svaret tilbage med gengældelse. Med anvendelse af alle til rådighed stående resurser – krigsliderlige neokonservative fra både det Republikanske og Demokratiske parti, de rådne horer fra mainsteam-medierne og de britiske operatører i Bush- og Obama-efterretningssamfundene – har man forsøgt at dæmonisere Putin, påstå, at Rusland stjal valget og at Trump var et redskab for Moskva. Trump skulle ødelægges for enhver pris – en »farvet revolution« mod vor egen nation. Anførerne af denne indsats var de velkendte løgnere og forrædere, der var ledere af Obamas efterretningstjenester: John Brennan, James Clapper og James Comey.

Som Michael Goodwin fra New York Post påpegede i lørdags: »J. Edgar Hoover beholdt sit job, fordi fem præsidenter var bange for at fyre ham. Hans forsikring var det smuds, han i hemmelighed indsamlede om dem. Comey er en alen af samme stykke, men Trump var ikke bange for at fyre ham.«

Nu slår sandheden igennem i det amerikanske folk. Comeys løgne står afsløret. Trump nægter at bøje sig for krigsmagernes løgne om Rusland og/eller Kina.

Det spørgsmål står tilbage: Vil det amerikanske folk genoplive det standpunkt, som var vore Grundlæggende Fædres, Franklin Roosevelts og John F. Kennedys, ved at se tilbage på nutiden ud fra et standpunkt om fremtiden? Vil New Yorkere vedtage en vision for byen med højhastigheds-jernbaneforbindelser, med svævetog (maglev) til erstatning for den svedfyldte, støjende undergrundsbane, der nu er ved at bryde sammen? Vover amerikanerne at tro på, at nationen kan transformeres på nogle ganske få år, som FDR gjorde; som kineserne har gjort i dag?

Hen over de næste par uger vil LaRouche PAC’s Manhattan-projekt sponsorere en række begivenheder, der leverer den kreative ammunition, der er nødvendig for at besvare dette spørgsmål bekræftende. Vores bulletin over kommende begivenheder omfatter invitationen til arrangementet i Carnegie Hall den 29. juni til ære for Sylvia Olden Lee,[1] som efterfølges af et seminar om det klassiske toneleje og stemmeplacering. Der følger snarest yderligere begivenheder med Schiller Instituttet og vore kinesiske venner og andre fra hele verden, som fortsat vil angive retningen for de revolutionære forandringer, der fejer hen over nationen og verden.

Foto: Præsident Donald Trump annoncerer sit initiativ for infrastruktur. 7. juni, 2017.

[1] Se: In Praise of Sylvia Olden Lee,  og biografi.

Det vigtigste aspekt af ideen om USA’s tilslutning til Bælte & Vej-initiativet vil imidlertid være at inspirere hele befolkningen med håb for fremtiden, en bedre fremtid for de kommende generationer, noget, der er gået tabt i løbet af de seneste fem årtier. Det ville ligeledes demonstrere, at præsident Trumps løfte om atter at gøre Amerika stort ikke står i modsætning til andre landes interesser, men at et sådant win-win-samarbejde tværtimod kan bevæge hele verden ind i en ny æra af menneskelig civilisation. Hvis de to største økonomier i verden ville samarbejde på denne måde, vil der ikke være noget problem på planeten, der ikke kunne løses.

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Matthew Ogden: Jeg vil kort gennemgå, hvad der sker i verden og de udviklinger, der har været i ugens løb. Der foregår virkelig meget i verden; se bare på det tempo, udviklinger finder sted i: fra Kinas Bælte & Vej Forum i midten af maj til Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, der fandt sted i sidste uge i Skt. Petersborg, Rusland. Vi er nu midt Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationens (SCO) møde, der finder sted i Astana, Kasakhstan. Både Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin og Narendra Modi er til stede ved dette SCO-møde, der finder sted netop nu. Der finder bilaterale møder sted på sidelinjen af dette meget vigtige topmøde, mellem præsident Xi og Modi, Xi og præsident Putin, og Xi og præsident Nazarbajev fra Kasakhstan.

Det, vi er vidne til i hele denne række af verdenshistoriske topmøder, er i realiteten en konsolidering af det, som Helga Zepp-LaRouche, under sin deltagelse i Bælte & Vej Forum i Beijing, kaldte »dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden«. Hun sagde:

»Med Bælte & Vej Forum etablerede vi dannelsen af en Ny Økonomisk Verdensorden. Det var et i sandhed historisk øjeblik; en ny æra for civilisationen. Dette er et faseskifte for menneskeheden.«

Det, vi ser, er en reel konsolidering af dette faseskifte for menneskeheden.

Præsident Xi Jinpings artikel, som han offentliggjorde aftenen før SCO-forummet i Astana, gav genlyd af denne karakteristik. Han erklærede, at den Nye Silkevej var blevet en succes i løbet af de fire år, der var gået, siden han oprindeligt annoncerede dette initiativ på præcis samme sted – Astana, Kasakhstan – i 2013. Han sagde, initiativet i løbet af disse fire år med held var gået fra idé til handling; og at dette initiativ nu fungerer som et »globalt offentligt gode«. Jeg mener, at denne karakteristik understreger det faktum, at denne nye, internationale orden ikke alene omfatter de økonomiske, diplomatiske og sikkerhedsmæssige relationer, der nu bliver konsolideret; men også, grundlæggende set, et fælles forpligtende engagement til fundamentalt fremskridt for den menneskelige art. Det, som Xi Jinping kalder for »menneskehedens fælles skæbne«.

Hvis vi ser på de spændende budskaber, der netop er kommet fra det kinesiske rumprogram, mener jeg, dette er en absolut korrekt karakteristik. Det bekræftes nu, at Kina, med deres Chang’e-mission, følger planen for at sende en mission til Månen for at returnere med prøver, få prøver af månejord og vende hjem til Jorden med dem; dette vil ske i november i år. Chang’e IV-missionen til Månens bagside, som man har store forventninger til, vil finde sted til næste år.

Lad os se på, hvad der finder sted her i USA. I denne uge så vi, at der virkelig blev lagt ved på bålet i kampen for Glass-Steagall. Marcy Kaptur og Walter Jones er begge i offensiven i denne uge i forbindelse med den såkaldte »Financial Choice Act«. De fremlagde begge en fremragende begrundelse for Rules Committee tidligere på ugen, for deres lovtillæg til Financial Choice Act, nemlig Prudent Banking Law (loven om ’klog of forsigtig’ bankpraksis), som ville genindføre Glass-Steagall. Selv om dette desværre blev nedstemt i Rules Committee (dvs. komiteen vil ikke lade dette alternative lovforslag komme til afstemning i salen, -red.), så har begge fået mulighed for at tale i Repræsentanternes Hus’ sal imod Henserling-lovforslaget. Walter Jones var den eneste Republikaner, der stemte imod Financial Choice Act og til støtte for Glass-Steagall, sammen med Tulsi Gabbard, der også er medsponsor af Glass/Steagall-loven.

Jeg vil afspille først Marcy Kapturs tale, efterfulgt af Tulsi Gabbards tale:

Her følger videoklippene og resten af webcastet på engelsk:     

MARCY KAPTUR:  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
Financial Choice Act, which abandons the American people, as well
as safety and soundness in favor of Wall Street. Six mega-banks
now control two-thirds of the financial sector in our country,
and reap record profits of over $170 billion in 2016.  That’s too
much power in too few hands.  Current law has made progress in
protecting consumers from predatory practices.  Repeal of these
consumer protections is not what the American want.  This week,
Congressman Jones and I proposed to table the current legislation
and replace it with our bipartisan bill, the Prudent Banking Act;
which reinstates Glass-Steagall protections by separating prudent
banking from risky Wall Street speculation that tanked our
economy in 2008.  The Rules Committee refused to allow our bill a
vote; nevertheless, we remain resolute.  Glass-Steagall is
something President Trump ran on, as did Bernie Sanders.  In
2016, both the Republican and Democratic platforms enshrined
policies to restore Glass-Steagall protections.  Americans should
know there is a growing bipartisan consensus fighting to protect
the progress we have made, rein in Wall Street, and keep the
wolves at bay and out of your pocketbook.  I will be voting “no”
on this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.  I yield back
my remaining time.

TULSI GABBARD:  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.  Rolling back
financial regulations that are in place to protect the American
people will put them and our country’s economic security at risk.
However, the Financial Choice Act that is being considered by
Congress today does just that.  It erodes protections against
dishonest, big bank practices that rob people of their
hard-earned salaries.  The bill repeals the Volcker Rule, it
dismantles the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, strips
regulations in place to protect the American people’s savings,
and actually lets the big banks maintain even less capital that
they need to absorb catastrophic losses; making it so that
they’re relying once again on the American taxpayer to bail them
out.  We don’t need to remind the families who have suffered so
much about the pain caused by the Great Recession.  In my own
home state of Hawaii, from 2008 to 2010, our unemployment rate
more than doubled; and 11 million people in America lost their
homes.  The big banks of 2008 are even bigger and more powerful
today.  I urge my colleagues to reject this dangerous bill and
instead pass HR790, the Return to Prudent Banking Act, which
would reinstate a 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act.  I yield back.

OGDEN:  So, along with Glass-Steagall, the rest of the
debate around what constitutes the core of Mr. Lyndon LaRouche’s
Four Economic Laws, is also beginning to open up.  While you have
President Trump touring the country as part of his so-called
“National Infrastructure Week”, this has really been put on the
table in a very real way.  The credit for this infrastructure.
How do you increase the productivity of the American workforce?
How do you increase the productivity of the American territory,
and how do you apply the American System — the Hamiltonian
system — to make this happen?
Just to give you flavor of what Mr. Trump has been saying on
the subject over the past week — and we will get into this a lot
more — I’m going to play for you a clip of his speech that he
gave in Cincinnati.  I think you’ll find the setting very
appropriate; right against the backdrop of the Ohio River, with
barge traffic going back and forth behind him as he speaks.  So,
here’s President Trump:

DONALD TRUMP:  [as heard] Thank you all very much.  It is
great to be back in Ohio.  We love Ohio.  You remember Ohio, oh
boy.  It was supposed to be close; it wasn’t close.  So wonderful
to speak on the shores of the very magnificent Ohio River.  We’re
here today to talk about rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure.
Isn’t it about time?  Spending money all over the world, except
here.  We don’t spend our money here, we spend it all over.  And
we’ll do it using American labor, American energy, American iron,
aluminum, and steel.
The American people deserve the best infrastructure anywhere
in the world.  We are a nation that created the Panama Canal, the
Transcontinental Railroad, and if you think about this, the great
highway system — the Interstate highway system.  We don’t do
that anymore, we really don’t.  We don’t even fix the old
highways anymore.  We’ll take even fixing them, but we’re going
to get them going again like they’ve never been before.  These
projects not only open new lanes of commerce, but inspired the
immigration and the dreams of millions and millions of people.
We crafted monuments to the American spirit; it’s time to
recapture our legacy as a nation of builders and to create new
lanes of travel, commerce, and discovery.  We’re going to see all
the way into the future; and the future’s going to be beautiful.
And the future is going to be bright.
In my campaign for President, I travelled all across the
nation.  I saw the crumbling infrastructure.  I met with
communities that were desperate for new roads and new bridges.
The bridges were so dangerous, they couldn’t use them; they were
worried they would fall down.  You’ve seen that happen.  I heard
the pleas from the voters who wanted to know why we could rebuild
foreign countries?  My big thing.  We build in foreign countries,
we spend trillions and trillions of dollars outside of our
nation; but we can’t build a road, a highway, a tunnel, a bridge
in our own nation.  We watch everything falling into disrepair.
It’s time to rebuild {our} country, to bring back {our} jobs, to
restore {our} dreams.  And yes, it’s time — finally — to put
American first; and that’s what I’ve been doing, if you haven’t
noticed.
We’re going to restore America’s industrial might; creating
the jobs and tax base to put new infrastructure all over our
country.  That’s what’s happening.  I’m calling on all Democrats
and Republicans to join together — if that’s possible — in the
great rebuilding of America.  Countless American industries,
businesses, and jobs depend on rivers, runways, roads, and rails
that are in dire and even desperate condition.  Millions of
American families rely on their water and pipes and pumps that
are on the verge of total failure and collapse.
We are pleased to be joined today by representatives from
many, many industries that depend on a truly critical component
of our nation’s infrastructure.  These citizens know firsthand
that the rivers, like the beautiful Ohio River, carry the
lifeblood of our heartland.  Roughly 60% of United States grain
exports travel down these waterways to the Gulf.  More than half
of all the American steel is produced within 250 miles of where
we’re standing right now, and its production depends on the
inland waterway system.  Up to 25% of the nation’s energy cargo
relies on these channels, and the refineries along their shores.
But these critical guarders of commerce depend on a dilapidated
system of locks and dams that is more than half a century old.
And their condition, as you know better than anybody, is in very
bad shape.  It continues to decay.
Capital improvements of this system which is so important,
have been massively underfunded.  There is an $8.7 billion
maintenance backlog that is only getting bigger and getting
worse.  Last December, up the Ohio River near Pittsburgh, one
lock built more than 50 years ago had to be shut down for five
days due to hydraulic failure.  You know what that means.  Five
days means everything comes to a halt.  We simply cannot tolerate
a five-day shutdown on a major thoroughfare for American coal,
American oil, and American steel which is going to get more and
bigger.  America must have the best, fastest, and most reliable
infrastructure anywhere in the world.  We cannot accept these
conditions any longer.
A few years ago, a gate broke from its hinges at the
Markland Locks on the Ohio River in Kentucky.  It took nearly
five months to repair.  Any of you know about that?  Wasn’t a
pretty picture, was it?  I don’t think so.  In 2011, a massive
section of canal wall collapsed near Chicago, delaying
everything; and it seemed like forever.
America built the Golden Gate Bridge in just four years, and
the Hoover Dam in five years.  Think of that.  It shouldn’t take
ten years to get approvals for a very small little piece of
infrastructure; and it won’t.  Because under my administration,
it’s not going to happen like that anymore.
So, I want to thank all of the great workers for being here
today.  I want to thank all of the great business leaders; you
have some business leaders who are legendary people in the
audience.  Running massive, massive companies.  And being slowed
down, but now they’ll be able to speed it up.
Not only are we going to repair much of the depleted
infrastructure, but we’re going to create brand new projects that
excite and inspire.  Because that is what a great country does;
that is what a great country has to do.  America wants to build.
Across the nation, our amazing construction workers, steel
workers, iron workers, fitters, electricians, and so many others
are just waiting to get back to work.  With the talent and skill
they represent — which believe me, I grew up in the building
business.  I know the talent and the skill and the courage and
everything else that they have.  There is no limit to what we can
achieve.  All it takes is a bold and daring vision and the will
to make it happen.
Nearly two centuries ago, one American governor had just
such a vision and a will.  His name was Governor DeWitt Clinton.
As the governor of New York State, he dreamed of a canal
stretching nearly 400 miles to connect the Atlantic Ocean in the
east with the Great Lakes in the west.  He predicted that its
construction would place New York City at the very center of
worldwide commerce.  He took the idea to Washington, but
President Thomas Jefferson — great President — didn’t agree
with him; and he dismissed that concept as total madness.  I’d
like to thank all of the people that helped so much in that
incredible event, and I think that Jefferson simply understood
who he was and who he was dealing with.  If you want a New Yorker
to do something, just tell them — like our great past governor
— that it’s impossible to do.  The governor didn’t give up, and
New York State achieved what they thought was the impossible.
When the Erie Canal opened in 1825, he was on the first boat.  He
personally deposited a bucket of water from the Great Lakes into
the New York Harbor.  The new canal exceeded even the governor’s
bold vision.  It dramatically reduced the time and cost to
transport goods from the heartland.  As a result, new settlers
rushed into the Midwest, including to right smack here.  Probably
some of you indirectly, right?  Definitely some of you.
Just as the daring dreams of our ancestors opened new paths
across our land, today we will build the dreams that open new
paths to a better tomorrow.  We, too, will see jobs and wealth
flood into the heartland, and see new products and new produce
made and grown right here in the U.S.A.  You don’t hear that much
anymore.  We will buy American, and we will hire American.  We
will not — so importantly — be content to let our nation become
a museum of former glories.  We will construct incredible new
monuments to American grit that inspire wonder for generations
and generations to come.  We will build because our people want
to build, and because we need them to build.  We will build
because our prosperity demands it.  And above all, we will build
because that is how we make America great again.
Thank you.  God bless you.  Go out there and work.  You’re
going to see some amazing things happen over the next long period
of time.  Thank you, everyone.  It’s a great honor to be with
you.  Thank you.

OGDEN:  So, to address some of what President Trump covered
in that frankly inspiring speech, I want to hand it over to
Jason.  I know we have some other things to cover, but we’ll get
to those later in the show.  I think this is a good point to let
Jason tell us how we’re going to get to work.

