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.

24. maj, 2017 – I en tale for et publikum på mellem 100 og 200 mennesker i forlaget Phoenix Press Publishing Groups hovedkvarter i Nanjing, Kina, gav Helga Zepp-LaRouche, Schiller Instituttets præsident, en tilbagemelding om sin deltagelse i Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing.

»Bælt & Vej har indsprøjtet optimisme i mange lande«, sagde Zepp-LaRouche, »og dette momentum kan ikke standses«, men at bringe det til at bære den fulde frugt »bliver ikke let«. Umiddelbart efter topmødet, fortsatte hun, optrappedes angrebene mod Bælt & Vej, kombineret med angreb mod præsident Trump, der havde sendt en delegation på højt niveau til BV-topmødet. »Angrebene var baseret på de absurde anklager om aftalt spil med Rusland i valget«, sagde hun.

»Efter den Kolde Krig, ønskede briterne og deres amerikanske allierede at skabe en unipolær verden«, sagde hun. »Og i deres bestræbelser herpå, har de ødelagt Mellemøsten og efterladt det i ruiner.« Dette fremskyndede flygtningekrisen, den generelle reaktion imod »globalisering« og fremvæksten af højrefløjsbevægelser. »Bælt & Vej«, sagde hun, »vil virkeliggøre skabelsen af Verdenslandbroen, som vil forbinde alle kontinenter. Dette er noget, vi har kæmpet for i over 40 år«, sagde hun.

Dernæst beskrev hun den kamp, som hun og hendes mand, Lyndon H. LaRouche, jr., har ført for at bygge en ny, økonomisk verdensorden: LaRouches forslag om en International Udviklingsbank, kampen for den afrikanske udviklingsplan og det latinamerikanske initiativ med samme formål, med samarbejdet med den mexicanske præsident, José López Portillo [1976-82], samt de hundredevis af seminarer på fem kontinenter, som Schiller Instituttet har afholdt, med krav om en Bælt & Vej-udvikling.

»Transformeringen af Bælt & Vej til at blive til en Verdenslandbro vil for første gang rent politisk virkeliggøre en reel fremtid for alle mennesker, der lever på denne planet, og vil etablere former for regeringsførelse for verden.« Men, for fuldt ud at realisere dette, sagde hun, »må man også studere min mands ideer med hensyn til spørgsmålet om økonomi«.

Fr. Zepp-LaRouche gennemgik dernæst de altafgørende kulturelle aspekter af Bælt & Vej og behovet for, at alle de forskellige kulturer bringer alle deres bedste præstationer frem, med det formål at bruge disse til at skabe en dialog mellem kulturer blandt nationerne i Bælt & Vej. Dernæst gennemgik hun betydningen af Friedrich Schiller i tysk og vestlig kultur, og betydningen af Konfucius i kinesisk kultur, idet hun foretog en konkret sammenligning mellem Schillers og Konfucius’ værker, hvor hun viste den nære lighed i disse to, store tænkeres ideer, der var skilt af næsten 2000 år.

Efter fr. Zepp-LaRouche havde Bill Jones, chef for EIR’s Washington-kontor, en fremlæggelse, hvor han viste en power point-præsentation, der beskrev LaRouche-organisationens kamp fra tidspunktet for Nixons ophævelse af Bretton Woods-systemet. Han beskrev Romklubbens angreb i 1970’erne og udgivelsen af bogen »Grænser for vækst«, der havde til hensigt at transformere en fremskridtskultur til en dødskultur, med den internationale indsats for Økonomisk Nulvækst og Befolknings-nulvækst. Han skitserede Lyndon LaRouches og LaRouche-organisationens reaktion på Nulvækst-bevægelsen, LaRouches krav om den Internationale Udviklingsbank (IUB) og det efterfølgende krav om IUB og en Ny, økonomisk Verdensorden ved den Alliancefri Bevægelses Colombo-møde i 1976, og gennem Guyanas udenrigsminister, Fred Willis, i FN’s Generalforsamling.

Jones beskrev den kamp, som LaRouche førte for at bringe præsident Ronald Reagan, der havde vedtaget LaRouches idé om Strategic Defense Initiative, SDI (Det strategiske Forsvarsinitiativ) som et fredsforslag sammen med Sovjetunionen, ind i en arbejdsrelation med de progressive ledere i udviklingssektoren, såsom den mexicanske præsident López Portillo og den indiske premierminister Indira Gandhi. Disse bestræbelser førte dernæst til en reaktion fra vicepræsident George H.W. Bush, der intrigerede for at få LaRouche og flere af hans medarbejdere fængslet på falske anklager. Valget af præsident Bill Clinton bragte LaRouche ud af fængsel og tilbage i en rådgivende rolle, med præsident Clintons forsøg, om end mislykket, på at gå i retning af en ny finansarkitektur. Skabelsen af Bælt & Vej-initiativet (BVI) og Asiatisk Infrastruktur-Investeringsbank (AIIB) repræsenterer således den type strukturer, som LaRouche og hans bevægelse har forsøgt at frembringe i over fire årtier, forklarede Jones.