JASON ROSS:  OK, this article that Matt referred to earlier,
that I wrote about New York City’s infrastructure — New York’s a
case-study, but it really says something about the nation as a
whole, namely, that if the biggest, greatest city in the United
States is an infrastructure disaster, what does that say about
our economic thinking, about the way we think about
infrastructure?  How did we let ourselves get into a situation
that’s this bad?
First, from a national perspective, just some of the
numbers, briefly.  The American Society of Civil Engineers every
few years does a report card on American infrastructure.  We got
a D+.  Now, they say that there’s $4.5 trillion of infrastructure
that’s needed and of that, only about half of it actually is
funded.  That over the next decade, there is a little over $2
trillion in infrastructure needs that currently are not provided
for, that won’t happen, that aren’t scheduled to take place:
Things like the locks and dams on our inland waterway system that
President Trump mentioned, which are in terrible shape!  Where
the failure — take one example — the failure of the Soo locks
on the Great Lakes, if that were to go, for the shipping season
during the warmer months, the estimates from the Department of
Homeland Security are that {11 million jobs} would be lost by the
failure of that one piece of infrastructure because it’s so
critical to so much of manufacturing:  Of bringing ore from one
place to another, bringing products from one place to another.
Without it, there’s no alternative way of moving these goods.
You’re not going to ship it by truck.  It won’t happen.  It’s
just going to dramatically collapse our productive abilities.
Now, these estimates are a little low.  The head of China
Investment Corp.  Ding Xuedong estimated U.S. infrastructure
needs at $8 trillion!  What  this really all comes down to,
though is what we consider our needs to be.  Do we think of what
we need to do in the future, in terms of repairing what we’ve
already got, which we certainly should repair locks and dams that
are threatening failure.  But is that what our needs are?
It isn’t.  You’ve got to say what is going to make us proud
a century from now.  What is going to be the groundwork that 100
years from now, we will say, “Oh, this was the basis for the
prosperity that we had over this century; this is what made it
possible.”  And if you look at the past, at things like the canal
that President Trump mentioned, if you look at what Eisenhower
did 51 years ago in setting up the Highway Trust Fund and the
ability to go out and build the Interstate Highway System, which
was a pretty phenomenal thing in its time: 40,000 miles of
expressway were built in a decade and a half.  That’s pretty
fast.  It was a large project.  Every year, 15,000 families were
relocated, 40,000 miles built altogether, at a cost in today’s
terms of about $500 billion —  a big project.  A big project.
Now, for what we need to do today, to make the groundwork
for what we’re going to need over the next century, we’ve got to
think about leapfrogging.  What’s the next level of technology?
Improving Amtrak trains?–ugh.  Instead, think about how are we
going to have a high-speed rail network?  Where will these
high-speed rail stations be?  There’s just no way, for example,
on the route that goes from New York to Boston, it can’t be
upgraded — forget it!  It won’t happen; we’re not going to build
a maglev line that runs along the current Northeast Corridor from
New York to Boston.  Not going to happen.  Too crooked, too
curved, goes through too many downtowns and narrow types of
passageways — not going to happen.  We’re going to build an
entirely new rail network in the United States, new high-speed
rail network.
We should build maglev rail, magnetic levitation is the
leapfrog.  That’s the next level of technology.  It’s more
efficient, it’s safer, it’s quieter, less vibration, less
disruption to people nearby.  Fast, safe, efficient — this is
what would be the next generation of technology, that would be a
basis for a higher potential of our country as a whole.
Think about the history of the United States; think about
the history of any country.  What makes it possible to achieve a
certain level of wealth of economic activity, of development?
Well, there’s a lot of aspects to it, but the primary one that
makes everything else possible, is your infrastructure platform.
Do you have a network of roads?  Do you have availability of
power?  How about water?  Think about where cities are located in
the country, or in other countries — where do cities locate
themselves?  They don’t wind up in the middle of the desert or on
the top of a mountain peak or someplace like that.  It’s based on
the, you might say “natural,” infrastructure.  Is it near a
river?  Why is New York where it is?  The Hudson River isn’t just
an inconvenience to traffic because you have to build bridges and
tunnels above it or below it.  It’s the Hudson River!  This is a
major aspect of shipping that goes into the country.  That’s why
New York is where it is.
Other cities, they are where they are due in large part to
rivers for our older cities; and then when you think about what
the potential is in building rail networks and building road
networks, you create a synthetic environment of infrastructure,
that says, OK, this is a place where we should build a new city;
this is a place where it makes sense to have production.  We can
get materials easily, we can work on them, we can ship them out;
we’ve got water, we’ve got power, we’ve got transportation, that
increases the potential of every bit of land that is developed in
that way.
So when you string electric lines out, as Roosevelt did with
the Rural Electrification Act, with the help from the Federal
government for rural residents to get electricity to their towns,
to their farms, this dramatically increased their productivity.
The building of the Transcontinental Railroad; it didn’t just
mean it as cheaper to ship some thing you ordered from a
manufacturer in New York to San Francisco.  Yes, it was cheaper
and quicker than going by boat, all the way around; but what did
it make possible in the entire rest of the country?  You build a
rail line, all the places along it are now increased in their
potential, increased in their value.
So what we need to do, is take advantage of the incredible
renaissance in infrastructure that’s occurring all around the
world — it’s led by China.  And I’ve got to say, the incredible
success that China’s having with its own domestic infrastructure,
with the building of 22,000 km of high-speed rail over the past
decade.  And let’s think about this:  China is a country, where a
decade ago there was zero high-speed rail in China.  What you see
here [{{Figure 1}}] is a map of a future 8 by 8 grid of
high-speed rail planned by China.  It’s double the length of
current high-speed rail, 45,000 km.  They’re going to have that
in place in 2035.
Where do these lines go?  Does it go to currently existing
cities?  Yes.  It would be silly not to link up currently
existing cities.  Where are the stations? Are they in the
downtowns?  Not necessarily.  Maybe it’s difficult to get there;
there’s already a lot of buildings there.  So new areas are
opening up for development in China, as a result of these
high-speed rail lines.  They’re tremendously successful.  Most of
the trips made along this network, are new trips, ones that would
not have been made if the network did not exist.  So it’s not
just people getting somewhere they were already going more
quickly, it’s actually increasing the transportation throughput
in the country.
That’s what it would be like in the United States as well,
as we develop a national network of high-speed rail [{{Figure
2}}]; this will change the productivity throughout the country.
And another aspect of this, I want to show one more thing we
can learn from China, which is the increase in energy, to take
another metric.  I had mentioned transportation.  Here’s a chart
[{{Figure 3}}]: In blue, you see total per-capita energy use in
China, from 1972-2012, so, 40 years.  Look at that difference:
Total energy use per capita in China is more than four times as
big, almost five times as big.  Now, look especially at the red
line:  That’s the amount of {electricity} used per person in
China.  Now, I know, in this chart the red line goes above the
blue line, because they’re different units, so don’t worry about
that.  The relative change is what’s important:  {Per-capital}
electricity use in China, has gone up {by 25 times}, in past four
decades — 25 times. Think about what that means.  Look at the
percentage of energy use in China, that comes from electricity,
that’s in the form of electricity:  It’s gone from 3% to
15%–that’s a {wonderful} accomplishment!  Because electricity is
a higher form of power than energy in general.  There’s things
that you can do with energy, such as burning fuels for cooking,
let’s say, or heat to power a diesel train engine, or steam
engine or something like this.  Electricity is the next level of
technology.  You can do much more with it:  You can power motors
that are controlled by computer equipment; you can have laser
manufacturing technologies, electric-discharge machining,
electron beam welding.  The next level of productivity is made
possible through the use of electricity as a higher platform.
I think we can definitely learn some lessons from China.
And the speed at which they have been doing this, I think
absolutely — I wouldn’t want to say “vindicates” but it’s a
successful experiment that shows that the method of Lyndon
LaRouche is right!
This proposal that China has made of the Belt and Road
Initiative, whereby China is engaged with multilateral financing
institutions and with its own domestic financial institutions,
like its state banks, its Export-Import Bank, etc., it’s been
involved in {major} infrastructure deals with its neighbors along
the Belt and Road, and even in more distant locations, such as
Africa, where the incredibly new rail opening in Kenya that
reduces travel time from Mombasa to Nairobi from 10 hours down to
4 hours, with the building of the Standard Gauge Railway there,
this is the type of project that is just going to dramatically
improve the productivity of Kenya.  A Chinese-financed project,
by the Chinese Export-Import Bank.
These kinds of deals are wonderful.  It’s a “win-win”
approach where China is able to export its technology, export its
know-how, the train sets that it builds, and the nations in which
the infrastructure is being built, of course, benefit from having
a great new set of infrastructure.  So everybody benefits from
this.  And the speed that this is being done with, the way that
it’s being financed, I think it says, “Hey, we could be doing
this here.”
This isn’t some sort of distant plan.  We should take the
outlook that President Trump expressed in that speech that we
just heard him make and say, we’re going to do this right now.
We can start building these things right now.  The whole
Interstate system was built in 15 years, that’s pretty fast, when
you think about the size of the thing.  What does it look like to
build a high-speed rail network in the United States?  Who’s
going to build the train sets?  Where’s the rail going to come
from? We can gear up to build the rail, but as far as high-speed
trains go, we don’t produce those!  We actually don’t have the
know-how among American domestic manufacturers.  We’re going to
be looking to China, as contractors, to build these kinds of
train sets, and also to assist with the financing.  China has
huge foreign reserves right now, and the head of China Investment
Corp. Ding Xuedong, the guy I had mentioned earlier, he said that
he’d be interested in investing some of the tens of billions of
dollars in U.S. Treasuries that China Investment Corp. holds,
happy to invest that in U.S. infrastructure.
I think from that standpoint, when we look at New York, for
example, and New York is a disaster — it’s on such a thin
thread, the ability for the over 1 million who come into
Manhattan every day for work, the ability for them to get to
work, it is incredibly precarious!  This summer, for two months,
two of the four tunnels heading east from Manhattan are going to
be closed for maintenance.  That’s going to really upset the Long
Island Railroad.  The two tunnels coming into Manhattan from the
west, the rail tunnels going into Penn Station, — which is
operating at over 100% capacity; as many trains as could possibly
fit through that tunnel are already making the trip.  New Jersey
transit commuters going into New York has tripled over the past
couple of decades.  It’s just  — you can’t fit any more people
through that tunnel!  It’s not possible.
These tunnels, the ones that I’d mentioned, these are 100
years old, or older!  {1910}, the Hudson tunnels were opened up!
These are in {desperate} need of repair — but it’s impossible to
close them to do any maintenance, because so many people are
riding on them all the time.
The only way that this can be fixed is to build an entirely
new set of tunnels, to build a new train station — here we go,
[{{Figure 4}}] this is the Gateway Project from Amtrak, where
additional lines would be built so you could have four tracks
going all the way from Penn Station, Newark; there’d be a new
loop built at Secaucus — my apologies if you’re not familiar
with the area, I know this is going fast. You’re going to have
more than double the flow of people and trains that could be
brought into New York.
This is a major and essential project.  Some work was
actually begun on it in 2009, before New Jersey Gov. Chris
Christie killed it in 2010.  But, it’s not enough.  Yes, this
should happen, but this isn’t the real outlook we ought to have.
We need to think, how is New York going to fit in a broader,
regional scheme of things?  What’s the high-speed rail going to
look like in the area?  How can we totally transform the region’s
rail stations so that instead of New Jersey Transit trains coming
into Penn Station and then turning around, they keep going to the
east? [{{Figure 5}}] To Sunnyside, Queens, to a new terminal at
Port Morris, the Bronx; this is a proposal by ReThink New York
City, a public advocacy group up there.  We need entirely new
subway lines, and a national high-speed rail network.
I just want to say one more thing about the Interstate
system here [{{Figure 6}}] which you see on the screen.  This is
the original 1955 plan.  And I’d like to talk a little bit about
how Eisenhower made this reality.  First off, in terms of where
the demand for roads came from: The real push for an improvement
in public roads came in 1880 and it was promoted by bicycle
riders, who  thought rail was great for trains, but people wanted
a smooth way to ride a bike without being quite so bumpy. By the
1930s, trucks only hauled about 10% of freight in the United
States; 75% of freight moved by rail in ’20s, with trucking doing
a small amount at that time, and then inland waterways, the
infrastructure that President Trump mentioned in that clip.
By 1958, when the highway system was starting to get built,
rail was 50% of freight, highways 20%, inland waterways 16%,
pipelines 16%; and the ability to build up a broader expressway
system was hampered by the fact of how are you going to pay for
it? So the Bureau of Public Roads had been getting
appropriations: Congress would vote up some appropriations to the
Bureau of Public Roads to give grants to help build up the U.S.
highway system. It was unreliable, you didn’t know how Congress
was going to vote every year; it made it very difficult to do
long-term planning.
What Eisenhower did was he set up the — and this is lessons
for today for national banking for how to finance these projects
— Eisenhower set up the Highway Trust Fund in 1956.  It was a
separate fund, it wasn’t part of the annual budget.  Congress
wasn’t going to vote on it every year, to say, “gee should we
build the highway system or not?” and re-debate it every single
year.  Forget it!  Eisenhower set up this special fund that had a
dedicated tax system where the money would go straight into it,
as a separate capital budget, not part of the annual operating
budget.  A tax on gasoline — by the way the current gas tax
right now, it’s too low.  It hasn’t been increased in a couple of
decades.  It should be higher.  That’s why the Highway Trust Fund
doesn’t have enough money; the gas tax hasn’t been increased to
keep pace.  What else? Tire taxes, for trucks.  Trucks have big
wear on the roads; a tax for the sale of large trucks, and also a
tax for the yearly registration of large trucks.  So these kind
of indirect taxes ended up sending the money into the Highway
Trust Fund, so that it was able to build out this whole road
system and not be repaid directly.  The emphasis was {not} toll
roads! That was actually a condition for some of the turnpikes to
get Interstate Highway System funding, was they had to get rid of
their tolls. So, along Interstate-95, I-95, a lot of these roads
used to be tollways; in Connecticut that used to be a tollway.
In ’80s, after paying off bonds for repair and upgrade of a
bridge, the tolls had to be taken down, that was in keeping with
the interstate system.
That’s the way we’ve got to think about it.  Not a
public-private partnership, where you say, “I’m going to directly
pay for this project and I’ll make the money back through tolls,”
forget it.  That’ll work for an airport upgrade or something like
that.  But for a national high-speed rail network, for these
other things, what we need is national banking, so that we can
have long-term, low-interest loans, and we can get it away from
the annual squabbles about appropriations; have the ability to
have separate capital budgeting to finance this long-term
outlook.  And of course, none of that is going to happen without
Glass-Steagall.

OGDEN:  I think that’s the vision that people are looking
for, and you even heard President Trump say, “this is the kind of
bold vision.” People are ready to work!  People are ready to
build and it is true, that if you look at the history of the
American System, what is it that conquered the West?  It was the
spirit of building; this is a nation of builders.  This is the
kind of spirit that Gov. DeWitt Clinton, a strong advocate of the
American System was a believer in.
This article that you wrote, Jason, it’s available in the
current issue of {Executive Intelligence Review}
[http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/private/2017/2017_20-29/2017-23/
pdf/12-28_4423.pdf]
and we’ll make a link available.  But I want to ask our viewers
at this point, what have you been reading in the press this week?
What have you been seeing on television?  Have you been seeing
coverage of National Infrastructure Week?  Did you see coverage
of this inspiring speech by President Trump in Cincinnati?  Did
you see coverage, unless you’re a C-Span wonk, [laughter] did you
see the speeches that Marcy Kaptur [D-OH] and Tulsi Gabbard
[D-HI] made on the floor of the House for Glass-Steagall?  This
is one of the most historic fights in present history:  Did you
see the coverage of this fight in the Rules Committee, which was
very dramatic, over their proposal to repeal the “Financial
CHOICE Act,” a Dodd-Frank, and replace it immediately with
Glass-Steagall?  That’s a {real} repeal and replace!
Did you hear coverage of this new international order that’s
being consolidated in Eurasia?  These three back-to-back summits
with world leaders: The Belt and Road Forum, the St. Petersburg
International Economic Forum, and the Shanghai Cooperation
Organization summit that’s happening now?  Have you see coverage
of these unprecedented missions that China is sending to the
Moon? The same return mission, lunar sample return? The mission
to the far side of the Moon?
Or even, did you see coverage of this absolutely historic
election, general election that happened just last night in Great
Britain, when Theresa May got completely trounced and Jeremy
Corbyn shocked everybody, and gained unprecedented seats for
Labour Party and consolidated his control over Labour, despite
all of the opposition from within his own party.  Did you see
coverage of that?  No!
What have you been seeing?  Twenty-four hours a day, around
the clock, you’ve been seeing Comey, Comey, Comey, Comey.  This
is the sideshow, — it really reminded me of an episode from the
“People’s Court” or something. [laughter]

ROSS:  Or, “Twilight Zone.”

OGDEN:  Right.  I actually want to point your attention to
an article which is available as the lead of the LaRouche PAC
website today, called “LaRouche: Stop the FBI Fraud, Stop the
Coup against the President — What the Lying Media Is Not Telling
You”
[https://larouchepac.com/20170609/larouche-stop-fbi-fraud-stop-
coup-against-president-what-lying-media-not-telling-you].
And that’s a screenshot there from the LaRouche PAC website; this
is the lead for today. And it begins as follows:  “Lyndon
LaRouche called upon the American people to shut down the coup
underway against President Trump which was fed Thursday by the
lying testimony of fired FBI Director James Comey before the
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. LaRouche said that the
coup is an FBI-type operation attempting to destroy the United
States, and if it is not stopped, the world will face general
warfare.”
And then it goes on to say the following: “On June 7, former
Director of National Intelligence Clapper revealed the actual
motivation for the coup against Trump in remarks in Australia. He
said that Trump’s openness to peace with Russia–the platform
upon which Trump was elected by the American people–was itself
wholly against U.S. national security interests, in effect,
equivalent to treason.”  And then the article goes on to say: “It
was already known in official Washington well before the
election, that President Obama, in collusion with the British,
candidate Clinton, DNI head Clapper, CIA head Brennan, and FBI
head Comey, had steered the U.S. on a war course with Russia and
China, which was meant to be fully activated with Clinton’s
election. Trump was elected instead, triggering the coup which
has followed.”  And then it makes the very clear point:
“President Trump has kept his promise and established better
relations with both Russia and China, who are seeking cooperation
with the United States in developing the world based on great
infrastructure projects. That is the only issue here.”
Again, that’s the beginning of the article, “LaRouche: Stop
the FBI Fraud, Stop the Coup against the President — What the
Lying Media Is Not Telling You” which is available on the
LaRouche PAC website.  And then it goes on from there, and goes
through a very detailed examination of what this process really
has been ever since Inauguration Day; so we encourage you to read
that article. And let me put on the screen again, the link to the
petition: http://action.larouchepac.com/lets_rebuild_the_country.
It’s called “Congress, Suck It Up and Move On — It’s Time To
Rebuild the Country.”  And the url is http://lpac.co/rebuild ,
that’s where you can sign this petition online.  And we also have
a mobile phone app that you can text the word REBUILD to
2025248709.
And that petition continues to accumulate signatures, and
it’s your opportunity to get involved.
I just want to let Jason say a little more in terms of the
process that’s ongoing.  The opportunity that we have ahead of
us, — Helga LaRouche’s attendance at the Belt and Road Forum
that occurred in Beijing, the campaign which we’ve been running
for the United States to join this Silk Road — what better
opportunity do we have than now, when you actually have your
President, whatever you want to say about him, is strongly
advocating a modernization of U.S.  infrastructure and an
exciting program to give Americans the opportunity to build a new
era of U.S. infrastructure.

ROSS:  Well, Trump’s initiative is right.  His direction on
this is right.  He likes to build things;  you’ve heard that
speech, this is a good direction for this country.  What is
really not very present is how to finance it.  And that’s the big
weakness and that’s what we are responsible for correcting.
That’s what Lyndon LaRouche has been working on for decades, is a
real science of economics and doing that in opposition to what
has taken over United States policy: monetarism.
The Trump idea is that $200 billion in Federal financing is
going to be leveraged to create a total of $1 trillion over a
decade for U.S. infrastructure. That’s the Trump outlook. That’s
grossly insufficient.  The idea that you’re going to leverage
$200 billion into a total of $1 trillion is a difficult thing if
you don’t have the ability to capture the indirect value of
infrastructure.  Because, look, think about the value of building
up a platform.  The value of building up an infrastructure
platform, isn’t to make money by charging people to use it.  Now
you open up some business where you’re making cookies, well sure,
you sell your cookies; people pay to eat your cookies or
whatever, that’s fine, that’s how a business works.
That’s now how an infrastructure platform works:  The return
is indirect, the return isn’t local to the place where the
infrastructure is built.  It changes the nation as a whole.  And
when we think about linking in to the full World Land-Bridge
proposal, crossing the Bering Straits, not only will we be able
to ship things from the Americas over to Asia more quickly than
you can by ship, but you’re opening up the Arctic.  There’s tons
of resources in the Arctic!  There’s petroleum, we know about
that; but mineral resources, all sorts of potential up there.
It’s not worth anything if you can’t get to it.  So building up
that whole network, as Dr. Hal Cooper has put forward in his
engineering proposals on this, tremendous change.  To the south,
bridging the Darién Gap, connecting North, Central and South
America as one: These are tremendous potentials.
The value of infrastructure, it’s indirect, it’s not local;
{and}, it’s not commensurable.  A dollar into infrastructure,
maybe has, you might calculate $2.5  of benefit or something like
this.  It’s not the same dollars.  That chart I had showed
earlier about China’s use of electricity as a percentage of its
total power, this represents a transformation of the economy.
The fact that total power went up five times, but electrical
power went up 25 times, China’s not doing five times more of what
it used to do, or leaving the lights on longer, or something like
this.  This represents {a change in the structure of the economy
as a whole.}  And it’s made possible by building out a network of
power. China needs {much} more power into the future; China is
building nuclear power plants into the future, and this is really
the next level of platform of energy, just as high-speed and
maglev rail is the future of transportation, nuclear power,
developing fusion power, that’s the next level of electricity.
So we’ve got to think of those leapfrogging type steps.  And
our message to Trump is:  Good direction, we’ve got some very
serious proposals for you about how to make it all possible;
Glass-Steagall is absolutely essential, as you, Mr. President,
promised in your campaign.  And then, we need national banking,
as a way of indirectly financing these projects that just won’t
give money back to a private investor, it’s not how they work.
{And} finance fusion, so we get that next level, the next
platform will be possible

OGDEN:  Yeah, absolutely.  OK.  I think that’s an exciting
and very direct message.  We’ve got a lot going on, clearly.
This has been a very, very eventful week! And I think we can just
expect the pace of the things to continue to increase.
So thank you very much for watching today, and please
encourage other people to watch this broadcast; there is a lot of
material, and it’s a lot to absorb and a lot to teach others
about.
Thank you very much, Jason.  I know you’re going to be up in
New York City next week, and presenting some of this, for our
friends who are up there, I encourage you to directly participate
in that discussion with Jason. And please read Jason’s article,
“Case Study New York City: A Future Platform of U.S.
Infrastructure.”  We’re making that available in the description
for today’s broadcast.
Thank you Jason, and thank you for watching.  Please stay
tuned to larouchepac.com.  Good night.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 8. juni, 2017 – Lyndon LaRouche lancerede en appel til det amerikanske folk om at stoppe det igangværende kup imod præsident Trump, som torsdag fik yderligere næring gennem den fyrede FBI-direktør, James Comeys løgnagtige vidneforklaring for Senatets Efterretnings-Udvalgskomite. LaRouche sagde, at kuppet er en FBI-operation, der forsøger at ødelægge USA, og hvis det ikke standses, vil verden stå over for generel krig.

Den 7. juni afslørede tidligere direktør for Nationalt Efterretningsvæsen, James Clapper, den faktiske motivation for kuppet imod Trump, med bemærkninger i Australien. Han sagde, at Trumps åbenhed over for fred med Rusland – det valprogram, som Trump blev valgt på af det amerikanske folk – i sig selv var totalt imod USA’s sikkerhedsinteresser og i realiteten at sidestille med forræderi. Det var allerede før valget almindeligt kendt i det officielle Washington, at præsident Obama, i aftalt spil med briterne, kandidat Clinton, DNI-chef Clapper, CIA-chef Brennan og FBI-chef Comey, havde styret USA på en kurs for krig med Rusland og Kina, som efter planen skulle aktiveres fuldt ud med valget af Hillary Clinton. I stedet blev Trump valgt, hvilket udløste kuppet, der fulgte. Præsident Trump har holdt sit løfte og etableret bedre relationer med både Rusland og Kina, der begge søger samarbejde med USA omkring udvikling af verden, baseret på store infrastrukturprojekter. Det er det virkelige, og eneste, spørgsmål her. Comey bakkede op om dette torsdag i en lang tirade imod Rusland som værende en dødsfjende, som svar på et spørgsmål fra senator Joe Manchin.

Her er de generelle linjer for, hvordan den reelle sammensværgelse virkede. Ifølge Comeys egne ord og disses faktiske implikationer, så udpeges, den 6. januar, FBI-direktør Comey af Obamas efterretningschefer til at gennemføre en »J. Edgar Hoover« mod Trump og briefe ham om slibrigt afpresningsmateriale, fabrikeret af britisk efterretning og agent for Clinton-kampagnen, Christopher Steele. Det er en ren Hover-afpresningsoperation. Comey giver Trump et signal om at »opgiv din fantasi om at samarbejde med Rusland, og vi udgiver ikke dette«. Trump rokker sig ikke en tøddel. Dagen efter lækkes hele Steele-dossieret til alle de internationale medier, med anklager mod den nyvalgte præsident om perverse seksuelle handlinger med russiske prostituerede. Dette indrømmede Comey i sin vidneforklaring torsdag og sagde, at han var klar over, at denne briefing kunne fortolkes som et »J. Edgar Hoover moment«, som svar på et spørgsmål fra senator Susan Collins fra Maine. Under det pgl. møde forsikrede Comey Trump om, at præsidenten ikke blev efterforsket af FBI. Så går Comey ud og skriver et hemmeligt memo om briefingen og præsidentens svar. Blev dette memo videregivet til briterne? Hvem andre blev det givet til?

Comey hævder, han skrev dette op, fordi han troede, præsidenten ville lyve. Dette er pladder. Comey var allerede blevet udvalgt til at bringe præsidenten til fald, til at få ham i en fælde, hvis Trump ikke trak næsen til sig mht. at søge bedre relationer med Rusland og Kina. At James Comeys plan var at opsætte en fælde for præsidenten er den eneste, logiske konklusion, man kan drage af Comeys vidnesbyrd som svar på spørgsmål fra diverse Republikanske senatorer.

Først, senator Risch: Jeg husker, du talte kort med os kort efter 14. februar, hvor New York Times skrev en artikel, der indikerede, at Trumps valgkampagne var aftalt spil med russerne … denne rapport fra NYT var ikke sand. Er det fair at sige sådan?

Comey: Det var i hovedsagen ikke sandt.

Med hensyn til samtalen om Michael Flynn:

Risch: Du citerede ordret, hvad præsidenten sagde, »Jeg håber, I kan finde en vej til at lade dette passere, til at lade Flynn i fred. Han er en god mand. Jeg håber, I vil slippe det.« … Han gav dig ikke besked på at lade det passere?

Comey: Ikke med hans ord, nej.

Risch: Han gav dig ikke ordre til at slippe sagen?

Comey: Igen, hans ord var ikke en ordre.

Risch: Du har ikke kendskab til nogen, der anklages for at håbe på noget?

Comey: Nej, ikke som jeg sidder her.

I ethvert sandfærdigt scenarie burde dette have afsluttet sagen her.

Diverse Republikanske senatorer spurgte gentagne gange Comey, hvorfor, hvis præsidenten havde bedt om hans loyalitet, havde bedt ham droppe efterforskningen af Flynn (som var en efterforskning på baggrund af falske erklæringer, som præsidenten efter al sandsynlighed ikke engang vidste noget om), hvorfor aflagde du ikke rapport til justitsministeren? Alternativt, hvorfor truede han så ikke med at indgive sin afsked, som han tidligere havde gjort under en konfrontation med præsident George W. Bush? Hvorfor blive ved med at mødes med præsidenten og fortælle ham, at han ikke blev efterforsket samtidig med, at han nægtede at fortælle offentligheden det samme og vendte tilbage for at lægge strategi med FBI-agenter om, hvad der blev sagt, og hvad de næste skridt ville være. Comey indrømmede under sin vidneforklaring, at der var logiske ting, han ikke gjorde, inklusive at sige til præsidenten, at han skulle stoppe al upassende opførsel, fordi FBI havde besluttet, at disse samtaler var af »interesse for en efterforskning«, dvs., at Comey, der agerede som en hemmelig informant, endnu ikke helt havde haft held til at lægge en fælde for præsident Trump.

Comey inkluderer FBI-vicedirektør McCabe i kredsen af personer, som han briefede om alle sine udvekslinger med præsidenten. Uheldigvis for Comey og hele dette scenarie med at »lægge hindringer i vejen for rettens udøvelse«, så forklarede McCabe under ed for Kongressen i kølvandet på alle disse tildragelser, at der ikke havde været noget forsøg fra Trumps eller nogen andens side på at blande sig i eller forhindre FBI’s efterforskning. Faktisk forklarede Comey selv for Senatet torsdag, at der, forud for hans fyring, ikke havde været nogen efterforskning af præsident Trump, hverken for at hindre rettens gang eller for aftalt spil med russerne.

I en erklæring i kølvandet på Comeys indstuderede optræden, benægtede præsident Trumps advokat, Marc Kasowitz, at præsidenten nogen sinde skulle have bedt Comey om at droppe sagen mod Michael Flynn, nogen sinde skulle have lagt pres på Comey eller blot udbedt sig Comeys »loyalitet«. Kasowitz understregede korrekt disse dele af Comeys vidneforklaring:

– Den angivelige russiske hacking flyttede ingen stemmer.

– Præsidenten sagde til Comey, at, hvis nogen af hans satellit-medarbejdere gjorde noget forkert, ville det være godt at finde ud af det.

– James Comey indrømmede, at han lækkede alle sine memoer om sine samtaler med præsident Trump til New York Times, med det formål at fremprovokere udnævnelsen af en særlig anklager. Mindst ét af disse memoer var hemmeligt.

Denne kamp vil ikke blive bragt for retten. Om den skal fortsætte eller ej er det amerikanske folks og deres repræsentanters afgørelse. Som LaRouche sagde, så er tiden kommet til, at folk taler ud og afslutter dette forstyrrende og særdeles farlige kupforsøg. Tiden er ligeledes kommet til at efterforske kupmagerne, inklusive de forræderiske nyhedsmedier.

Foto: Comey aflægger forklaring for Senatet, 8. juni, 2017.

Kongresmedlem Marcy Kaptur (Dem.-Ohio), med støtte af kongresmedlem Walter Jones (Rep.-NC), havde her til aften foretræde for Husets Rules Committee (der afgør, hvilke alternative lovforslag, der kan komme til afstemning i salen, -red.) og anmodede om, at komiteen »etablerer en fair debat om genindførelse af Glass/Steagall-loven« i Repræsentanternes Hus (’Huset’), for at vende tilbage til et »sundere, mere konkurrencedygtigt, mere solidt banksystem i stedet for grasserende [Wall Street] spekulation«. Hun sagde, »Dette hviler på en opdeling af risikabel spekulation og ’klog og forsigtig’ bankpraksis … en Glass/Steagall-bankopdeling.«

Kaptur sagde til komiteen, at de årtier, hvor Glass-Steagall udgjorde nationens primære banklov, »refereres til som guldalderen« for økonomisk vækst, rigelig udlånskredit og fair renter til forbrugerne på deres bankindskud. Hun sagde, at næsten to tredjedele af de lokalbanker, der tjente denne æra, var forsvundet siden 1990’erne, hvor Glass-Steagall blev fjernet (endegyldigt i 1999), og at antallet af kreditforeninger var halveret. Kaptur fordømte de seks største, amerikanske banker, der tjente $141 mia. om året i profit, mens »Bedstemor Moses intet tjener på sit kontoindskud«.

»Bernie Sanders førte kampagne for at bryde disse banker op«, sagde Kaptur. Det samme gjorde Donald Trump. Begge partiernes valgplatforme støttede det, og Republikanernes Nationale Komite brugte færre ord end Demokraterne: ’Vi støtter genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven af 1933’.«

»Vores nation har muligheden for at gøre dette rigtigt, før endnu en overhængende finanskrise, der måske har rod i private foretagenders gæld (altså ikke statsgæld), rammer«, sluttede Kaptur. »Kongressen må ikke vente; muligheden for at genindføre Glass-Steagall, er nu.«

Kongressens ’Rules Committee’, i en afstemning blandt Republikanere, nedstemte Kaptur-Jones forslaget som en del af den forestående debat om Republikanernes »Lov om finansielt VALG« (CHOICE Act). Kaptur vil få mulighed for at anke dette, når CHOICE-loven kommer til afstemning i salen, muligvis i denne uge.

Korte artikler fra hele verden; i dette nummer bl. a.:

• Visioner om fremtidens rumforskning kontra realisering
• Samarbejde med Europa fører USA nærmere Månen
• Putin afviser globalt opvarmnings-nonsens

Download (PDF, Unknown)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 7. juni, 2017 – I dag mødtes den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping med Kasakhstans præsident Nursultan Nazarbajev, i Astana, hvor Xi, i september 2013, havde annonceret sit forslag for initiativet for det Økonomiske Silkevejsbælte. I en artikel, Xi skrev til sit aktuelle besøg, sagde han, at forslaget med succes var gået »fra idé til handling«, og at det nu virker som et »globalt offentligt gode«.

I dag i USA blev det samme iboende princip om offentligt gode – et gode, der er for alle – fremlagt, som konceptet for at genopbygge USA, i en præsentation af præsident Donald Trump, i en tale på bredden af Ohiofloden i Cincinnati.

Trump krævede en opgradering af amerikansk infrastruktur og jobskabelse. Der lå et fokus på renovering af sluserne og dæmningerne i Ohio-systemet og af alle USA’s indlands- og kystvandvejes 12.000 miles. Han berettede om fortidige amerikanske infrastrukturpræstationer, inklusive byggeriet af Hoover Dam på fem år, og Golden Gate-broen på fire år. Se på Erie-kanalen – som var New York-guvernøren DeWitt Clintons drøm. Thomas Jefferson, sagde Trump, mente ikke, det kunne gøres. Men sig det til en New Yorker, og han finder en måde at gøre det på! Trump sagde, »Vi var engang en nation af byggere … [Men] vi gør det ikke længere … Reparerer ikke engang ting …« Det må ændres, sagde han.

Vores udfordring i USA er at lykkes med at frembringe »handlings«-delen i »fra idé til handling«. Vi må fremtvinge en amerikansk frigørelse af Wall Street/City of Londons kollapsende, monetariske rod og skabe betingelser for bankvirksomhed, kredit og fremgang inden for produktivitet og videnskab, der har til formål at tjene nationen. I denne uge har vi to initiativer inden for dette program.

For det første vil en ny plan for USA blive udgivet af LaRouchePAC’s Videnskabsteams medlem, Jason Ross, med titlen, »En fremtidig platform for USA’s infrastruktur – case study: New York« (se EIR, 9. juni, 2017). Ross har samarbejdet med dr. Hal B.H. Cooper, transportingeniør, og andre, om specifikke projekter for New York City, der er én stor infrastrukturkatastrofe. I sin introduktion erklærer Ross, »Vi indleder med at fremlægge løsninger på ignorerede spørgsmål om infrastrukturens rolle i økonomien. Og således udstyret med disse koncepter, går vi frem mod USA’s nationale infrastrukturbehov i lyset af internationale infrastrukturudviklinger i Kina. Og sluttelig vender vi tilbage til New York City, i sammenhæng med byens nationale og internationale placering, og diskuterer de nødvendige, næste stadier af dens infrastrukturudvikling, idet vi ser frem, ikke 10 eller 20 år ind i fremtiden, men derimod flere generationer.«

Det andet initiativ i denne uge er handlingen for den nødvendige forudsætning for, at denne økonomiske søsætning kan finde sted – nemlig, genindførelsen af Glass/Steagall-loven fra 1933 for at adskille og beskytte kommerciel bankpraksis fra spekulationsvirksomhed, og som fungerede i 66 år frem til 1999, hvor loven uretmæssigt blev ophævet. To hovedsponsorer af lovforslaget til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall (H.R. 790, Loven om tilbagevenden til klog og forsigtig bankpraksis af 2017) i Repræsentanternes Hus – Marcy Kaptur (Dem.) og Walter Jones (Rep.) – briefede i går aftes Husets ’Rules Committee’[1] om nødvendigheden af Glass-Steagall og behovet for at få en fair debat i Huset om lovens genindførelse. Kapturs 8 minutter lange tale cirkulerer nu nationalt på de sociale medier.[2] Det forventes, at Kaptur vil forsvare den i debatten den 8. juni i Husets sal om H.R. 10, Loven om det finansielle VALG – en dum lov til Wall Streets fortsatte lancering.

Der er ingen tid at spilde; farerne er mange. Med hensyn til vores nationale infrastruktur, så er vi gået ind i en forfaldsfase à la »Minneapolis-broen«, som refererer til katastrofen for 10 år siden (1. august, 2007), da en bro over Mississippifloden pludselig kollapsede midt i myldretiden og dræbte 13 mennesker og sårede yderligere 145 i kollapset. Det kunne ske, ikke alene i USA, men hvor som helst, og hvornår, det skal være, i hele landet.

På den internationale scene er situationen i Sydvestasien kaotisk, kompliceret og farlig. I dag angreb terrorister det iranske parlament, med 12 døde til følge. Som den russiske præsident Putin gentog i sit kondolencebrev til det iranske folk, så »bekræfter angrebene endnu engang nødvendigheden af at intensivere internationalt samarbejde om bekæmpelse af terror«.

Video: Marcy Kaptur briefer Husets ’Rules Committee’ om lovforslag til genindførelse af Glass-Steagall, H.R. 790, der ønskes bragt til afstemning i salen.

Foto (Kasakhstans regering): Kasahkstans præsident Nursultan Nazarbajev mødes med formand for Folkerepublikken Kina, Xi Jinping, 6. april, 2013.

[1] I Repræsentanternes Hus har komiteen ansvaret for reglerne for, at andre lovforslag kommer til afstemning i salen. (-red.)

[2] Se: Reinstate Glass-Steagall To Restore ‘Golden Age’ of American Growth

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 6. juni, 2017 – Til amerikanere og europæere, der døgnet rundt, og alle ugens syv dage, udsættes for en spærreild af rapporter om globale katastrofer, om Trump, der står over for afsættelse ved rigsretssag, om verden, der snart brænder op pga. global opvarmning og flere og flere ’fake news’ – falske nyheder – og ’fake’ videnskab og bevidst fremkaldt pessimisme – kom videre i teksten! Verden har forandret sig.