Dernæst fulgte professor Bao Shixiu, professor i militærvidenskab, der skitserede Bælt & Vejs strategiske betydning for Kina og viste, hvordan det vil gøre det muligt for landet at overvinde de traditionelle vanskeligheder, det har haft med andre lande, inklusive Indien og Japan. Professor Bao understregede LaRouche-parrets skelsættende rolle med at bringe dette initiativ frem i forreste front, og Lyndon og Helga LaRouches fortsatte kamp for at overvinde modstanden mod det, fra finanseliten i London og New York. Professor Bao fremlagde også både Bælt & Vejs økonomiske og strategiske implikationer for Kina, som ville være med til at sikre et harmonisk klima i området og i verden, der igen ville gøre det muligt for Kina og alle andre lande at fortsat udvikle sig.

Tilhørerne viste stor interesse, især for Helga Zepp-LaRouches forslag om en dialog mellem kulturer og en større grad af interesse i Friedrich Schillers værker blandt personalet i Phoenix-forlaget, af hvilke nogle syntes at have fået et ret stort kendskab til den tyske kulturs værker.

Foto: Som præsident for Schiller Instituttet var Helga Zepp-LaRouche inviteret til at deltage i det netop afsluttede Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, den 14.-15. maj, hvor hun deltog i rundbordsdiskussioner mellem tænketanke. Her ses hun som tilhører under forummet.

Matthew Ogden: Vi befinder os nu lidt under to uger efter det verdenshistoriske Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing, Kina. Som resultat af dette ekstraordinære topmøde har de forskellige dele af verden nu indledt processen med at konkretisere og konsolidere det, der blev diskuteret på dette forum; og de befinder sig i processen med at bygge det mest ambitiøse og langt det mest vidtrækkende infrastrukturprojekt i verdenshistorien – det såkaldte Ét Bælte, én Vej; det økonomiske bælte; den Maritime Silkevej. Dette nye paradigme, der repræsenteres af dette fredelige, samarbejdende win-win-udviklingsprogram med storstilede projekter og reel, eksponentielle eksplosioner i menneskelig produktivitet, er nu ved at blive den fremherskende dynamik på denne planet. Vi har en meget spændende rapport fra Helga Zepp-LaRouche, der, som det er vore seere bekendt, deltog personligt i dette Bælt & Vej Forum i Beijing; hvor hun deltog i flere plenarforsamlinger og rundbordsdiskussioner. Hun er fortsat med at holde private møder i Kina, siden topmødet sluttede. Så sent som i går holdt hun endnu en fremtrædende tale i Nanjing.

(Her følger engelsk udskrift af resten af webcastet. Hele Helgas tale vil kunne læses på dansk her på hjemmesiden i løbet af weekenden.)