Momentum i vor samtids historie defineres af den enorme sejr for menneskeheden, der blev konsolideret på Bælte & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde den 14.-15. maj i Kina, efterfulgt af Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum den 1.-3. juni, i Rusland.

Disse fora gik langt videre end til at fremlægge en håbefuld vision om en fjern fremtid, men fremlagde også en kortlægning af den transformation af hele planeten, der har fundet sted i løbet af de seneste par år gennem processen med den Nye Silkevej samtidig med, at man har opnået et forpligtende engagement på vegne af det store flertal af den menneskelige race, for at fortsætte denne udvikling i et forhøjet tempo.

USA var deltager i denne proces, med præsident Trump, der sendte en seniordelegeret til Beijing, og med 300 førende industrifolk, der deltog i Skt. Petersborg. Helga Zepp-LaRouches deltagelse på Bælte & Vej Forum, og på fora og i presseinterviews i hele Kina i to uger efter BVF-begivenheden, demonstrerede anerkendelsen i Kina af, at hun og hendes mand, Lyndon LaRouche, tilbage i 1990’erne havde initieret processen med at erstatte den Kolde Krig med udviklingsprojekter, der fysisk og kulturelt forbinder nationer, ligesom den oprindelige Silkevej havde gjort det i fortiden.

I dag talte Helga Zepp-LaRouche til de amerikanske medlemmer af LaRouche-organisationen om det presserende nødvendige i at løfte befolkningen ud af det kontrollerede miljø, som er skabt af de desintegrerende politiske partier, de neokonservative og de mislykkede massemedier. Er infrastrukturen i din by ved at smuldre, som den er i New York City? Stil dig selv spørgsmålet: Hvad ville Kina gøre? Inden for et eller to år ville Kina erstatte forfaldet med nye højhastighedsjernbaner, svævetogs- (maglev-) undergrundsbaner, produktion af elektricitet ved hjælp af kernekraft og nye faciliteter til uddannelses- og sundhedssektor. Og, med initiativet for Bælte & Vej, sammen med de udviklingsbanker, de har skabt, bringer Kina denne proces til resten af verden – inklusive (hvis vi accepterer) til USA.

Dette er, hvad Franklin Roosevelt og John F. Kennedy ville have gjort. Dette er, hvad LaRouche, meget detaljeret, har foreslået hen over de seneste 50 år, siden Kennedy blev dræbt af dem, der foragtede hans vision og videnskabelige optimisme. I dag gennemgik Zepp-LaRouche, hvordan denne organisation har udarbejdet udstrakte udviklingsprojekter for Afrika, for Latinamerika, for det Indiske Hav/Stillehavsbækkenet og for Nordamerika, og ligeledes for en tilbagevenden til Hamiltons, Lincolns og Roosevelts politikker for udstedelse af statskreditter, der ville fremme sådanne store projekter. Men dette er præcis de forslag, der i dag bliver implementeret under Kinas og Ruslands lederskab!

Der er ingen tid at spilde med hensyn til at vække den amerikanske befolkning og de europæiske befolkninger til at gå med i det nye paradigme, der står lige foran dem, men som er skjult af den løgnagtige presse, og af deres egen frygt og pessimisme. Hidtil har præsident Trump nægtet at bøje sig for den nye ’McCarthy-isme’, som er orkestreret af briterne og deres aktiver i USA, og som tror, at befolkningen er blevet så »fordummet«, at den vil acceptere den absurditet, at et venskab med Rusland og Kina er en forbrydelse mod amerikansk frihed og demokrati.

Det vil ikke virke. LaRouche-organisationen er, med løsningerne på hånden, strategisk placeret til at bryde igennem moradset for at bringe USA og Europa fuldt og helt ind i den Nye Silkevej, for at genindføre Glass/Steagall-bankopdelingslov og statsbankpraksis i Hamiltons tradition, og for at gå sammen med resten af verden i forceringen af den menneskelige videns fremskudte grænser og skabe en fremtid, der er menneskeheden værdig, her på Jorden, og i vore fremtidige kolonier i rummet.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 5. juni, 2017 – I denne uge vil vi få endnu en runde at se i det, der har været et nu næsten et år langt hysteri à la McCarthy-perioden, med de »liberale« og de »liberale medier« i USA versus Donald Trumps plan om at genoprette fundamentale samarbejdsrelationer med Rusland – og, med Kina.

En ledende, Demokratisk blodhund, senator Mark Warner fra Efterretningskomiteen, indrømmede søndag på Tv, at der ikke findes beviser for, at Trump skulle have indgået et »aftalt spil« med russere: »der er blot en masse røg«, sagde senator Warner. Så de »liberale« kaster sig over anklager mod Trump for at »hindre retfærdighedens gang« ved at fyre FBI’s direktør.

Det rette spørgsmål blev stillet til amerikanerne af den russiske præsident Putin i dennes interview til NBC-TV, hvor han gentagne gange blev anklaget for at undergrave og forsøge at kontrollere USA:

»Er I alle sammen gået fra forstanden?«

Efter næsten et årti med økonomisk fiasko, og sågar fortvivlelse i nogle dele af den amerikanske befolkning, ønsker de »liberale« nu at genoplive J. Edgar Hoover og senator Joe McCarthy for at finde undskyldninger?

Siden de amerikanske bankers og nationaløkonomiens krak for ni år siden, er der i verden vokset en ny, økonomisk orden frem, med infrastrukturudvikling, kredit til højteknologisk industriudvikling, videnskab og udforskning af rummet. Denne orden udvides omkring Kinas Bælte & Vej Initiativ, eller den Nye Silkevejs økonomiske vækst og forbundethed; Og Rusland er fuldt engageret i det. Det samme er asiatiske, afrikanske og sydamerikanske lande, inklusive Amerikas hovedallierede i Asien, Japan og Sydkorea.

Hvis amerikanerne ønsker deres økonomi genopbygget og ønsker atter at blive en førende industrimagt og førende magt inden for videnskab og rumforskning – så må de have samarbejde med disse initiativer for økonomisk fremskridt. De må have det samarbejde, som præsident Trump har indledt med præsident Xi Jinpings Kina.

Og der finder en i stigende grad reel, international kamp sted, imod ISIS/al-Qaeda-terrorisme og massive blodsudgydelse fra samme ophav, i hvilken kamp Putins Rusland er en hoveddrivkraft.

USA’s økonomiske politik må ændres: Glass/Steagall-loven må genindføres, og der må skabes en statslig nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition; og rumforskning må atter gøres til en storslået, national mission.

Men samarbejdsrelationer med Kina og Rusland, og med den Nye Silkevejs nye system, er afgørende for, at USA kan genoprette sine egne, førende kapaciteter. De, der ønsker, at præsidenten, af disse grunde, skal afsættes ved en rigsret – og nogle, der endda ønsker, han skal myrdes – må midlertidigt være gået fra forstanden.

Foto: Den russiske præsident Putins interview til NBC.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 4. juni, 2017 – Paris-»klimaaftalen«, som præsident Donald Trump har trukket USA ud af, er ikke »verdensordenen«, uanset, hvor meget, medierne i USA og Europa ønsker, folk skal gøre knæfald for den. Livet uden kulstoffer er ikke vejen frem for menneskeheden eller planeten. Derimod er mennesket, der nu hastigt rykker ud i Solsystemet, vejen frem.

Den reelt succesfulde, nye verdensorden, der nu konsolideres, er et økonomisk og videnskabeligt system for samarbejde: den Nye Silkevej. Det er de accelererende investeringer og udarbejdelse af transformerende, nye infrastrukturprojekter og videnskabelige fremskridt, der knyttes sammen under Kinas initiativ, over hele Eurasien, Afrika og ligeledes planlagt for Sydamerika. »Marshallplanen gange 20«, kalder nogen det. Det er en orden, der mere og mere støttes af Rusland og andre store nationer, så vel som mange andre, fordi det reelt udløser økonomisk fremskridt, produktivitet, ny beskæftigelse, til gensidig fordel for alle deltagende nationer. Som »Silkevejsdamen«, Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, siger, så er det i færd med at blive til Verdenslandbroen. Det er således åbent for USA at gå med i og genopbygge, men også kraftigt udvide og modernisere, sin egen økonomiske infrastruktur og industri.

Præsident Trump gør absolut det rigtige med sin plan om, at USA skal samarbejde fuldt ud med Kina og Rusland. Og med sin hensigt om, at USA atter skal blive en stor industrimagt, en stor videnskabelig og teknologisk magt, en stor rumforskningsmagt, der samarbejder med de andre rumfartsnationer.

»Dette er planer – hvad er hans resultater?«, siger kommentatorerne. Dette spørgsmål bør rettes til det amerikanske folk. Kina og andre eurasiske magter er i færd med at opbygge højhastigheds- og magnetisk levitations- (maglev)systemer, udforske Månen inklusive dens bagside, lægge planer for Mars, lægge planer for omsider at omspænde Afrika og Sydamerika med højhastighedsjernbaner og elektricitetsnetværk, bygge små, mobile, flydende kernkraftværker …

Tror amerikanere, når de håndterer spørgsmålet om infrastruktursammenbrud, økonomisk fortvivlelse og opiat-epidemier, på, at disse ting kan gøres? Det er det virkelige spørgsmål med hensyn til præsident Trumps planer, og resultater.

Det er det amerikanske folk, der må få Glass-Steagall vedtaget i Kongressen for at standse Wall Street i at kværke USA’s økonomi. Det amerikanske folk må kræve »økonomisk politik i den amerikanske tradition«; og en omgående oprettelse af en nationalbank til infrastruktur. Flere amerikanere end nogen sinde før forsøger at blive NASA-astronauter. Men, det er det amerikanske folk, der må kræve et hastigt udvidet rumforskningsprogram og nye teknologier omkring fusionskraft.

Amerika må gå med i den Nye Silkevej. Præsident Trump har en plan – glem hans foreløbige resultater – og dette er, hvad det amerikanske folk må gøre, hvis de ønsker, USA atter skal blive stort.

Foto: Præsident Trump meddeler 1. juni, at USA trækker sig ud af Paris-Klimaaftalen.

Paris, 3. juni, 2017 – I en erklæring af 2. juni forklarer Lyndon LaRouches ven og allierede, tidligere franske præsidentkandidat Jacques Cheminade, den afgørende forskel mellem sit eget forslag om brugen af en »fælles valuta« under den kommende, post-euro-æra, og så det vanvittige sammensurium, der i stigende grad bringes til torvs af andre franske politikere, både fra venstre og højre, og som enten er uvidende eller også lyver med fuldt overlæg samtidig med, at de hævder, de er modstandere af »systemet«. Jacques Cheminades erklæring, der kan læses på det originale franske på hans hjemmeside http://www.cheminade2017.fr/Jacques-Cheminade-quelle-monnaie-commune-pour-l-apres-euro , følger her:

Cheminade: ’Hvilken fælles valuta skal man have i post-euro-æraen^’

Debatten mellem de to kandidater Emmanuel Macron og Marine Le Pen den 4. maj demonstrerede den inkompetence, som gør sig gældende mht. behandlingen af et afgørende spørgsmål, der involverer selve vores eksistens. Tidligere, den 2. marts, indikerede en Ifop-opinionsundersøgelse, der blev gennemført på vegne af Le Figaro og Robert Schuman Foundation, at 75 % af alle vore medborgere er imod en tilbagevenden til en national valuta. Det er for at forføre disse vælgere, der klynger sig til den overbevisning, at euroen fortsat er en rambuk og en forenklende faktor for vores handel, at de førende, såkaldte »euroskeptikere« har smidt ideen om at »forlade« eurosystemet over bord. Marine Le Pen foreslår således, efter Jean-Luc Mélenchon og Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, at »transformere« ’enhedsvalutaen’ (euro) til en ’fælles valuta’.

Deres falske begreb om denne »fælles« valuta er det modsatte af, hvad jeg vil argumentere for. I realiteten indebærer deres forslag skabelsen af et dobbelt monetært system, der ville underordne de nationale valutaer en overordnet »euro/fælles valuta«. Det ville betyde, at al national handel inden for vore grænser ville finde sted i frank, men at handlen med medlemmer af den monetære zone eller medlemmer uden for denne, ville finde sted med en ny type euro, der er transformeret fra en »enhedsvaluta« til en »fælles valuta«. Sidstnævnte ville de facto blive et obligatorisk mellemled med al handel med udlandet! Og handel uden for de nationale grænser kræver to vekslingsprocesser: fra ens egen, nationale valuta til euro, og fra euro til den udenlandske valuta.

De facto støttet i dag af Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Nicolas Dupont-Aignan og Marine Le Pen, blev dette system introduceret i 1991 af den tidligere højrefløjs-økonomiminister, Edouard Balladur, bakket op af den britiske tory-premierminister John Major, og af »neo-gaullisten« Philipe Séguin under dennes berømte tale for Nationalforsamlingen imod Maastricht-traktaten i 1992, og bliver nu solgt som et alternativ til »enhedsvalutaen«.

I praksis ville et sådant system blive meget vanskeligt at administrere, især for vore landmænd og producenter, som Emmanuel Macron påpegede under Tv-debatten den 4. maj.

Det ville forvise den nye franske frank til den bedrøvelige status af en blot og bar »lokal valuta«. Selv, hvis kurserne (blandt EU-valutaer) kunne tilpasses med fastsatte mellemrum, for eksempel hver 6. måned, så ville den angivelige genrejsning af national suverænitet i realiteten være illusorisk.

I virkeligheden ville værdien af nationale valutaer i dette kurssystem med en »fælles eurovaluta« stadig blive styret og dikteret af den samme Europæiske Centralbank som i dag, dvs., en total, monetaristisk institution, der grundlæggende set står til tjeneste for de private banker.

Med en sådan »fælles eurovaluta« vier finansoligarkiet sig selv til at være et nyt instrument, der gør det muligt for, at alting kan forandres med det formål at sikre, at intet i virkeligheden forandres.

Det, jeg argumenterer for, er et totalt anderledes begreb om en »fælles valuta«: En tilbagevenden til en »regnskabs-euroenhed«, i lighed med den Europæiske Valutaenhed (ECU), der blev brugt mellem 1979 og 1999. Lige som dengang vil det hovedsageligt være de europæiske institutioner – der i dag totalt må genopbygges på nye fundamenter – og nationalbanker, der ville beregne og afgøre deres mellemværender indbyrdes ved brug af ECU’en uden, at denne nogen sinde ville erstatte nationale valutaer i international handel.

Med min politik ville nationalstater genvinde deres monetære suverænitet med det formål at udstede statskredit i deres egen, nationale valuta, og som har til hensigt at tjene menneske og natur, samtidig med, at de indbyrdes koordinerer ved hjælp deres regnskabsenhed, for at forsvare værdien af deres valutaer over for udenlandske valutaer, som aftalt inden for dette system.

Derudover indgår Frankrig i »aftaler om begrænsninger af suverænitet, der kræves for organisering og forsvar af fred«, som det fastsættes i fortalen til vores Forfatning, især mht. virkeliggørelsen af store projekter på europæisk skala og videre endnu, og som udstyres gennem udstedelse af statskredit i hver stat, koordineret med vore partneres udstedelse af kredit.

Paris, 31. maj, 2017 (Nouvelle Solidarité) – To dage efter sit møde i Paris med Emmanuel Macron, gav Vladimir Putin et langt interview til Le Figaro, der blev udgivet i dag, med en hovedoverskrift på avisens forside, »Hold op med at opfinde russiske trusler«.
Putin gennemgår alle de spørgsmål, der blev dækket under hans tête-à-tête med Macron, og han giver sit synspunkt på hvert af dem. Af særlig interesse var Putins svar på, om mistilliden med Macron var blevet overvundet:

»Jeg kan sige, at den nye præsident for den Franske Republik har sit eget syn på tingene på det internationale område. Generelt set er det et meget pragmatisk syn. Og vi har helt sikkert samstemmende punkter, der gør det muligt for os at arbejde sammen.«

På det første spørgsmål om den særlige anledning til Putins besøg – 300-året for tsar Peter den Stores besøg i Frankrig – var Putins svar, at Rusland var helt integreret med fransk historie og den europæiske skæbne, længe før Peter den Store.

»Rusland og Frankrig har en meget længere historie og langt dybere rødder … Faktisk kom den yngste datter af Jaroslav den Vise, Anna, en af Ruslands store prinsesser, i det 11. århundrede for at blive gift med Kong Henri I af Frankrig. Hun hed faktisk Anna af Rus, Dronning af Frankrig. Hendes søn Philip I af Frankrig grundlagde to royale, europæiske huse, Valois og Bourbon, og sidstnævnte sidder endnu i dag i Spanien.«

Med hensyn til Peter den Store havde Putin følgende at sige:

»Peter den Store var frem for alt en reformator, en mand, der ikke alene gennemførte de bedste og mest up-to-date praksisser, men var også uden for enhver tvivl en patriot, der kæmpede for at sikre den plads i internationale anliggender, som Rusland fortjente. Men han var frem for alt forpligtet over for at reformere sit land, gøre det moderne, robust og fremadskuende. Han lykkedes med mange, hvis ikke alle, af sine foretagender. Han fokuserede på forskning, uddannelse, kultur, militære anliggender og statsmandsskab og efterlod en enorm arv, som Rusland har beroet på frem til i dag, for slet ikke at tale om, at han grundlagde min hjemby, Skt. Petersborg, som i mange år var Ruslands hovedstad.«

En løsning på Ukraine-krisen

Den russiske præsident forklarede situationen i Ukraine i nogen dybde:

»Fremskridt i løsningen af alle konflikter, inklusive konflikten i det sydøstlige Ukraine, kan først og fremmest opnås af parterne i konflikten selv. Denne konflikt er intern – primært en ukrainsk konflikt. Den opstod efter en forfatningsstridig, voldelig magtovertagelse i Kiev i 2014. Dette er kilden til alle problemerne. Det vigtigste at gøre er at finde styrken til at forhandle med alle konfliktens parter, og frem for alt er jeg overbevist om, at, som man siger, bolden ligger hos de officielle Kiev-myndigheder. De må først og fremmest sørge for at implementere Minsk-aftalerne.

Le Figaro: Kan Rusland fremlægge et initiativ, der kan frembringe fred?

Putin: Vi mener, at hovedbetingelsen er at trække de væbnede styrker tilbage fra kontaktlinjen. Dette er det første, der må gøres. Tilbagetrækningen er blevet fuldført i to områder, men dette mål er ikke nået i det tredje område. De ukrainske myndigheder siger, det ikke kan gøres pga. skyderiet dér. Men skyderier vil ikke ophøre, med mindre tropper og tunge våben trækkes tilbage … Det andet mål i den politiske sfære er, omsider i praksis at gennemføre loven om disse regioners særlige status, som det Ukrainske Parlament har vedtaget. Loven er blevet vedtaget, men er ikke sat i kraft.

Loven om amnesti er blevet vedtaget, men præsident Porosjenko har ikke underskrevet den. Minsk-aftalerne fastsætter den sociale og økonomiske rehabilitering i de selvproklamerede republikker [Donetsk og Luhansk]. I stedet for at gøre dette, har Kiev indført blokade af disse territorier. Blokaden blev indledt af de radikale elementer, der blokerede jernbanelinjerne. I begyndelsen fordømte den ukrainske præsident deres handlinger og sagde, han ville genoprette orden. Det lykkedes ham imidlertid ikke. I stedet for at fortsætte sin indsats, sluttede han sig officielt til blokaden og udstedte en eksekutiv ordre med dette formål. Kan vi tale om forandringer til det bedre i denne situation? Vi har hidtil desværre ikke set nogen.«

Om Syrien

Le Figaro: »… Hvad mener De er de væsentligste løsninger for, at Syrien kan gå ud af denne langvarige krig?

Putin: Jeg vil gerne først og fremmest nævne Tyrkiets og Irans konstruktive fremgangsmåde og, naturligvis, den syriske regering, der, sammen med Rusland, er lykkedes med at opnå en våbenstilstand. Denne ville ikke have været mulig uden den såkaldte syriske væbnede opposition. Det var det første og meget vigtige skridt mod fred.

Et andet skridt, der ikke er mindre vigtigt, er aftalen om at oprette de såkaldte deeskaleringszoner. Der er i øjeblikket fire sådanne zoner. Vi mener, dette er en ekstremt vigtig milepæl på vej til fred, hvis jeg kan udtrykke det sådan, fordi det er umuligt at tale om en politisk løsning uden at standse blodsudgydelsen. Efter min mening står vi nu over for en anden opgave, som er teknisk og, vil jeg sige, teknologisk komplementerende skabelsen af disse deeskaleringszoner, hvor man aftaler deres grænser, og hvordan regeringsorganisationer vil fungere dér, såvel som, hvordan disse deeskaleringszoner vil kommunikere med verden udenfor.

I øvrigt nævnt præsident Macron dette, da han talte om humanitære nødhjælpskonvojer. Jeg mener, den franske præsident generelt har ret, og dette er et af de kontaktpunkter, hvor vi kan samarbejde med vore franske kolleger. Når deeskaleringszonerne først er formaliseret, håber jeg, at i det mindste nogle elementer af samarbejde vil begynde mellem regeringen og de folk, der vil kontrollere deeskaleringszonerne.

Jeg håber virkelig (og det, jeg nu vil sige, er meget vigtigt), at disse zoner ikke bliver til en prototype for den fremtidige, territoriale opdeling af Syrien. Tværtimod forventer jeg, at disse deeskaleringszoner, hvis der etableres fred, og de folk, der vil kontrollere dem, vil samarbejde med de officielle, syriske myndigheder. Det er sådan, et miljø for grundlæggende interaktion og samarbejde kan og må bygges. Næste skridt er en ren politisk forsoning og, hvis muligt, udviklingen af forfatningsmæssige love, en forfatning og afholdelse af valg.

Le Figaro: Rusland og de andre parter er jo uenige om det syriske spørgsmål mht. primært, skæbnen for Bashar al-Assad, som de vestlige lande har anklaget for at bruge kemiske våben mod sit eget folk. Hr. præsident, kan De se Syriens politiske fremtid uden Bashar al-Assad?

Putin: Jeg mener ikke, jeg har ret til at afgøre Syriens politiske fremtid, med eller uden al-Assad. Dette skal syrerne selv bestemme. Ingen har ret til at kræve de rettigheder, der tilhører et andet lands folk. Det er det første, jeg ville sige. Har De et tillægsspørgsmål?

Le Figaro: Ja. De siger, dette ikke er Deres afgørelse. Men dette betyder ikke, at Syriens fremtid er mulig uden al-Assad, vel?

Putin: Som jeg har sagt, så skal det syriske folk afgøre dette spørgsmål. De har nævnt beskyldninger om den syriske regerings brug af kemiske våben. Da angrebet skete, opfordrede vi vore amerikanske partnere – og alle andre, der mener, dette haster – til at sende inspektører til flybasen, ud fra hvilken de fly, der kastede kemiske bomber, angiveligt skulle være fløjet. Hvis kemiske våben blev brugt af præsident al-Assads officielle afdelinger, ville moderne udstyr til verifikation helt sikkert finde spor af det på flybasen. Det er helt sikkert. Disse spor ville blive fundet i flyene og på flybasen. Men alle nægtede at gennemføre en sådan inspektion.

Vi foreslog også at sende inspektører til stedet for det angivelige kemiske angreb. Men det nægtede de også og hævdede, det var farligt. Hvorfor er dette farligt, hvis angrebet blev udført i et område, hvor fredelige civile bor, og den sunde del af den væbnede opposition er deployeret? Efter min mening kom man udelukkende med disse beskyldninger med det ene formål at retfærdiggøre brugen af yderligere forholdsregler, inklusive militære forholdsregler, imod al-Assad. Det er det hele. Der er ingen beviser for, at al-Assad har brugt kemiske våben. Vi er fuldt ud overbeviste om, at dette er en provokation. Præsident al-Assad brugte ikke kemiske våben.«

(Video af hele Le Figaros interview med Vladimir Putin, fransk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvDC0lVLgks)

(Komplet engelsk oversættelse findes på den Russiske Ambassade i Londons hjemmeside, https://rusemb.org.uk/fnapr/6109.)

Matthew Ogden: Temaet for aftenens webcast er: USA må afgjort tilslutte sig den Nye Silkevej. Dette er den strategisk vigtigste ting, der kan ske; alt andet må ses som underordnet dette mål. Vi havde lejlighed til at tale med Lyndon og Helga LaRouche for et par timer siden, og vi har lidt nyheder; nogle bemærkninger fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, som jeg gerne vil oplæse som indledning. Hun sagde, at verden hastigt bevæger sig i en meget ny og dynamisk retning. Momentum er meget klart. Tag Bælt & Vej Forum, der fandt sted for kun to uger siden, og tag dernæst Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum, der finder sted netop i disse dage; naturligvis med den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin som vært. Ved denne lejlighed er den særlige gæst premierminister Modi fra Indien, og vi ser en fortsat integration mellem Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen (SCO), Bælt & Vej, den Nye Silkevej og alle disse eurasiske, økonomiske udviklings- og integrationsorganisationer.

Helga Zepp-LaRouche sagde, vi må nu optrappe vores kampagne her i USA, for, at USA kan blive fuldt ud engageret og involveret i denne nye dynamik med win-win-samarbejde og gensidigt fordelagtige udviklingsprojekter. Hun sagde, at vi må holde fokus på dette spørgsmål; ikke lade os distrahere af noget som helst andet. Verden har totalt forandret sig. Vi befinder os i en fuldstændig ny epoke, en ny æra for civilisationen.

Hun sagde, vi i nyhederne netop har set, i de sidste 24 timer, at præsident Trump har sagt nej til denne Paris-klimaaftale, og det er en god ting, sagde hun. For det (klimaaftalen) er ikke baseret på videnskab. Jo, vi ved godt, at klimaet ændrer sig, men det er ikke baseret på menneskeskabt, global opvarmning. Spørgsmålet er så, hvad er årsagen? Paris-aftalen var baseret på ideologi, sagde hun; den var baseret på ideologien om grænser for vækst, befolkningsreduktion, undertrykkelse af udvikling – især i den tredje verden.[1] Sæt som modsætning den Nye Silkevej, Bælt & Vej-initiativet, der kommer fra Kina, og som bringer hårdt tiltrængt udvikling til den tredje verden, til Afrika og andre steder; som disse områder ikke har haft adgang til i generationer. Man må se, at dette er en virkelig bølge af optimisme.

Hun sagde, hold tingene optimistisk, bliv ved at være optimistiske. Det kunstige diskussionsmiljø i USA, der er skabt af nyhedsmedierne, er ren propaganda, sagde hun. De falske nyheder er ikke kun de negative rapporter – det har vi set masser af. Men, de falske nyheder er i realiteten, at man ikke rapporterer de positive og optimistiske udviklinger, der finder sted i hele verden, og som især kommer via Bælt & Vej Forum.

Vi havde lejlighed til at få en ti minutter lang briefing fra fr. Helga Zepp-LaRouche i går, under en telefonkonference med hendes medarbejdere (i USA). Det var en virkelig vidunderlig og optimistisk refleksion tilbage over betydningen og virkningen af dette Bælt & Vej Forum, som hun havde mulighed for at deltage i personligt. Vi har fremstillet en slags video til jer her, hvor vi har brugt nogle billeder af Helgas besøg til Kina, og noget baggrundsmateriale, som I vil få at høre her, som gennemgår LaRouche-bevægelsens 40-50 år lange historie for denne nye, internationale, økonomiske orden, der nu er ved at blive til virkelighed. Her kommer denne ti minutter lange video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ekspcgnkoY

(Her følger resten af diskussionen på engelsk. Helgas briefing (videoen) er oversat til dansk, her: http://schillerinstitut.dk/si/?p=19877 )        

HELGA ZEPP-LAROUCHE: Well, I just wanted to make sure that
you get a first impression from me from my trip, because I think
the worst mistake we could make would be to respond to the
absolutely incredible psywar propaganda coming from the U.S.
mainstream media and the neoliberal media in Europe, like Spiegel
Online with its Chief Editor piece which was really out of this
way! It is very clear that people who are primarily relying on
such media have a completely, totally, 100% wrong idea of what
the reality is of what’s going on.  And we should really get that
out of our heads and not try to swim within the fishbowl of an
artificially created environment. Because, from my standpoint,
the world looks very, very different.
First of all, I said this already, and I reiterate it:  With
the Belt and Road Forum, the world has dramatically consolidated
the beginning of the new era, and I don’t think at all, that
short of World War III, this is going to go away, because the
majority of the world is moving in a completely liberated way.
And first of all, this was the highest level conference I ever
participated in.  There were 28 head of state, speaking one after
the other, and obviously, the speech by Xi Jinping was absolutely
outstanding, and whoever gas time to listen to it, should really
do it, because it was a very, very Confucian speech, which set
the tone for the two-day conference in a very clear way. So,
please listen to it when you have some time.
I think the way people have to understand what is going on,
you have to really think what this organization, and Lyn in
particular did for the last almost 50 years.  The first time when
Lyn in 1971 recognized what the significance of the dismantling
of the Bretton Woods system was, and then all the many, many
things we did in the last over 40 years: Lyn coming back from the
Iraq Ba’ath Party celebration in 1975, when he proposed the IDB
as an International Development Bank to foster a new world
economic order; the fact that we, for one year, campaigned with
this IDB proposal which then basically became part of the
Colombo, Sri Lanka resolution of the Non-Aligned Movement in ’76.
Then, in the end of the ’70s, when we worked with Indira Gandhi
on a 40-year development plan for India.  Already in ’76, we
published a whole book about the industrialization of Africa.  We
worked with Mexican President José López Portillo on “Operation
Juárez.”  We put out a 50-year Pacific Basic development plan.
Lyn had already in ’75 had proposed Oasis Plan.  And then
naturally when the [Berlin] Wall came down and the Soviet Union
disintegrated, we proposed the Productive Triangle and the
Eurasian Land-Bridge.
And all of these proposals!  And just think of the many,
many activities we did, conferences all over five continents, all
of this was on the level of ideas, on the level of program — but
only after Xi Jinping put the New Silk Road on the agenda in
2013, and in the four-years of breathtaking developments of the
One Belt, One Road initiative since, these ideas are becoming
realized!  And the genie is out of the bottle!
When you have now the Bi-Oceanic Railway discussion and the
tunnels and bridges connecting the Atlantic and Pacific around
Latin America, you have all these railways now being opened up in
Africa — this is unprecedented!  This was not done by the IMF or
the World Bank.  They suppressed it with the conditionalities.
But with the AIIB, the New Development Bank, the New Silk Road
Fund, the Maritime Silk Road Fund, the direct investment of the
Chinese Ex-Im Bank, the China state bank, all of these projects
are now proceeding, and they have completely changed the attitude
and the self-confidence of all participating countries.
Now, the way people in China look at President Trump is
absolutely different than what the media are trying to say.  They
are very positive about Trump, in the same way that people in
Russia think that Trump is somebody you can absolutely have a
decent relationship with, and that is reality. And forget the
media!  Forget these whores in the press who are really just
prostitutes for the British Empire.  Don’t pay any attention to
what they say, and don’t allow the people you are talking with to
do that, either.
When Trump promised $1 trillion infrastructure investments,
this was the right thing, and we put out the right program saying
the United States must join the Silk Road and that {should be our
focus}, and nothing else.  Everything else should be a subsumed
aspect of that.  This is the strategically important thing, and
the fact that the head of the China Investment Corp. Ding Xuedong
said it’s not $1 trillion but $8 trillion, is what the United
States needs, is absolutely on the mark; and you know it yourself
from the conditions of the roads and the infrastructure in all of
the United States.
So the fact that the same organization has now set up their
office in New York, advising Chinese investors how to invest in
the United States, and vice versa, how U.S. investors can invest
in China; the fact that the Chinese are invited to participate in
this infrastructure conference in June; all of this is absolutely
going in the right direction.
What happened in the Belt and Road Forum and the many
meetings I had afterwards — after all, I spent two full weeks in
Beijing, in Nanjing, in Shanghai  but it’s the fact that in the
many interviews, many quotes, and the general view is that we
were treated with the highest respect possible.  I mean, people
are fully aware of Lyn’s significance as a theoretician of
physical economy, his ideas are highly respected; and people
treated me as we should be treated, namely as people who have
devoted their entire lives to the common good of humanity.  And
this is absolutely in stark contrast to the shitty behavior that
we are normally getting from the neo-liberals in the
trans-Atlantic region.
And you should understand that what the attack on Trump is
supposed to do:  Is to make — it’s so difficult for him to focus
on the positive aspect, and there are quite some many of them,
including his working relationship with Russia and China, which
is strategically the most important. So that, basically, he has
to defend himself instead, and everybody thinks they have to
spend all the time to defend themselves.
So don’t fall for it.  The idea that we are losing is
completely off! Mankind is on the winning track and we have to
pull the American population to create the kind of ferment so
that the implementation of the infrastructure program as a first
step is on the agenda, and on everybody’s mind and nothing else.
Even if Europe is still in the grip of the EU Commission, I
mean, if Merkel wants to be the leader of the free West, —
forget it.  Macron just had a very excellent meeting with Putin,
defining a cordial relationship with Russia! This is not what
Merkel and Obama have been cooking up, when Obama addressed the
church day of the Protestant church, but Merkel is pretty
isolated.
Just look around in Europe:  Macron send Raffarin, the
former Prime Minister, to the Belt and Road Forum who gave an
excellent speech, why China and France have to work together.
Gentiloni from Italy said China and Italy will work together on
the development of Africa.  All the East Europeans, Tsipras [from
Greece], Serbia, Hungary, Czechia’s Zeman, Orban [Hungary] — all
of these people were absolutely enthusiastic on the Belt and Road
Initiative.  And now even Germany, it shows that the German
industry is actually really getting it, that their interest is to
work on joint ventures in third countries together with China. So
I think even Germany will change.
I have the strong conviction that by the end of this year,
it will look completely different, because the development
perspective is so contagious, that I think all the efforts by the
British Empire to somehow throw in a monkey wrench will not work!
So take the winning perspective, take the high ground, think
strategically:  And realize that what is happening in reality, in
many, many development projects around the world, is what this
organization has been fighting for, for almost half a century.
I just wanted to tell you that, because the worst thing we
could do, is look at it from inside the United States, from
within the box, when the whole world has moved out of the box
decisively, with the Belt and Road Forum, which is not going to
be stopped by anything.  And that is my view I wanted to
communicate.
[end video: https://larouchepac.com/20170602/silk-road-
strategy-helga-larouche-report-belt-and-road-forum
OGDEN:  As you could hear, Helga LaRouche was extremely
optimistic after spending an entire two weeks in China; and her
point could not be more clear.  The United States must join the
Silk Road; this must be our focus and nothing else.  “Everything
else should be a subsumed aspect of that,” she said; “this is the
strategically most important thing.”
Helga also had, among many media interviews, you could see
some pictures there from her interview on the “Dialogue with Yang
Rui” show, which was a very widely watched and wonderful
interview.  She had many TV interviews, many other press
interviews.  Here’s an interview that just came out; this is from
{Shanghai Daily}, and I’m going to read a few excerpts from that
interview as well.  I think is just really a nice overview.  As
you can see, the title is “Belt and Road Initiative Instills Hope
for Peace and Development Among Nations.” You can see the picture
of Helga LaRouche there.  The editor’s note begins the article;
it says,
“Helga Zepp-LaRouche visited Shanghai for the first time in
the summer of 1971. In 1977 she married American economist Lyndon
LaRouche, and the couple have since worked together on
development plans for a just new world economic order.”  That was
the overview that we saw in the video just now.  It goes on:
“Zepp-LaRouche founded the Schiller Institute in 1984, a
think tank devoted to the realization of these plans and a
renaissance and a dialogue of classical cultures.
“She is an expert in European humanist philosophy and
poetry, Confucius, and history.
“After attending the recent Belt and Road Forum in Beijing,
she visited Shanghai, where {Shanghai Daily} reporter Wan Lixin
interviewed her.”
These are going to be a few excerpts from Helga LaRouche’s
answers to the questions that were posed to her in this {Shanghai
Daily} interview.
So, Helga said: “I think the Belt and Road initiative
signifies a revolutionary move to a new epoch of civilization.
The idea of having a win-win cooperation among nations is the
first time that a concrete concept has been offered to overcome
geopolitics.
“Since geopolitics was the cause of the two world wars, I
think it is a completely new paradigm of thinking where an idea
proposed by one country has the national interest basically in
coherence with the interests of humanity as a whole. This has
never happened.
“This has instilled tremendous hope among developing nations
that they have the chance to overcome poverty and
underdevelopment. And I think this is an initiative that will
grow until all the continents are connected through
infrastructure and development.”  (That’s the idea of the World
Land-Bridge.)
“We have always made the point that for this new Silk Road
to succeed in the tradition of the old Silk Road, which was also
an exchange of ideas and cultures, not just products and
technology, you have to combine economic cooperation with
dialogue between cultures. This dialogue must be on the highest
level, so each culture has to present example of the best of
their culture, like Confucianism, Italian renaissance, the German
classical period, and present the best works of arts in music and
poetry, paintings and other forms of art.
“Our experience is that when people get into contact for the
first time with expression of such high culture from another
culture, they are surprised by its beauty. And this beauty then
opens the heart and souls of the people. And this is the best
medicine against chauvinism, xenophobia, and prejudice, and it
opens the way for the love of other cultures.
“This is in conformity with Confucian teaching that all
activity must be combined with strengthening of love for the
mankind, because without that cultural component, that new Silk
Road will not flourish.”
“I think it a great honor for me to participate in this Belt
and Road Forum, and I was deeply impressed by the speech of
President Xi Jinping. Among all participants I spoke with there
is consensus that we are actively participating in the shaping of
history. All this means that China is right now leading the world
in terms of providing the perspective for the future.
“I think this has been recognized by many countries in Latin
America, in Africa, in Asia, and even some European countries
start to recognize it is in their best interests to ally with
that initiative. So I think it has made clear that China is the
only country right now that offers a positive perspective to
overcome the strategic bottleneck of our present times.”
“Here I would like to quote from Pope Paul VI who said that
‘Development is the new name for peace.'”
“I was first in Shanghai 46 years ago in 1971, after
traveling on a cargo ship. Although it was not the best time to
be in China, it had awoken my love for China.
“I think the Chinese people are much too modest. They should
feel more confident about what they have accomplished. They have
created the biggest miracle of the world, even bigger than the
post-war German economic miracle. They should be very proud to be
Chinese.”
So again, that was from an interview in {Shanghai Daily}
called “Belt and Road Initiative Instills Hope for Peace and
Development Among Nations.”
[http://www.shanghaidaily.com/opinion/chinese-perspectives/
Belt-and-Road-initiative-instills-hope-for-peace-and-development
-among-nations/shdaily.shtml]
Obviously, this is just a wonderfully optimistic view of the
world right now.  I think it gives you a sense of what Helga
LaRouche gained as an eyewitness and participant on the ground at
the Belt and Road Forum.  It’s what Americans are not being
given; we’re not being given this kind of optimistic perspective
of what the future of mankind could be, and it’s very much within
our grasp.  The kind of pride that she said Chinese should feel
about being Chinese, this is something that Americans desperately
to access again; this pride of being American.
With that kind of overview and our very clear sense of what
our mission is, that the United States should join this New
Paradigm of win-win development, I think maybe Ben can give us a
little bit of a sense of what it’s going to take to get the
United States back on this path to development.  It’s been 50
years since the assassination of John F Kennedy and the departure
of the United States from this sense of development and progress.
This embrace of this Malthusianism, zero-growth kind of
population control ideology, which has brought us to the point of
just miserable economic suffering.