So, let’s take a look here; this is what Helga LaRouche had
to say.  She was a featured speaker at a conference of several
hundred people at the Phoenix Press Publishing Group
headquarters, which published the Chinese version of the New Silk
Road Special Report.  It was a report-back from her attendance at
the May 14-15 Belt and Road summit.  So, here’s a view of
beautiful Nanjing; this is where she was speaking yesterday.  As
you can see, a very modern and high-tech Chinese city.  She said
the following:
“The Belt and Road has injected optimism into many
countries, and the momentum is unstoppable.  But bringing it
fully to fruition will not be easy,” she said.  Then she
elaborated a little bit on that; she said, “Immediately after the
Beijing summit, the attacks against the Belt and Road escalated;
combined with attacks against President Trump, who had sent a
high-level delegation.  The attacks were based on the absurd
charges of collusion with Russia in the election.”
“After the Cold War, the British and their American allies
wanted to create a unipolar world.  In doing so, they have
destroyed the Middle East and left it in a shambles”; which she
said contributed to the refugee crisis.  And she said, “The Belt
and Road will bring about the creation of the World Land-Bridge,
which will connect all continents.”  This is something that we,
the LaRouche movement, have been fighting for, for over 40 years.
She concluded saying, “Transforming the Belt and Road to a World
Land-Bridge will realize politically for the first time, a real
future for the people living on this planet; and will establish
forms of governance for the world.”  She made a very important
point, which we’ll take up. “But to fully realize this, you must
also study the ideas of my husband, Lyndon LaRouche, on the
question of economics.”
In addition to Helga, other speakers at this conference
were:  Bill Jones, the {EIR} bureau chief for Washington, DC; and
a very distinguished gentleman, Professor Bao Shixiu, who’s a
professor of military science.
That’s the kind of optimism, you get a sense of the real
optimism that’s being expressed by Helga LaRouche; and that’s
what the world looks like to the rest of the world for anyone who
is not reading the hysterical American and European press.  On
the other hand, for your average American citizen, the very words
“New Silk Road”, “One Belt, One Road”, “Belt and Road
Initiative”, these phrases are almost like a foreign language.
It’s practically unheard of, with hardly a mention of this
incredible development in world history that occurred over the
last two weeks.  Hardly a mention of this in the mainstream press
aside from propaganda about how this project is just some sort of
front for a so-called “new Chinese imperialism” or other lying
distortions of what the implications of this idea, of this
vision, is.
So instead, while your average American is sitting in the
sweltering heat in Penn Station, waiting for a train which has
been delayed for two hours because of some track derailment, or
literal disintegration of the track, while he’s sitting in his
car for hours in a traffic jam waiting to go through the Lincoln
Tunnel, or stuck in traffic on 495, or sitting at home looking
for a job to pay off hundreds of thousands of student debt that
he spent to get a degree that has earned him nothing.  What is
the average American forced to listen to on the radio, or on CNN,
or while he’s reading the esteemed headlines in the so-called
venerable press, the mainstream media, the {Washington Post} or
the {New York Times}?  Nary a mention of the new high-speed,
vacuum tube magnetic train that is being developed by China, or
the new rail routes that are being opened in Africa, or the
literally hundreds of great infrastructure projects that are
being built practically overnight along the routes of the New
Silk Road.  But rather, what are you reading?  Page after page
after story after article of McCarthy-ite scare stories about
evil Russian spies who have supposedly infiltrated and subverted
the entire Trump administration, lurking behind every desk in the
West Wing.  Literally smuggling hidden microphones into the Oval
Office itself; the inner sanctum of the Trump administration.
They’re reading John Brennan repeatedly tell a Congressional
hearing “I don’t do evidence”; as he increasingly begins to sound
like a character out of a “Doctor Strangelove” movie.
Here’s a quote from John Brennan:  “I know what the Russians
try to do.  They suborn individuals and they try to get
individuals, including US individuals, to act on their behalf;
wittingly or unwittingly.”  In other words, any American who has
some contact with Russia or Russians, may be a spy or a mole,
whether he or she knows it or not.  Subversion, or possible
subversion, is everywhere; trust no one.  There’s John Brennan
for you.
Now, Americans should ask themselves, why are we being
subjected to an endless, round-the-clock, literally nonstop
narrative of so-called collusion between Russian spies and the
Trump campaign, when even John Brennan himself was forced to
admit in that same hearing, under rigorous questioning from
members of Congress, that no, in fact, he has absolutely {no}
evidence of collusion, cooperation, or coordination.  Let’s take
a look:

ALICIA CERRETANI [on video]:  On Tuesday, Obama’s CIA
director, resident thug, and coup plotter John Brennan testified
in front of the House Intelligence Committee.  His testimony was
then used by the crazed media to flame the ongoing coup against
the President for yet another day.
Who is this guy? Well, after his stint as CIA station chief
in Riyadh, Brennan became George Tenetâs gopher at the CIA, and
then authored the intelligence assessment that claimed Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Credible guy, right? He
became Obamaâs CIA director in 2013, and regularly joined Obama
for the infamous Tuesday kill sessions. He helped overthrow the
duly-elected government of Ukraine using neo-Nazis, and helped
Obama encircle Russia and China with US military forces, setting
the stage for World War III.
On Tuesday, Brennan told Congress that based on his
intelligence experience (like the Iraq war intelligence
assessment), when he observed contacts between Trump campaign
personnel and Russian personnel he thought they might be
nefarious, even if the Trump campaign personnel were “unwitting”.
This has justified a full, unprecedented FBI investigation of a
Presidential campaign and all that has followed.
And just like the Iraq war, his “judgment” is not based on
“evidence”. As he explained, he “doesnât do evidence.” Listen to
these exchanges:

REP. TOM ROONEY:  But with regard to the main question at
hand, in your experience with the Russians trying to involve
themselves in our election, did you every find any evidence, as
the ranking member spoke of collusion, while you were the
Director, did you find direct evidence of collusion between the
Trump campaign and Putin in Moscow, while you were there?