BENJAMIN DENISTON:  As you mentioned in the beginning,
Trump’s announcement that the U.S. is going to pull out of this
Paris climate change agreement is a really big deal; this is
excellent.  To my knowledge, unless I’m missing something, since
this whole climate change scare got going, this is the first U.S.
President who has actually kicked back against this.  It started
really back with George H.W. Bush; Bill Clinton went along with
it.  Despite the narrative of it being a Republican versus
Democrat issue, the George W Bush administration was fully on
board; they went with all this junk.  Bio-fuels, global warming,
they pushed it fully.  Obama pushed it further.  Now, we finally
have a President who is actually kicking back against this.  This
is huge, this important; Trump definitely deserves respect and
support for fighting against this thing.  As many of our viewers
know, this is a huge global lobby that’s been pushing this thing
from the top down for decades now.
I thought it was also important that Trump highlighted the
economic effects of this.  Some people just say the science says
this, or the science says that; but there’s also the reality of
what is the effect on the people.  What’s the effect on your
citizens of going with these policies?  They say CO2 is terrible,
it’s a pollutant, etc.; therefore, we need to go with all these
wonderful, clean energy solutions.  They paint this rosy picture,
when in fact, that has devastating effects on the real-life
conditions of our population.  This whole Green energy fraud is
ridiculous.  Given that this issue is now coming up, I think it’s
worth just highlighting a couple of points on this.
If you want to talk about the reduction in CO2 emissions and
the Green energy stuff, I still think it’s worth looking at what
Germany is facing right now in terms of their energy prices.  If
you want a case study in what wind and solar and exiting nuclear
and getting rid of coal and natural gas does; in Germany, just
between 2004 and 2015, their energy prices went up 50% from $0.23
cents a kilowatt-hour in U.S. values, to $0.35 cents a
kilowatt-hour.  They were already in 2004, twice the rate we pay
in the U.S. on average.  And over that ten-year period, in the
context of a lot of this nuclear exit, CO2-reduction stuff, they
went up another 50% to now three times what Americans pay on
average for energy, just as an example of what that means for
real life conditions.  This has been driving industries to leave
Germany, so it has an effect on industry, other forms of economic
activity as well.
In 2013, just one subsidy — this major surcharge they added
to the average German’s bill to pay for wind and solar — was the
equivalent of $0.07 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour.  That alone is
60% of what we pay on average for the U.S.; just for one subsidy,
just for wind and solar.
In the context of all the propaganda that gets put out, it’s
worth emphasizing the idea that we can transition to some
wonderful world powered by wind, solar electricity is a face;
it’s a fraud.  We need to go in the other direction.  To the
degree necessary, use coal, use natural gas, whatever; but move
towards more advanced higher forms of energy like fission and
nuclear fusion — that’s really the future.  The future is
increasing energy use per capita, increasing the use of higher
qualities of energy per capita, not reduction.
I also think it’s worth in the context of the debate
re-erupting right now, people are freaking out about Trump doing
this; I think it’s worth re-examining the issue of CO2.  What
does CO2 do?  It’s now officially labelled a pollutant by the
EPA.  There are all these horror stories about extreme weather,
climate change, etc.
I just want to highlight one graphic [Fig. 1].  Tons could
be said, but I think it’s just worth it for the education of our
audience and the real facts on the issue, it’s worth just
highlighting this study, comparing literally dozens of different
computer models on the effects of CO2 increase with the reality
that’s happened just in the last couple of decades.  So, what
these people did was to take 32 different computer models, all
claiming what the effects of CO2 increase were going to do to the
global temperature.  Those are all the variety of small dotted
lines rising up in the graph there.  The thick red line there is
the average of all of these 32 different computer models.
If you take the claims being made by these models and by
these fear-mongers around the CO2, they say this is the type of
rate of temperature increase you’re going to get.  But if you
compare that to the actual observations indicated below in the
blue and green lines with the squares and the dots, you see that
none of the computer models have been accurate in reality.  Both
satellite measurements by two different types of measurements, as
well as independent {in situ} measurements with balloon systems,
have shown that the temperature over the past 15 years now on
average, has been relatively flat with little increase.  {None}
of the models showed this; none of them.
So, have this in mind when you hear these scare stories
about this much temperature rise is going to cause this much
extreme weather, etc.  They’re basing it all on these models that
have already shown to be ridiculous.
There’s another interesting aspect to the CO2 issue, which
isn’t discussed at all, which is this apparently secret thing
that many of these fear-mongering people around climate change
don’t apparently know, which is that CO2 is actually a part of
the biosphere, and it’s actually an important part of the
ecological cycle.  People talk about being “pro-green”:  It’s
actually an important contribution to green on the planet.
And there’s been some work done, and I’d like to play a few
short clips of an interview I’d done a few weeks back with a
scientist who’s led a great amount of effort on studying the
positive effects of higher CO2 levels.  This is Dr. Craig Idso,
and he has spent many years and a lot of effort doing actual
experiments with greenhouses, overviews of various studies,
overviews of satellite measurements, and actually studying the
question of what is the effect of increasing CO2 levels on plant
growth and then also on agricultural activity.  These clips speak
for themselves, but I think this is an important part of the
discussion, as being completely blacked out, which is, aside from
the scare-stories about CO2 not being grounded in reality,
there’s actually a beneficial side for increasing CO2 levels.

[start video]
DR. CRAIG IDSO:  There are three main benefits from
increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere:  The
first is that it increases plant productivity for biomass of the
plant.  On average, what we see is that for a doubling of CO2,
something that’s going to happen by the end of this century, most
are basis plants, non-woody plants like crops and things like
that, will experience anywhere from a 25% to a 55% increasing in
biomass per yield.  And that’s a phenomenal result and that’s
something that’s going to happen just because we raise the CO2
concentration and nothing else.
Second is that higher CO2 concentrations help increase the
plant’s  water use efficiency.  Again, a doubling of CO2 allows
plants to use about half as much water as they need to produce
the same amount of tissue, so another phenomenal benefit.
And then the third benefit is that higher CO2 concentrations
helps to ameliorate environmental stresses.  So if you have a
stress from hot air temperature, maybe low light, low levels of
soil fertility, those sorts of things, when you have higher CO2
concentrations they tend to reduce or lessen that stress if not
completely ameliorate it, under a doubling of CO2.
You put all those three benefits together, and what you get
is a tremendous benefit to the biosphere to the growth.  And
we’re seeing that already:  We see it in tree-ring cores, you can
look and look at how their water use efficiency has improved over
time, and we see anywhere from 35% to 40% increase already, as
the CO2 concentration has increased by about 40%.  So the
satellites have been up measuring reflectivity of vegetation,
over the entire globe ever since about the early 1980s.  And what
they find consistently, whether they’re focussing on a particular
region of the globe or the globe as a whole, you get anywhere
from about 6% to 15% increase in biomass in that period of time.
The globe as a whole, or in total, is actually in a better off
condition now than it was when those measurements began.
I did the first approximation to determine what is the net
monetary benefit on crop production globally, in the past and
then also projected into the future, and what I found was that
over the 50-year period from 1961 to 2011, it amounts to about
$3.2 trillion on the global economy, a phenomenal benefit. And
then, projecting that forward in time, as the CO2 concentration
is going to continue to rise, from about 2012 to 2050, we expect
it to be about $10 trillion to the economy.
And that’s just really scratching the surface, because you
could look at studies, for example, I’ll take rice, where there’s
a number of genotypes of rice, and scientists have looked at for
example, in one study I’m thinking of, they looked at 16
different genotypes of rice, and how those genotypes responded to
a doubling of CO2, and they received values that ranged from
about 0 all the way to a whopping 265%.  So, if governments and
scientists focussed on those specific genotypes that we received
the greatest increase in biomass per CO2 rise, and then grew
them, we could have this phenomenal increase in agriculture and
have no problem in feeding the planet in the future.
[end video]

DENISTON:  I wanted to just highlight that interview,
because that needs to get out.  These are astounding facts: You
compare on the one side, the scare stories are not adding up.  On
the other side, just review what he said, that over the past 35
years, according to global satellite measurements a 6-15%
increase in total biomass production to the planet, the entire
planet!  We’re not talking about a 10th of a percent of a half of
a percent, 6-15%, that’s huge.  And these assessments they’ve
done on the increased crop yield, which they put in monetary
terms of $3 trillion increased value production from higher crop
yields.  Again, these are not models and studies; you can take a
greenhouse, you can study tomato plants, this particular species,
what’s their yield under regular atmospheric CO2 conditions,
what’s their yield under this much increase?  And they have hard
data on this, so these are not models, this is real stuff.
And then the other irony, which is an irony for some people
is this water use efficiency:  You actually get a highly
significant boost for certain plant species in their ability to
produce more biomass with less water use, and this has rather
interesting implications for drier regions in particular, where
water becomes a limiting factor in plant growth.  And now, all of
a sudden, with higher concentrations of plant food in the
atmosphere, CO2, they can grow in regions they couldn’t grow in
before; they can be more healthy in regions they couldn’t be
healthy before.  And you just take a look at places we’ve had
water issues — California — and we have our crazy governor in
California, running around pretending he’s the world leader on
CO2, when his state is actually benefitting greatly from the fact
there’s been higher CO2 levels in the context of the recent
droughts. The ironies are just all over the place.
You’ve really got to ask yourself, why are none of these
just basic scientific facts even being added into the discussion?
All you hear is these super, extreme, incredible flimsy arguments
claiming to be science, about scare stories, and then basic, raw,
scientific data and studies and discussion — you don’t hear
about that in the media, at all.  I think people need to let that
irony sink in, on this whole climate debate issue.
And Matthew, as you said in the beginning, the real issue is
there’s an ideology behind this, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche said in
our discussion earlier today: The whole climate change issue is
not really about climate change.  That’s the latest scare story
certain people have grabbed onto and pushed from the standpoint
of a Malthusian ideology.  And tons can be said; we put out an
entire report, “Global Warming Scare Is Population Reduction, Not
Science.”  This was put out by  {Executive Intelligence Review};
if you don’t have a copy of this, you should get one.
[http://store.larouchepub.com/category-s/1840.htm]  Under Mr.
LaRouche’s direction, over decades, his organization has uniquely
put out the entire story  of the origins of this, not just
climate-change scare, but more broadly this whole
environmentalist movement as coming from this Malthusian
ideology.
And you look at the founders of the modern environmentalist
movement, if you look at who these people were, these are people
that created the entire structure that pushed globally this whole
environmentalist system.  We can just highlight some of the key
figures:  Sir Julian Huxley, a lifelong proponent of eugenics,
head of the British Eugenics Society.  After World War II, after
Hitler’s horrific war crimes, and crimes against humanity were
exposed, and the connection to eugenics there, Huxley still
promoted eugenics in his position in the UN, as the head of
UNESCO at the time.
Prince Philip, whenever he gets the chance, talks about how
terrible population growth is, and the fact that population
growth is the number one problem on the planet.  The guy whose
said if he could be reincarnated, he’d like to come back as a
deadly virus to reduce world population.  That’s his view, that’s
his belief-system.
Prince Bernhardt of the Netherlands, who was actually
working with Nazi intelligence, a member of the Nazi Party.  He
even helped Nazi war criminals escape after World War II.  These
people came together and started the environmentalist movement,
going back to the immediate post-World War II period, and going
into the ’50s and ’60s when it started to take off.
This is the ideology behind this.  It’s not about the
debates you see on the media, about this claim or that claim on
supposed science of CO2.  If you really want to understand the
issue, it’s this oligarchical, Malthusian ideology that’s been
campaigning for generations against economic development, against
population growth, against the development of so-called Third
World nations.  These are people who have said we cannot allow
the world to rise to the living standards of America and the
West.  Think of Obama travelling to Africa, telling students in
Africa, if you all had air conditioning and cars the planet would
boil over, so that’s not an option.
And that’s the issue.  I think what Helga said, in response
to Trump’s pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, is, that’s
the issue.  This is an expression of the old Malthusian,
geopolitical paradigm, and what we’re seeing emerging with
everything around this Belt and Road Forum summit, everything
that you just went through, Matthew, is the future.  That’s the
future.  So Trump’s dumping this climate change thing is
completely coherent with the idea of the United States bucking
this past, geopolitical, zero sum game, Malthusian ideology, and
getting towards building the future again.
And I would say, from our work, the next steps in the energy
issue is going hard with fusion, nuclear fission as needed along
the way.  But the key is not only cheap energy, in using coal,
natural gas, etc., but what are the future energy sources that
are going to allow not only nations around the world to come up
to the same energy use that we have in the U.S. now,  but even
higher levels and including in the U.S.  How can we actually
increase the total energy-flux density of the global economy in
totality?  That’s the future.  The entire history of the
development of mankind has always been intimately connected with
and tied to these kinds of increases in energy-flux density.
That’s got to be the next step in this thing.

OGDEN:  I think that idea, the increases in energy-flux
density is the key.  It unlocks the entire mystery of this whole
discussion.  If you go back to that history that Helga
Zepp-LaRouche walked us through, about the 40, 45-year history of
the LaRouche movement’s fight for a new, international economic
order, that was paralleled by a 45-year history of a fight
against this kind of Malthusianism, the idea of “limits to
growth” and overpopulation and these kinds of things that have
become ingrained.
This was paralleled, in fact, we saw all those reports about
the great development of India, the development of the Pacific
Basin, the development of Africa, the development of Latin
America, all of these reports mapping out a blueprint for the
development of the planet; but also, there was a book that was
published, called {There Are No Limits to Growth}! And this was a
book by Mr. LaRouche [1983] and it is rooted so deeply in his
unique approach to economic science, the idea that, no, in fact,
we are not living in a closed system.  This is not a closed
economic system, this is not even a closed biological system, but
that in fact, the very fact that mankind has a voluntary,
creative capability as a species, allows mankind to move into
progressively higher and more efficient economic systems.
Because we’re not based on one sort of limited resources regime.
And we’ve seen this throughout history:  If you just take
the empirical view of human history, mankind has progressively
moved from one resource base to another resource base, through
discoveries, through new technologies, and each one of those
resource bases is defined by a higher energy-flux density, more
powerful forms of “fire,” as you could call it,  a Promethean
idea of what mankind is capable of.
You take that idea of economics, and this is really Mr.
LaRouche’s unique contribution, and you say: OK, the fact that
that debunks the entire idea of limited resources, that very fact
itself overthrows the entire idea which has been at the basis of
geopolitics for at least the last 50 years.  What was the
justification for saying, “no we have to limit the access of
these countries in the Third World to these limited resources, so
that the developed countries — the United States, Western Europe
— can have access to them?”  This was literally the basis of our
national security strategy in the 1970s and the 1980s.  But when
you say, there’s no such thing as “limited resources,” it
overthrows that entire idea of geopolitics.
And I think that really serves as the scientific basis for a
new idea of “win-win” cooperation, as counterposed to the idea of
a zero-sum game, where, if some countries win that means other
countries lose.  No.  In fact, {all} countries can win and
development is an unlimited potential.

DENISTON:  I don’t think it can be stressed enough, this is
an entire paradigm shift we’re talking about.  I think Helga’s
point about this being the end of the geopolitical perspective,
people have to realize that’s what’s on the table.  And that’s
why it’s so important she came back from China with this report.
Because we have to get Americans to understand the depth of this
revolution that’s happening right now, and the importance of the
United States jumping on board with this, immediately.  Because
this is a historic shift:  If you get the United States onboard
now with Russia and China and the nations allied with them,
that’s it.  We can have the future, we can create the future we
want with that alliance.  The British will be forced to go along
with that global alliance — they can put up as much of a fight
as they can, as we’re seeing, with this crazy propaganda campaign
in the United States, but people have to realize how vulnerable
the British Empire actually is, and that we have this perspective
before us.  Because this has happened, this is moving right now

OGDEN:  OK! Wonderful.  I think that what Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s point was, stands:  The United States must join
the New Silk Road.  This is the primary strategic focus and
everything else must be subsumed, as subsumed factor of that.
This is our focus, and nothing else.
So we need to escalate that campaign, obviously, and watch
for very dramatic and rapid developments around the globe!
Thank you very much, Ben, for joining me here in the studio
today, and thank you all for tuning.  That’s the conclusion to
our broadcast today:  Please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.
We’ll make that video that we showed you earlier, of Helga
Zepp-LaRouche’s remarks available as a standalone, and your task
for this weekend is to spread that around as far as you can.
Thank you very much, and good night.