JOHN BRENNAN:  Mr. Rooney, I never was an FBI agent, I never
was a prosecutor, so I really don’t do evidence.  I do
intelligence throughout the course of my careerâ¦.

REP. TREY GOWDY:  When you learned of Russian efforts, did
you have evidence of a connection between the Trump campaign and
Russian state actors?

BRENNAN:  As I said, Mr. Gowdy, I don’t do evidence.  We
were uncovering information and intelligence about interactions
and contacts between US persons and the Russians.  As we came
upon that, we would share it with the Bureau.

GOWDY:  So, was it contact that you saw, was it something
more than contact?  What is the nature of what you saw?

BRENNAN:  I saw interaction, and was aware of interaction.
But again, it raised questions in my mind about what was the true
nature of it; but I don’t know.  I don’t have sufficient
information to make a determination whether or not such
cooperation or complicity or collusion was taking place.

REP. MIKE TURNER:  But if someone left this hearing today,
and said that you had indicated that those contacts were evidence
of collusion or collaboration, they would be misrepresenting your
statements, correct?

BRENNAN:  They would have mis-heard my response to the very
good questions that were asked of me.  I’m trying to be as clear
as possible in terms of what I know, what I assess, and what I
can say.

TURNER:  So, you would say that’s a misrepresentation of
your statement, yes?

BRENNAN:  I would say that it was not an accurate portrayal
of my statement, absolutely; it was inconsistent with my remarks.

TURNER:  So, let me go to the next step.  If someone saw
what you saw, and only what you saw, with respect to those
contacts, if they looked at the intelligence that you saw, where
you said it might have been benign, might not have been benign,
and then they characterized what they saw as having been evidence
of collusion or collaboration, they’d be misrepresenting the
intelligence, would they not?

BRENNAN:  I don’t know what else they have seen that could
corroborate or —

TURNER:  If they saw only what you saw, they would be
misrepresenting the intelligence, correct?

BRENNAN:  I presume they would be misrepresenting what it is
that I saw.  Again, I don’t know —

TURNER:  Thank you.  I appreciate that, because I do believe
that there are members of this committee who deserve that
counsel.  Because your specificity gives us an understanding of
what we’re reviewing, and I do believe there are those who
reviewed some of the information that you have seen, and
represented to the public absolutely incorrectly and
misrepresented it.

CERRETANI:  Itâs time for Americans to see the world as
Brennan and his cohorts see it. Their establishment has their
panties in a bunch, not over Trump-Russian collusion, but because
Donald Trump said he is ready to work with Russia and China on
terrorism and economic development, ending the miserable years
under Bush and Obama which Brennan so faithfully served. Trump
needs to keep his promise; end the regime change wars and focus
on rebuilding the economy. And the same goes for our Senators and
Congressmen: Suck it up, move on, and back Trump up on rebuilding
the country.

OGDEN:  So, as you can see, we have a petition on that
subject which is available on the LaRouche PAC website.  It’s
called “It’s Time to Rebuild the Country”; the website is
lpac.co/rebuild.  This is a petition which you can sign and you
can circulate.
So, to take up that question — “It’s time to rebuild the
country” — I’m joined by Jason Ross as I mentioned earlier; who
spent the last week in New York City, conducting meetings with
some top engineers and discussing what must be done to form a
task force, a national action force, to address what is rightly
being called an infrastructure emergency.  It is expressing
itself very acutely in New York City, but it’s a general problem.
Before I bring Jason on, I want to show a couple of headlines to
give you a flavor of what New Yorkers are experiencing right now.
Here’s the first:  “Nothing Can Save New York City Commuters from
a Summer of Hell”; “Long Island Railroad Riders Could Be in for a
‘Summer of Agony’|”; “MTA Taking on ‘Crushing Debt’ for Expansion
Projects”; “New York Governor Urges Trump to Provide Emergency
Funds for Penn Station”; and “If You Want to Understand America’s
Infrastructure Problem, Just Look at New Jersey!”
So, Jason, why don’t you give us a flavor of what’s going on
up there in New York?

JASON ROSS:  Sure!  I can say a bit about what’s going on up
here, and then I think the really important aspect is about where
the solution can come from.  Some people like to look for local
solutions, which in the case of New York is simply not possible
here.  In terms of what the region is facing, I’ll just give a
couple of examples.  One is New York Penn Station, which is where
the New Jersey Transit trains come in from New Jersey, it’s where
the Long Island Railroad trains come in from the east, and also,
Amtrak trains use it.  It serves about 700,000 passengers every
day, busiest train station in the United States.  The tunnels
that go under the Hudson River from the west side of Manhattan,
are over 100 years old.  They received damage during super storm
Sandy, and without repair, they’re expected to potentially fail
anytime within a decade or so.  But it’s unpredictable; they
could fail sooner.  Basically, it’s a ticking time bomb.
Were one of these tunnels to fail, there would literally be
probably about 100,000 people unable to get to work in the
morning, or get home, or run their errands or do whatever they’re
doing.  100,000 people.  That’s an awfully large number of
people.  Also related to this, Matt, you had mentioned the
“Summer of Hell” for Long Island Railroad commuters.  Coming out
of Penn Station to the east, are tunnels that cross the East
River.  Of the four tunnels, there are two that are going to be
undergoing repair and maintenance.  During that time, the
availability of trains is going to be decreased; this is the
“Summer of Hell”.  This is going to be a major bottleneck for
commuters.  Then coming up in 2019, the L train, which crosses
the East River and heads to Williamsburg and Brooklyn, is going
to be closed down for over a year.  That tunnel needs such major
maintenance; again, an over 100-year old tunnel serving the
busiest metro system in our nation.  When that is closed for over
a year, that’s going to cause major disruptions.
The thing is, this is not an accident; it’s not as though
these things were unforeseen.  Due to decades of
under-investment, the infrastructure of New York City, the
largest, most important city in the United States, is really at
catastrophic levels.  Even the planned outages are going to be
very debilitating, and were something to occur to the Hudson
River crossing heading into Penn Station from the New Jersey
side, you would have an absolute disaster.  You’d have to change
the bridges and tunnels to be buses and carpools only, for
example.  Major disruption, very major disruption.
What I think this shows us, in addition to the $100 billion
to $1 trillion that would be required to really revamp the system
in New York, to standardize the types of sizes of the trains, or
have platforms that can operate on both New Jersey Transit and
Long Island Railroad trains; not to get into all the detail on
this.  Let’s talk about what would make it possible.
You opened up the show discussing Helga LaRouche’s visit to
the Nanjing, following her participation in the Belt and Road
Forum in Beijing two weeks ago.  This Belt and Road Initiative
outlook, the types of financing that are involved in this, the
funding, the way that this infrastructure is being conceived and
put together; this is something that’s absolutely essential in
the United States.  Infrastructure isn’t little bits and pieces
that get put together to make individual commuters or the
movement of goods easier.  What it is, is a platform as a whole,
required for a certain level of productivity.  So, we require
both an increase in the productivity of the United States,
productivity in the sense of producing things.  Producing
something for the future, as exemplified by scientific research
or high-technology manufacturing, by the space program.  These
are things that are incredibly productive in achieving a greater
potential for the future.  When you say what is the platform on
which a higher level of productivity can exist, then the answer
to that question is things like national rail upgrades; very
high-speed rail, for example, along the eastern coast of the
United States, throughout the country.  A large investment in
revamping in the New York City metro system, for example; but far
beyond that.  Nationally, rail; power plants.  Upgrading our very
old power plants to new, higher technology, more efficient and
safer nuclear power plants; fourth generation nuclear power
plants.
The kinds of upgrades that are needed are on a scale that is
so large, that it requires a commitment from the nation.  This, I
think, gets to the Four Laws of Lyndon LaRouche, the proposal
that he’s made for what’s necessary for real economic recovery in
the United States.  With Glass-Steagall in place and the
potential to actually direct the economy in a productive
direction, you’re going to need a national banking approach.
We’re going to need the ability to finance large investments in
infrastructure in projects that will not bring a return.  This is
the biggest problem people have in understanding this.  You’re
thinking about value in terms of money.  Does the New York subway
pay for itself?  Do people pay enough in fares to pay for the
system?  These kinds of things really miss the point, because
they ignore the qualitative incommensurable change in
productivity that’s made possible by an infrastructure platform
as a platform.
As Mr. LaRouche considers it, in creating a synthetic
environment, an artificial environment, a manmade, nurturing,
improved, better environment around us; where our surroundings,
the world that we live in, is, to an increasing degree, one of
our own creation.  The resources that are resources to us in our
daily life, or on a national economic scale, are not those of
2000 years ago.  They’re not the resources of good land for
agriculture — although of course, we use that; or of resources
that are sitting around.  Fish in the ocean or the river that you
can catch.  They’re resources that are underground; they’re
resources that are very hard to separate from each other.
Separating out rare Earth elements for their use; mining aluminum
ore and creating aluminum with a process that requires a great
deal of electricity.  The ability to use the resources of the
future to increase our power as a species; that’s the real key
direction that infrastructure must be approached from.
The way to avoid the bit by bit, piece by piece, piecemeal
user fee approach to infrastructure financing, is to acknowledge
its unique role in the economy as something that’s of
governmental responsibility and something whose returns are
inherently indirect and should not be looked for in terms of
direct money made by them via user fees.  It’s just a completely
wrong way to look at these things.
The way to make this possible is going to go far beyond
Donald Trump’s proposals for investing $1 trillion in
infrastructure over the next decade via a process that pulls in
private money via PPPs (public-private partnerships) and the
like.  What’s required is not annual appropriations, not private
financing, but an ability to have national credit over a longer
term loans via a national banking approach to make it possible to
build these 5-, 10-, 25-year programs at rates that are
affordable.  So we can put in place this necessary physical
environment; create the platform that we would want to live in,
where we’re able to move efficiently.  Where new areas for, for
example, affordable housing open up, when you’ve got a better
transportation system.  You don’t have to live quite so close to
an expensive city center to be able to get a job there.  You can
enjoy more of your time when you have an efficient and productive
infrastructure platform.
So I think overall, New York City is a case study.  You’d
say that if this can happen in New York, and you think about the
importance of New York City and the nation, the importance of the
businesses that are located there; you’d say that there is enough
of a pull that this should never have been possible for this to
occur in New York City.  But it has, and it’s just an
illustration of a dramatic underinvestment nationwide; and
something that has to be reversed in this way that Mr. LaRouche
has been very unique and very correct in proposing for the United
States.