[1] Se vores omfattende dossier: Stop den Grønne Kult Feature

Torsdag, 1. juni, 2017 – Under en telefonkonference med medarbejdere diskuterer Helga Zepp-LaRouche, stifter af det internationale Schiller Institut, sin seneste rejse til Kina, hvor hun var inviteret til at deltage i det historiske Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, 14.-15. maj, 2017. Zepp-LaRouche fortæller, hvor dramatisk anderledes, verden ser på Trumps præsidentskab, i modsætning til de hysteriske, vestlige mainstream-medier. »Tænk ud over kassen; resten af verden er allerede trådt frem og går fremad.«

Helga Zepp-LaRouche: Jeg vil gerne sikre mig, at I får et førstehåndsindtryk af min rejse fra mig, for jeg mener, den absolut værste fejltagelse, vi kunne begå, ville være at respondere til den absolut utrolige psykologiske krigsførelse, der kommer fra de amerikanske mainstream-medier og de neoliberale medier i Europa, såsom Spiegel Online, med dets chefredaktør-indlæg, som virkelig var helt ved siden af alting! Det står helt klart, at folk, der primært baserer sig på disse medier, har en komplet, 100 % ’s forkert idé om, hvad kendsgerninger er i det, der foregår. Det bør vi virkelig få ud af hovedet og ikke forsøge at svømme inden i fiske-glasbowlen med et kunstigt skabt miljø. For ud fra mit synspunkt, så ser verden meget anderledes ud.

For det første, som jeg allerede har sagt, og nu gentager: Med Bælt & Vej Forum har verden på dramatisk vis konsolideret begyndelsen af en ny æra, og jeg tror slet ikke på, at dette vil forsvinde, med mindre Tredje Verdenskrig skulle indtræffe; for størstedelen af verden bevæger sig på en fuldstændig frigjort måde. Først og fremmest var dette den konference på det højeste niveau, jeg nogensinde har deltaget i. Der var 28 statsoverhoveder, der talte efter tur, og Xi Jinpings tale var selvfølgelig fuldstændig fremragende, og I bør absolut lytte til den, hvis I har tid, for det var en meget, meget konfuciansk tale, der på en meget klar måde satte tonen for denne todages konference. Så lyt til den, når I har tid.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx_mE951GzI]

(Engelsk udskrift af talen her: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/14/c_136282982.htm)

Måden at forstå, hvad det er, der finder sted, er virkelig at tænke på, hvad denne organisation, og Lyn[don LaRouche] i særdeleshed, har gjort i de seneste næsten 50 år. Første gang, da Lyn i 1971 erkendte betydningen af nedtagningen af Bretton Woods-systemet, og dernæst alle de mange, mange ting, vi har gjort i de seneste mere end 40 år; da Lyn kom hjem fra det irakiske Ba’ath Partis jubilæum i 1975, og han foreslog den Internationale Udviklingsbank (IUB)[i], der skulle formidle en ny, økonomisk verdensorden; den kendsgerning, at vi, i et helt år, førte kampagne for denne IUB-idé, som dernæst blev en del af Den Alliancefri Bevægelses Colombo-resolution i Sri Lanka i 1976; dernæst, da vi i slutningen af ’70’erne arbejdede sammen med Indira Gandhi om en udviklingsplan over 40 år for Indien.[ii] Allerede i ’76’ udgav vi en hel bog om Afrikas industrialisering.[iii] Vi arbejdede sammen med den mexicanske præsident, José López Portillo om »Operation Juárez«.[iv] Vi udgav en 50-års Basal Udviklingsplan for Stillehavsområdet.[v] Lyn havde allerede i ’75’ foreslået Oasis-planen.[vi] Og så, selvfølgelig, da [Berlin]Muren faldt, og Sovjetunionen gik i opløsning, foreslog vi den Produktive Trekant[vii] og den Eurasiske Landbro.[viii]

Alle disse forslag![ix] Tænk blot på de mange, mange aktiviteter, vi lavede, konferencer på alle fem kontinenter, alt dette var på idé-planet, på program-planet – men først efter, at Xi Jinping satte den Nye Silkevej på dagsordenen i 2013, og med de åndeløse udviklinger i de fire år, der er gået, med Ét Bælt, én Vej (OBOR), er disse ideer nu ved at blive til virkelighed! Lampens ånd er sluppet ud!

Når vi nu ser diskussionen om den Bi-oceaniske Jernbane [Sydamerika] og tunneller og broer, der skal forbinde Atlanterhavet og Stillehavet omkring Sydamerika, og vi ser alle disse jernbanestrækninger, der nu åbnes i Afrika – dette er uden fortilfælde! Det var ikke IMF (Den internationale Valutafond) eller Verdensbanken, der gjorde det! De undertrykkede det med deres ’betingelsespolitik’. Men, med Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB), den Nye Udviklingsbank (’BRIKS-banken’), den Nye Silkevejsfond, den Maritime Silkevejsfond, de direkte investeringer fra Kinas Exim Bank, Kinas statsbank, skrider alle disse projekter nu fremad, og de har fuldstændig ændret alle de deltagende landes holdning og selvtillid.

Måden, hvorpå man i Kina ser på præsident Trump, er absolut anderledes end det, medierne forsøger at sige. Kineserne er meget positive mht. Trump, på samme måde, som man i Rusland mener, at Trump er en person, man absolut kan have et anstændigt forhold til, og dét er virkeligheden.

Glem medierne! Glem disse presse-horer, der faktisk ikke er andet et Det britiske Imperiums prostituerede. Lad være at lytte til, hvad de siger, og giv heller ikke de mennesker, I taler med, lov til det.

Da Trump lovede $1 billion i infrastrukturinvesteringer, gjorde han det rette, og vi fremlagde det rette program, da vi sagde, at USA må tilslutte sig Silkevejen, og dét, og intet andet, bør være vores fokus. Alt andet bør være et underordnet aspekt af dette. Dette er, hvad der er strategisk vigtigt, og det faktum, at chefen for China Investment Corp. Ding Xuedong sagde, det er ikke $1 billion, men $8 billion, som USA har brug for, rammer absolut plet; og I ved det selv fra den forfatning, som vejene og infrastrukturen i hele USA befinder sig i.

Så det faktum, at samme organisation nu har åbnet et kontor i New York, hvor de rådgiver kinesiske investorer om, hvordan de skal investere i USA, og vice versa, hvordan amerikanske investorer kan investere i Kina; det faktum, at kineserne er inviteret til at deltage i denne infrastruktur-konference i juni; alt dette går absolut i den rigtige retning.

Det, der fandt sted i Bælt & Vej Forum og de mange møder, jeg havde bagefter – jeg tilbragte trods alt to fulde uger i Beijing, i Nanjing, i Shanghai – mange af disse ting rapporterer jeg ikke om, for det er blot ting, der er i gang, men det er det faktum, at, i de mange interviews, de mange citater og det generelle synspunkt – I kan spørge Kasia og Stefan Tolksdorf, eller Bill Jones, for den sags skyld – vi blev behandlet med den største respekt. Jeg mener, folk er fuldt ud bevidste om Lyns betydning som en teoretiker inden for fysisk økonomi; hans ideer er højt respekterede, og folk behandlede os, som vi burde blive behandlet, nemlig som mennesker, der har helliget hele deres liv til menneskehedens almene vel. Dette står i absolut stærk kontrast til den dårlige behandling, vi normalt får fra de neoliberale i det transatlantiske område.

Man bør forstå, hvad disse angreb på Trump går ud på, hvad de skal gøre; det er for – det er så vanskeligt for ham at fokusere på det positive aspekt, og dem er der en hel del af, inklusive hans arbejdsrelation med Rusland og Kina, som rent strategisk er det vigtigste; så han grundlæggende set i stedet må forsvare sig, og alle mener, de må bruge al deres tid på at forsvare sig. Tænk blot tilbage, for de af jer, der var her dengang, hvordan vores liv som organisation ændrede sig efter angrebet i 1986. Frem til dette tidspunkt var vi alle positive, vi vandt primærvalg i Illinois, vi overvejede at skabe tre, private universiteter, for vi havde et netværk af henved 100 professorer, der ønskede at gennemføre Lyns ideer i form af et pensum i universiteter.

Og efter angrebet i 1986[x], udført af det samme apparat, der nu går efter Trump, måtte vi bruge alle disse penge på advokater, og vi måtte forsvare os, og det ændrede fuldstændig organisationens liv, og det er, hvad de nu forsøgerat gøre imod Trump!

Så lad være med at falde for det. Den idé, at vi er ved at tabe, er helt forkert! Menneskeheden er på vej fremad, og vi må få den amerikanske befolkning til at skabe den form for grobund, så gennemførelsen af infrastrukturprogrammet som første skridt kommer på dagsordenen, og på alles tanker, og intet andet.

Jeg ville blot sige dette, for ud fra indledende diskussioner, jeg havde i dag, fik jeg indtryk af, at folk ligger for meget under for det, og selv om Europa stadig er i EU-kommissionens greb, jeg mener, hvis Merkel ønsker at være leder af det frie Vesten – glem det. Macron har netop haft et meget fremragende møde med Putin, der satte betingelser for en hjertelig relation med Rusland! Dette er ikke, hvad Merkel og Obama havde lagt op til, da Obama talte på den protestantiske kirkes kirkedag, men Merkel er temmelig isoleret.

Se jer omkring i Europa: Macron sendte Raffarin, den tidligere premierminister, til Bælt & Vej Forum, og som holdt en fremragende tale om, hvorfor Kina og Frankrig må samarbejde. Gentiloni fra Italien sagde, at Kina og Italien vil samarbejde om Afrikas udvikling. Alle østeuropæerne; Tsipras [Grækenland], Serbien, Ungarn, Tjekkiets Zeman, Orban [Ungarn] – alle disse personer var absolut entusiastiske over Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Og nu, selv Tyskland; det viser, at tysk industri faktisk er ved at fatte det, at det er i deres interesse at samarbejde om joint ventures i tredjelande, sammen med Kina. Så jeg tror, selv Tyskland vil skifte mening.

Det er min faste overbevisning, at, ved dette års afslutning, vil det hele se helt anderledes ud, for perspektivet for udvikling er så smittende, at jeg tror, at alle Det britiske Imperiums bestræbelser på at smide en svensknøgle [i maskineriet], ikke vil virke!

Så sats på vinderperspektivet, sats på det bedste perspektiv, tænk strategisk: Og indse, at det, der finder sted, i mange, mange udviklingsprojekter i hele verden, i realiteten er det, som denne organisation har kæmpet for i næsten et halvt århundrede. Det ville jeg blot fortælle jer, for det værste, vi kunne gøre, er at se på det inde fra USA, inde fra kassen, når hele verden på afgørende vis er trådt ud af kassen, med Bælt & Vej Forum, der ikke lader sig standse af noget som helst. Og det er mit synspunkt, som jeg ønskede at videreformidle.

(Herefter følger Spørgsmål og Svar, i uddrag, med den efterfølgende diskussion på engelsk)

Diane Sare: Jeg ved, du skal skåne din stemme, men vil du have en diskussion?

Zepp-LaRouche: Hvis folk har uafklarede spørgsmål, hold jer ikke tilbage.

Spørgsmål: Hej, Helga, her er Mindy. Dette er ganske klart og det er godt at høre det fra dig, på en måde, for vi ser på, hvad vi gjorde på Beijing-topmødet, kineserne her kender CIC, og dernæst det forestående juni-topmøde og G20-topmødet i juli, hvor Putin og Xi og Trump vil være til stede; og vores rolle, og Lyns og din rolle har været – vi har opnået meget, og nu skal vi bare gå fremad for virkelig at bringe USA ind i et optimistisk syn og knuse denne fjende og satse på det, på meget kort tid.

Zepp-LaRouche: Præcis. jeg mener, potentialet absolut er til stede, diskussionerne mellem Xi Jinping og Trump er meget gode; udnævnelsen af den nye ambassadør [til Kina] Branstad udgør nu en yderligere kanal. Der er den igangværende kommission, der blev oprettet på Mar-a-Lago, med fokus på økonomien, og vi bør forstærke dette. Jeg mener, det er vigtigt, at vi får hele landet ind i en fornemmelse af en kampagnemobilisering, for vi vil ikke overlade denne kamp til de britiske agenter, der forsøger at ødelægge denne chance for at få USA ind sammen med denne udvikling.

Det fordrer virkelig, at vores organisation er fuldstændig klarhjernet og simpelt hen viser folk vejen. Og vejen er, at USA går med i Silkevejen. Vi må få veje bygget, ved I nok. Vi må få havne og nye byer. USA befinder sig i en forfalden tilstand, det ved I alle, og kineserne har absolut indikeret, at de har til hensigt og er villige til at investere. Tag blot det faktum, at Detroits Symfoniorkester nu turnerer i Kina, jeg tror, det er i fem byer, de giver koncert – Detroit, af alle steder! Så den rette hensigt er der, og vi bør blot forstærke den.

Giv ikke folk lov at være pessimistiske i blot ét enkelt sekund! Fortæl dem, at pessimisme er en sygdom. Det bør ikke tolereres.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche sammen med værten og den anden gæst på Tv-showet Dialog med Yang Rui under sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Q:  It’s Margaret Scialdone, I have a question about —
right after the Beijing conference we had initiated a petition
that went along with a marvelous little video by Jason, and the
petition was called “Suck It Up and Move On” — a petition to
Congress. I found it very refreshing.  I thought it had the right
kind of bite to it.  So I think it sort of dwindled, it hasn’t
been pushed or anything like that; but I’m wondering if we should
have a renewed initiative to really use this attitude to mobilize
people.  Or, if you think that we ought to come out with a new
wording, or new title or something like that?
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  I have not seen the video, or if it’s the
one I saw, my memory is overshadowed by many, many impressions,
so  — maybe it would be good to make a short new one, because I
think this video was made before the Belt and Road conference?
Am I correct?
Q:  It was done, I think two days after it.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  If it kept to what I just expressed before,
then we should use it, and if not, it should probably be updated.
But if you say it’s already in there, then use it, and maybe make
another one in the next days, but go with it now.
SARE:  I think it definitely could be updated.  This dynamic
is completely new, and it is foreign to Americans, the sense that
you’re conveying.  I think that Americans would have a very hard
time imagining anyplace where Trump is viewed with respect and
optimism.  And if there’s billions of people in China, Russia,
and otherwise, who think that, Americans don’t know it.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  What people say is that they’re very, very
happy that it’s not Obama or Hillary, because they knew perfectly
where this would have led to.  So people — and the fact that Xi
Jinping and Trump got along well is really important.  It’s not
only important for Trump to say to his supporters in Harrisburg,
that Xi is “great guy” and he gets along well with him, it’s also
the other way around.  When Xi Jinping gets along well with
Trump, then this is very important for all the Chinese.
Q:  Hi, this is Susan Director.  I think that what you’re
saying today, Helga, could be made into a very powerful audio to
post on the website, today.  Because, the intensity of your
presentation is the kind of thing that will lift people up and
pull them into action.
ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Then put it on!  Tiramisu! Tiramisu! Pull
me up!

Q: This is Evelyn in Houston, and it struck me, when Robert
Mueller was appointed as a Special Prosecutor, who also headed
the Get LaRouche task force, that the best flank on the attack on
Trump and also on the economic question, would be for us to call
again for the exoneration of Lyn.  Because it was the same
network, that attacked him, and for the same reasons, because they
don’t want Trump to go with Lyn’s policies.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yes, I agree.  That is one of the moral
stains on the history of the United States, and it absolutely
should be done.  I fully agree.  Remember that Ramsey Clark said
that Lyn’s case was the worst violation of justice in U.S.
history.  I think people can find the exact formulation of what
he said and use it.  And I think it’s very useful, because it
{is} the same network.
But while we should say it, I still think we should focus on
the positive thing, because it is the same network, and we should
do it, but more importantly, or not more importantly, but the
angle with which to go about it is to say, the world has moved in
a completely different direction, and what the mainstream media
are doing is sort of the last battles of a war which they have
been lost already by them. Maybe you could find some
appropriate battle from the Civil War — aren’t there some
battles where the British were still making some noises but they
were defeated, I mean, the Confederates —

SARE: In the War of 1812, they had surrendered but people
were still fighting in different places long after, not knowing
somehow.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE:  Yeah, why don’t you use that as an image?

SARE:  That’s a nice image!
If there’s nothing else, I think this is excellent.  I think
we can put this to good use.  We should get this up on the
website, and then we’ll have a lot to talk about on Sunday, after
our success.

ZEPP-LAROUCHE: OK, very good!

[i] http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1998/eirv25n32-19980814/eirv25n32-19980814_020-1975_larouche_calls_for_intl_dev.pdf

[ii] http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/fusion/19800505-fusion.pdf

[iii] http://wlym.com/archive/fusion/book/1980IndustrializeAfrica.pdf

[iv] http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/31620 og http://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1986/eirv13n35-19860905/eirv13n35-19860905_018-ibero_americas_strategy_to_defea-lar.pdf

[v] http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1983/eirv10n35-19830913/eirv10n35-19830913_018-a_50_year_development_policy_for-lar.pdf

[vi] http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps.html#Oasis plan

[vii] http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1990/eirv17n31-19900803/eirv17n31-19900803_031-the_economic_geography_of_europe.pdf og

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps.html#Triangle

[viii] http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/14728

[ix] En omfattende online oversigt, ’LaRouche’s 40-Year Record’; A New International Economic Order, kan studeres her:

https://larouchepac.com/new-economic-order

[x] Helga henviser her til de falske anklager om bedrageri imod Lyndon LaRouche, som var politisk motiverede. LaRouche blev idømt 15 års fængsel, men løsladt i 1994. Tretten af hans medarbejdere blev ligeledes idømt fængselsstraffe på falske anklager.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 31. maj, 2017 – Præsident Donald Trump kan være tæt på endnu et betydningsfuldt skift, væk fra »globaliseringens« døde æra – denne gang er det et amerikansk exit fra Barack Obamas nulvækst »Paris-aftale« – og han er fortsat udsat for ubarmhjertige angreb fra efterretnings-staten. Med endnu et stort, tysk medie, der bringer mord på Trump på banen, denne gang Der Spiegel, raser ’globalisterne’ for at blive af med ham.

Men amerikanerne stemte for et fundamentalt skift i økonomisk politik for atter at gøre Amerika til en stor, industriel og teknologisk nation. Og nu bliver truslen mod Trump fra den såkaldte »deep state«, »staten i staten«, måske modsvaret af udfordringen med de dybe huller i vejene, og de dybe, økonomiske huller, som millioner af amerikanere er faldet ned i.