OGDEN:  Well, Jason, you have unique perspective, because
not only have you spent the last week up in New York, but you’ve
had the opportunity to travel to China.  Maybe you could just
tell us a little bit; just a personal eyewitness view.  What’s
the difference between being an American walking around the
streets of New York City right now with crumbling infrastructure,
versus being in China, walking around Beijing with a blossoming
high technology commitment to modern infrastructure?

ROSS:  Well, some people might say it’s an unfair
comparison, because the metro system in Nanjing is basically
brand new; it’s a decade or two old.  And in Beijing, there’s
been significant expansion of the lines.  But the fact is, that
even older cities — take Seoul, South Korea; they’ve had major
upgrades to their subway system.  They put in the screen doors in
the stations so you don’t have trash or people falling on the
tracks; it makes it safer, it makes it possible to air condition
the stations.  These are the kinds of things that New York could
have retrofitted; but if you look at the situation today, you’ve
got the interesting aromas in New York subways.  You’ve got the
famously unreliable performance.  In contrast to that, the
Chinese, for example, high-speed rail network, where you’re able
to go an equivalent distance as that between here and Chicago —
meaning Beijing to Shanghai — you can go in five hours in China.
That same trip by rail here in the United States takes 19 hours.
Or, take New York to Washington.  It’s kind of insane for
somebody looking from the outside, to see these two major cities
of the United States separated by travel really takes hours.
It’s a little under three hours even with the “high-speed” Acela;
which is isn’t very high-speed.  By road, you’re looking at more
than five hours.  This would be a one, one and a half hour
travel.  It’s really a question of how we’re thinking about
ourselves; the fact that these kinds of terrible conditions are
being tolerated.  And the fact that of these stupid, stupid
economic policies that have made this possible, continue to be
tolerated.
Mr. LaRouche has pointed to the post-Kennedy shift in
orientation of the United States, away from a future orientation,
away from investments in the future, away from physical
productivity towards finance.  You can have all of the exotic
investment derivatives that you want, but that’s not going to get
you home any quicker if the train is late, or because a bunch of
trash on the tracks caught on fire and delayed the subway line.

OGDEN:  One thing about that.  First of all, infrastructure
goes far beyond just transport infrastructure.  Obviously there’s
the power production and what you can provide in terms of energy
density towards manufacturing and all of the agricultural
technology that is involved in a modern infrastructure platform
for a nation.  But one question I think is interesting, and we
discussed it a little bit.  We take for granted that the idea of
faster transport is just a modern idea and that we should have
faster transport between cities.  That sort of stands on its own,
it is true.  But what role does that play in terms of the science
of economics?  Productivity and what does that allow us to do
economically that we couldn’t do before without this kind of
high-speed transport?

ROSS:  Well, let’s also take it on the level of the Belt and
Road, where some of these areas, it’s not just going from
moderate to high speed transit; it’s going from a two-week voyage
through the mountains by road to one that only takes a few days
in the location I’m thinking of right now.  But think of the
value of land in a certain area.  What is the value of a piece of
land?  It depends on what the surroundings are, what is the
environment; including, very importantly, probably most important
these days, the created environment — the constructed
environment.  That nurturing, synthetic, artificial, manmade
human environment that we’ve created.  If you’ve got an area, and
now you’ve got access to high-speed rail, you’ve built several
fourth-generation, a very highly efficient nuclear power supply.
You know it’ll be on 24 hours a day; the rates are reasonable.
You’ve got a water supply system backed up by desalination to
ensure that it’s always available; and you’ve got an efficient to
get people, employees, and goods around.  The value of that area
has now just dramatically increased; not just in financial terms,
like the rent would be higher on a piece of land there, if you
owned a building.  But it actually is more productive.  You can
move things around more quickly; you can go from a prototype
design to creating goods more rapidly.  You’re able to waste less
time having whatever it is that you’re producing or working on
just being in transit going from place to place.
Think about it.  When you’re shipping things, say you’ve got
a type of production facility and you’re shipping things by ocean
and you’re counting on a certain number of car parts arriving
every week.  Well, there’s always a certain number that are just
sitting out in the ocean in transit; it’s just wasted inventory
basically.  So physically, those are maybe a small type of
improvement to look at, but the type of economy that’s made
possible as a whole.  You could do the best urban planning you
want, you could have a wonderful system in some area; but if that
area didn’t have electricity, it doesn’t matter how well things
are laid out.  It doesn’t matter how clean the water is around
it, how perfect the weather; you’re simply going to be limited in
terms of what processes you can engage in.  Transportation,
energy, access to resources.  I think the real way to look at it
right now is we have to keep in mind, whenever we’re talking
about infrastructure or platforms, we have to talk about nuclear
fusion.  Because that’s really the thing you’ve got to keep in
mind.  How will our relationship to other people, land area,
resources, how is that going to change with the development of
commercial nuclear fusion?  Where the price of energy will come
down dramatically; where our ability to process resources will be
dramatically eased.  How is that going to change the
productivity, the value of every person, the value of the
platform of constructed environment that we’ve got?  You have to
always keep that in mind.  What’s the next level going to be?
I’ll say one more thing.  You brought up agriculture.  Think
about the important role of space infrastructure in agriculture
today.  The ability of GPS positioning; the ability to get a very
good sense of conditions on the ground of agricultural
conditions, of weather, of location; and the way that changes the
way you approach to fertilizing, taking care, harvesting of the
field.  So, the space program, where our space infrastructure is
playing a major role here.
So, what are the next levels of infrastructure going to be?
Let’s keep that in mind.

OGDEN:  I think that’s the key.  It’s vision; it’s where are
we going next.  Where is the world in the next 50 years?  Can we
imagine a new platform of human existence which is incommensurate
with the one that we currently have?  It’s very important to look
backwards in history and say, prior to the discovery of nuclear
fission, what was possible and what was not possible?  Prior to
the development of widespread electricity?  So, if you look at
the incommensurate changes over time that the human species has
gone through, can you imagine what the next incommensurate leap
is going to be?  I really do think that that is the beauty of
this Belt and Road Initiative.  Go back 40 years, go back as I
think Helga mentioned in the remarks that I quoted in the
beginning; go back to when Helga LaRouche and Lyndon LaRouche
were first campaigning for this idea of a new international
economic order around the International Development Bank.  This
became this vision of this productive linkage between East and
West, uniting Eurasia; it was known as the Eurasian Land-Bridge.
This was the vision for the New Silk Road that now in 2013 was
adopted by the Chinese government and is now a reality.  Forty
years ago, would you have even imagined what has now become
possible because of what China has committed itself to?
It requires those types of visionaries at every stage of
history to say where do we go to next; what is the next leap that
mankind has to take?  I do think, as we’ve discussed, the next
leap is moving mankind into near-Earth space and then beyond.  We
have to become an extraterrestrial species; not just one that
makes expeditions with two-man, three-man capsules to the Moon
and back.  But actually building up an infrastructure as we have
here on Earth, to create these kinds of artificial environments
in space.  You project that vision of the future back onto what
we should be doing here on Earth, and a lot of these things just
become kind of obvious.  We shouldn’t have trains derailing
coming in and out of Penn Station, if we’re actually a species
worthy of colonizing Mars.

ROSS:  Right.  You’re talking about looking back to the past
to look at something having been a breakthrough originally.  Some
of the equipment that’s currently operating in the signalling in
the New York subway is from the 1930s, when those relay boxes and
things like this go back to the Roosevelt administration.  And
they’re still in use; thankfully, still working for the most
part.

OGDEN:  Do they use Morse Code to signal when the train’s
coming into the station?

ROSS:  There are rude levers and things like this.