Det rapporteres, at Trump-administrationen midt i juni til Kongressen vil cirkulere et udkast til amerikanske investeringer i ny, økonomisk infrastruktur og anmode om, at der vedtages love om det hen over sommeren. Og endnu, mens den investering, Trump vil anmode om, synes at blive stadig mindre end de $1 billion, han talte om under sin valgkampagne, så bliver modforslag fra Demokraterne stadig større.

På vegne af den Demokratiske Progressive Gruppe og valgkreds og fagforeningsgrupper, der støtter dem, fremlagde henved et dusin Demokratiske kongresmedlemmer den 25. maj et krav – i form af en kongresresolution, ikke lovgivning – om mere end $2 billion i direkte, statslig infrastrukturinvestering hen over 10 år, med betragtelig fokus på højhastigheds-jernbaneprojekter og nye projekter for vandveje og vandkontrol. Dette fulgte i kølvandet på et lovforslag om $1,25 billion som statsbevillinger til ny infrastruktur over kun fem år, introduceret af kongresmedlem Brian Higgins (D-NY).

Der er to faktorer, der fremmer disse forslag: det alarmerende sammenbrud af offentlig infrastruktur i større byer og stater; og så entusiasmen hos dem, der kender til Kinas utrolige Bælt & Vej-infrastrukturplatforme og de offentlige tilbud fra Kina og Japan om at investere i en opbygning af infrastruktur i USA.

Beijings Bælt & Vej Forum den 14.-15. maj var en forbløffende succes. Schiller Instituttets stifter Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der gav en præsentation om »Verdenslandbroen« under topmødet og i årtier har arbejdet på spiren til dette Bælt & Vej-initiativ, beskrev forummet som at deltage i udformningen af verdenshistorien til det bedre. Lyndon LaRouche, ophavsmanden til ideen fra 1989 og fremefter, sagde i dag: »Vi har etableret noget på globalt plan, og det er godt.«

Kinas udstedelse af produktiv kredit for at styrke andre nationers økonomier så vel som sin egen, har været unik i verden i et årti, og en politik, der både er konfuciansk og i Hamiltons tradition. Politikken i traditionen efter Hamilton mærkes i Amerika som et potentiale.

En sigende artikel i Asia Times den 29. maj havde titlen, »OBOR: Hvordan infrastruktur overtrumfer politik«. Den lægger ud med at diskutere Japans »overraskende« vending mod Kinas initiativer, Bælt & Vej og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB). Men dernæst, efter en gennemgang af viften af projekter for jernbaner, havne, elektricitet osv. i mange asiatiske lande, vender artiklen sig mod USA.

»For USA er Kinas OBOR-initiativ blevet en multidimensional udfordring, der påvirker nationale anliggender, såvel som international politik. Kinas fokus på multilaterale udviklingsprojekter har fremhævet et ubehageligt, nationalt spørgsmål for Trump: den amerikanske, civile infrastrukturs affældige tilstand, og Kongressens modstand mod at bevilge de nødvendige midler til at gøre noget ved det … Amerikas næststørste by, Los Angeles, er indbegrebet af Amerikas smuldrende infrastruktur. På trods af, at byen håber at sikre sig rettighederne til at være vært for 2024-Olympiaden, holdes byen tilbage pga. dens gennemhullede veje med trafikpropper, et aldrende telekommunikationssystem og manglen på pålidelig, offentlig transport. Borgmester Eric Garcetti kom endda med en dybtfølt bøn til Trumps transportminister, Elaine Chao, om at forcere en pakke på $1,3 mia. til byens undergrundsbane – men det står ikke klart, om administrationen vil føje ham.

»Garcetti går måske til Kina for investering.«

Det viser sig, at Kinas største producent af togvogne, CRRC Corp., allerede bygger 64 nye togvogne til Los Angeles’ undergrundsbane, og også til andre byer. Dette er kontrakter, der er udbudt til selskaber: men Kinas præsident Xi og ledere af statsbanker har gjort det klart, at Kina selv kunne investere i kreditydelse til store, nye infrastrukturplatforme, såvel som at være med til at bygge dem; det samme gælder for Japan.

Dette fordrer en statslig, amerikansk kreditinstitution. Ved de Progressive Demokraters begivenhed, understregede EIR-repræsentanter over for de tilstedeværende behovet for en nationalbank i Hamiltons tradition, som den centrale kilde til kredit, der kan gøre disse projekter mulige.

Foto: Shenzhen-strækningen af Guangzhou-Hongkong Højhastigheds-jernbanen under konstruktion. Maj, 2011. (Foto: Alancrh / wikimedia commons / CC BY-SA 3.0)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 30. maj, 2017 – 1.-3. juni træder Skt. Petersborg Internationale Økonomiske Forum (SPIEF) sammen, under værtskab af den russiske præsident Vladimir Putin, der for to uger siden var æresgæst på Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde (BVF) i Beijing, og som netop i går i Paris førte strategiske forhandlinger med præsident Emmanuel Macron. I går gav TASS en forhåndsvisning af mødet i Skt. Petersborg, under titlen, »Fremtiden fødes i dag: Integration og infrastrukturprojekter i Eurasien«. Den rapporterer om den kendsgerning, at en opbygning af nationer nu er ved at komme sammen – EAEU (Eurasisk Økonomisk Union), SCO (Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen) og Bælt & Vej-initiativ (BVI), plus tre nationer i BRIKS – for at fremme storstilede projekter, der udføres ud fra et »globalt standpunkt«, til alles fordel. Der sættes fokus på specifikke projekter, såsom Vostochny Cosmodrome (Kosmodrom Øst), som Japan er interesseret i at deltage i; og den »Østlige Polygon« – det fjernøstlige program for forbundethed – konnektivitet – som involverer den Transsibiriske Jernbane, Baikal-Amur Hovedlinjen, regionale grænseovergange og havne.

Mødet i Skt. Petersborg er nu den optimistiske »nye norm« i Eurasien, ledet af Kina og Rusland; og billedet er ved at blive fyldt ud for andre dele af verden. I Afrika finder den storstilede åbning af Nairobi-Mombasa-jernbanen sted, hvis 480 km ses som den første strækning i den fremtidige, østafrikanske, længdegående jernbanekorridor. »At forbinde nationer og give mennesker fremgang«, lyder mottoet på den nye, kenyanske linjes lokomotiver.

Uvidende om denne kendsgerning om denne globale omgruppering for udvikling – eller værre endnu, med had til den – er de politiske kræfter, der er sat i gang imod dens succes, og som for størstedelens vedkommende kommer fra den depraverede, britiske imperieflok. Der er et grelt misforhold mellem virkeligheden og så atlanticisternes forslag. Fra Europa kommer der fortsatte angreb mod præsident Trump og mod de amerikanske vælgere, der indsatte ham i embedet, og mod Trumps modstand mod ’grønt’ folkemord og NATO-geopolitik. Mandag fortsatte kansler Angela Merkel i Berlin de bebrejdelser imod USA, som hun havde udtalt efter sidste uges G7-møde. I en tale på en konference for bæredygtig udvikling sagde hun, at hun fortsat er en »overbevist atlanticist«, og at man ikke kan stole på USA; »vi europæere må virkelig tage skæbnen i egne hænder«, især mht. klimapolitik. I dag krævede hun, at Europa er »pro-aktiv i internationale anliggender«. Den tyske udenrigsminister Sigmar Gabriel angreb Trumps »snæversynede« politikker, der har »svækket« Vesten og EU-interesser.

Her til morgen svarede Trump igen i et tweet, men sammenhængen går langt videre end til øje for øje. På spil står præsidentskabets eksistens, USA’s integritet som nation, og om USA – meget snart – vil stille sig på linje med det nye paradigme, med Verdenslandbroen/Ny Silkevej. Faren og bestikkeligheden ved angrebene på Trump fremgår af en artikel i Spiegel Online fra 20. maj, »Tiden er inde til at komme af med Donald Trump«. Med en hysterisk tirade imod Trump (ingen moral, ingen mål, ingen strategi, ingen hjerne, osv.), gennemgår artiklen, hvordan man kan afsætte ham, med reference til det uhyggelige »Game of Thrones«. Artiklen opfordrer medierne til at »fortsætte med at sige det, som det er: Trump må fjernes fra Det Hvide Hus. Hurtigt. Han er til fare for verden«. Oversat betyder det, at man erkender, at et partnerskab mellem USA, Rusland og Kina er en dødbringende trussel mod Det britiske Imperium.

Sandheden er, at mennesker kan formås til at tænke og overvinde disse beskidte operationer, uanset, hvor uophørlige og farlige, de måtte være. Vi har meget specialarbejde at udføre. En stor udfordring er sammenbruddet og nødsituationen i New York Citys transportsystem. Knap seks uger fra i dag truer massivt kaos, når nogle af toglinjerne mellem Manhattan og Long Island og New Jersey indskrænkes pga. hastereparationer. Dette sker i sammenhæng med, at hele metropolregionens infrastrukturbase er affældig. LaRouche Manhattan Projekt går frem på basis af en overordnet plan, sammenhæng og frem for alt et krav om national handling for en tilslutning til den globale omgruppering for en Ny Silkevej.

Diane Sare fra LaRouche PAC Politiske Komite har en artikel i det næste nummer af EIR (2. juni), der slutter således:

»New York City og de dermed sammenhængende områder har en høj tæthed af kapable mennesker, hvis der fandtes et forceret program for at uddanne dem. Det er de spørgsmål, som USA’s befolkning omgående må overveje, og ikke, om Jared Kushner havde et møde med den russiske ambassadør (hvilket under alle omstændigheder sikkert ville have været en god idé).

LaRouches Fire Love angiver det nødvendige, forcerede programs medvirkende faktorer. Vi må nu samle en komite af eksperter, der kan udfylde detaljerne, og hermed transformere den måde, New Yorkere tænker på, mht. den aktuelle katastrofe. Husk, at, på kinesisk, er symbolet for krise og muligheder det samme.«

Foto: Kenyas præsident Uhuru Kenyatta indviede i dag, den 31. maj, officielt den 472 km lange jernbanestrækning med standardspor mellem havnebyen Mombasa ved det Indiske Ocean og Nairobi, hvor han kørte med Madaraka Expressens første, regulære afgang. (foto: www.railwaygazette.com)

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Verden ser meget anderledes ud, når den anskues fra Kina, end den gør fra USA eller Europa, lød Helga Zepp-LaRouches kommentar, da hun vendte hjem fra sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, der fandt sted 14.-15. maj. Kina befinder sig i en udvikling, der foregår i et forbløffende tempo, og deler nu denne succesfulde model med hele planeten, gennem Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Som en opstigende kraft i hele planetens økonomiske og kulturelle udvikling har Kina et optimistisk og forhåbningsfuldt syn – og ikke den pessimisme og fortvivlelse, der har hersket i det meste af Europa og USA, siden mordet på John F. Kennedy.

Der foregår nu en global omgruppering, bemærkede Helga Zepp-LaRouche, med fornuftige regeringer, der bringer deres nationer om bord i Bælt & Vej-initiativet. Kun de dumdristige vil blive stående udenfor og ’kigge ind’ sådan, som Angela Merkel nu gør med Tyskland.

Præsident Donald Trump må nu handle hurtigt for at sikre, at USA bliver en del af denne omgrupperede orientering. Han valgte klogt at sende en personlig toprådgiver, Matt Pottinger, som sin repræsentant til Bælt & Vej Forum. Nu må han forhandle Amerikas fulde deltagelse i alle aspekter af dette Nye Paradigme, inklusive investering af billioner af dollars i genopbygningen af Amerikas totalt ødelagte infrastruktur. Trump må handle hurtigt for at skabe reel, fysisk-økonomisk forandring – det er, hvad de millioner, der stemte på ham, venter på. Han må handle hurtigt, for at genindsætte FDR’s Glass/Steagall-lov fra 1933 for at skabe den nødvendige bank- og kreditramme for en sådan massiv indsats for genopbygning – dét er mandatet, han fik ved præsidentvalget i 2016. Den idémæssige køreplan for, hvordan disse politikker skal implementeres i USA, har Lyndon LaRouche gentagent leveret – senest i sine Fire Love (til USA’s – og verdens – omgående redning).

Præsident Trump bør ikke tillade, at han presses eller distraheres bort fra denne hastedagsorden, af disse tendentiøse og grundløse anklager, der slynges ud mod hans regering, den ene efter den anden. Det er netop formålet med disse, af briterne påbudte operationer, at de skal forhindre præsident Trump i at vedtage de nationale, og internationale, politikker, som Det britiske Imperium i den grad frygter. At fordømme og afsløre disse løgne er selvfølgelig nyttigt, og endda nødvendigt. Men, denne eneste måde, hvorpå disse beskidte operationer på afgørende vis kan begraves, er at gøre præcis dét, som briterne er mest bange for; og begynde at bygge infrastrukturen og andre store projekter, nu.

En mere passende hyldest til John F. Kennedy i hundredeåret for hans fødsel, end netop atter at hellige vor nation disse politikker, eksisterer ikke.

Foto: Helga Zepp-LaRouche på Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, 2017.

Leder fra LaRouche PAC, 29. maj, 2017 – Det historiske Bælt & Vej Forum for Internationalt Samarbejde, den 14.-15. maj i Beijing, og hvori Helga Zepp-LaRouche deltog, efterfulgtes af præsident Trumps rundrejse til fire nationer, med anti-terrorisme og fred i Mellemøsten som dagsorden, og dernæst af NATO- og G7-topmøderne, hvor præsident Trump afviste både Rusland som fjendebillede og svindelen med menneskeskabt, global opvarmning.

I morgen, mandag, finder der et topmøde sted mellem præsidenterne Vladimir Putin fra Rusland og Emmanuel Macron fra Frankrig, et topmøde, der pludselig blev fremrykket mere end en måned. Den nyvalgte præsident Macron har ageret, som Lyndon LaRouches ven og tidligere franske præsidentkandidat Jacques Cheminade havde adviseret om, at han ville, ved at flytte koordinering med Vladimir Putin til toppen af sin dagsorden. Det kan der komme flere overraskelser ud af.

Dernæst vil et ekstraordinært årligt møde i Skt. Petersborg Økonomiske Forum (SPIEF) begynde kommende torsdag, den 1. juni, som vi rapporterer mere om nedenfor. Blot dagsordenen (der i sig selv er på 63 sider) for dette forum udtrykker den nye ånd fra den Nye Silkevej og fra amerikanernes afvisning af britiske imperiediktater, med deres valg af Donald Trump. Det er tilstrækkeligt lige nu at nævne blot et enkelt panel af de sandsynligvis flere end 100 paneler. Det bærer titlen: »Fremtiden, der fødes i dag: Integrations-og Infrastrukturprojekt i Eurasien«. Det vil faktisk blot være ét af flere Skt. Petersborg-paneler om netop dette emne. Blandt paneldeltagerne finder vi Lyndon LaRouches gamle ven, Vladimir Yakunin, formand for den overordnede bestyrelse for Instituttet for Forskning af Dialog mellem Kulturer, og som vil være en fremtrædende deltager under hele Skt. Petersborg Forum.

Dernæst vil Gruppen af 20 afholde topmøde den 7.-8. juli i Hamborg, under hvilket – med mindre det rykkes frem – præsidenterne Trump og Putin vil holde deres første, personlige møde. Den kinesiske præsident Xi Jinping skal besøge Rusland i begyndelsen af juli måned, til sit andet topmøde i år med præsident Putin. Herefter følger BRIKS-topmødet den 3.-5. september i Xiamen, i Kinas Fujian-provins.

De stats- og regeringsoverhoveder, der deltager i SPIEF med præsident Putin i denne uge, bliver den indiske premierminister Narendra Modi, den japanske premierminister Shinzo Abe, den østrigske kansler Christian Kern og den moldoviske præsident Igor Dodon. Der bliver paneler om samarbejde inden for BRIKS, den Eurasiske Økonomiske Union (EAEU) og inden for Samfundet af Uafhængige Stater. Og om EAEU-samarbejde med Europa, med Shanghai Samarbejdsorganisationen og med Central- og Sydamerika. Om russisk samarbejde med Frankrig, Italien, Sverige, Schweiz, Serbien, Indien, Japan, USA og Afrika, og flere paneler om russisk samarbejde med Tyskland, især om gennembrud i metoder til varefremstilling. Der bliver paneler om rumteknologi og atomkraft, og adskillige paneler om forbedret sundhedspleje, inklusive om, hvordan lægevidenskaben kommer ud over antibiotika i betragtning af spredningen af antibiotikaresistente bakterier – på høje tid, at dette diskuteres seriøst. Der bliver adskillige paneler om byggeri af byer og urban infrastruktur – præcis det, vi er begyndt at diskutere omkring New York City.

Vi har nu muligheden for at virkeliggøre John F. Kennedys vision, Kennedy, der blev født for 100 år siden, den 29. maj, 1917. Hvis vi kæmper for det, kan vi sandsynligvis få det til at ske. I sin anden tale for FN’s Generalforsamling den 30. september, 1963, foreslog John Kennedy, at USA og Sovjetunionen gik sammen om at sende en mand til Månen inden årtiets udgang.

»I et felt, hvor USA og Sovjetunionen har en særlig kapacitet – feltet for rumforskning – er der plads til nyt samarbejde om yderligere fælles indsats i fastlæggelse af lovene for rummet, og for udforskning af rummet. Blandt disse muligheder inkluderer jeg en fælles ekspedition til Månen. I rummet er der ingen suverænitetsspørgsmål; gennem en resolution i denne Forsamling, har De forenede Nationers medlemmer afsværget ethvert krav på territoriale rettigheder i det ydre rum eller på himmellegemer og erklæret, at international lov og FN’s charter vil gælde. Hvorfor skulle derfor, menneskets første flyvning til Månen være et spørgsmål om konkurrence mellem nationer? Hvorfor skulle USA og Sovjetunionen, som forberedelse til sådanne ekspeditioner, blive involveret i en enorm fordobling af forskning, konstruktion og omkostninger? Mon ikke vi bør udforske, om det ikke skulle være muligt for vore to landes – ja, hele verdens – videnskabsfolk og astronauter at arbejde sammen om erobringen af rummet og, i dette årti, da en dag at sende til Månen, ikke repræsentanterne for en enkelt nation, men repræsentanterne for alle vore lande.«

Foto: Præsident Donald J. Trump og førstedame Melania Trump rejste til Bruxelles, Belgien, onsdag aften for deres fjerde stop under deres udenlandsrejse. Præsident Trump mødtes med ledere fra hele verden, før NATO-topmødet i Bruxelles.