OGDEN:  I thought it was unique that in this speech that
Helga made in Nanjing, as I mentioned, she was speaking to the
Phoenix Publishing House, which  published the Chinese version of
the “The New Silk Road Becomes the World Land-Bridge” special
report; which is the {EIR} Special Report from two years ago, and
now this is circulating in Chinese.  But she was sort of giving a
report back on what’s the progress that we’ve made; what are the
breakthroughs that we’ve made so far; what do we have to do next?
It was this remark that she made that to fully realize all of
this, you must study my husband’s science of economics.  It
really is true.  Beginning to understand these things not just
from the standpoint of transport corridors and train tracks and
highways and these types of very necessary projects; but to
understand it from above in terms of the science of human
productivity and how the human mind harnesses new technologies
and uses them to build these increasing platforms of human
existence.  You already have the world engaging in a process of
which they’re not even quite conscious of what they’re doing.
It’s necessary to become fully conscious of what this process
actually is, in order to carry it forward to the next level.
Let me ask you one more political question, Jason.  On the
ground there in New York, how are people responding to, on one
side this 24-hour nonstop news cycle barrage about Russian spies
and so on; and then on the other side, being told that there’s
this incredible process that’s underway, this breakthrough that
happened in China that they’re not even being told about?  What’s
people’s response to that?

ROSS:  I don’t know how different it is from other places,
but overall, people are getting really sick about hearing about
Trump-gate and Russia.  People are really sick of it.  Either
that, or they’re going along with it and they kind of listen to
it.  But what really gets through to people is when you’re
discussing thinking about the future.  This is what people really
do respond to.  They say, “OK, what are we going to do?  The
election happened.  What’s our future going to be?”  If your
favorite historical figure ever were the President of the United
States right now, what would be the policies you’d want to get
implemented?  OK, let’s start making those things happen.
The potential to do this in a very new way, both shocks some
people or seems impossible to others; but I attended a forum
about US-China economic relations the other day, and one of the
things that came up was one of the presenters was going through
various studies about the economy in China.  About how the middle
class is exploding, how poverty is diminishing very rapidly; the
percentage of the population that’s actually poor is going down
very quickly; and about the level of optimism.  There was a chart
of optimism among different nations; it measured as survey
questions.  “I think my children will have a better future than I
do.”  And in all segments of China, this was very positive in all
segments of China.  For the middle segments of China it’s 60-70%;
even a majority in the lower income segments as well.  There’s
just this tremendous sense that things are getting better, things
are moving forward; the next generation will have it better.
Then on this chart, you have the United States, way down here
almost at the very bottom, along with the Western European
nations.  So, I just think — I know this gets away from asking
how people respond here, but it’s a very important point, I
think.  In keeping with the shift of the center of gravity in the
world, the importance economically and politically, away from the
trans-Atlantic and towards Asia where everyone is expecting the
majority of the growth in the world economy in the next decades.
Along with that, you have this sense of happiness and optimism in
that part of the world.  In these old, sour nationsâ¦.  It’s also
changing in Europe, but in the trans-Atlantic, the government
leaders can say whatever they want, but if you actually ask
people what they think about what their future looks like, it’s
very grim.  The contrast between these two outlooks — you had
asked earlier about New York versus China — as a personal
anecdote, that was one of the huge differences that I saw; was
this overwhelming sense of optimism from people in China.  It’s
getting better.  We can absolutely have that sense here as well,
by making it a reality; by throwing off the stupid ideas that are
holding us back.  By throwing off this slavish adherence to Wall
Street and London; by tolerating the avowed supremacy of finance
over actual human contributions.  It’s a choice we have to make.

OGDEN:  Exactly!  That was exactly the point that Helga made
in her speech in Nanjing; she said “The Belt and Road has
injected optimism into many countries, and the momentum is
unstoppable.  But, to fully bring it into fruition, it will not
be easy.”  So, we have our work cut out for us here in the United
States.  I think this idea of a task force of engineers and real
qualified minds who are going to put their minds to work on how
to construct this vision for how the United States can join this
New Silk Road dynamic; it’s a very important one.
I’d like to put on the screen one more time the address to
the petition:  This is “Congress: Suck It Up and Move On!  It’s
Time to Rebuild the Country”; lpac.co/rebuild.  I encourage you
to sign that petition and to circulate it, and to become involved
in what you just heard from Jason.  Spread the news about this
dynamic of optimism that is sweeping the world, and the
possibility that this is something that could happen here in the
United States.
Thank you so much, Jason; it was a pleasure talking to you
from your remote location.  I’d like to thank everybody for
tuning into our webcast here today.  Please stay tuned for more
news from Helga Zepp-LaRouche; we’ll keep you updated as her
travels continue.  We’ve got some definite breakthroughs that we
can be expecting over the coming days.  So, thanks for joining
us, and please stay tuned to larouchepac.com.